UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 38,121,122

of 'Prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults'

38
TI
Improved prevention of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with palonosetron, a pharmacologically novel 5-HT3 receptor antagonist: results of a phase III, single-dose trial versus dolasetron.
AU
Eisenberg P, Figueroa-Vadillo J, Zamora R, Charu V, Hajdenberg J, Cartmell A, Macciocchi A, Grunberg S, 99-04 Palonosetron Study Group
SO
Cancer. 2003;98(11):2473.
 
BACKGROUND: Palonosetron, a highly selective and potent 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a strong binding affinity and a long plasma elimination half-life (approximately 40 hours), has shown efficacy in Phase II trials in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The current Phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
METHODS: In the current study, 592 patients were randomized to receive a single, intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, palonosetron 0.75 mg, or dolasetron 100 mg, 30 minutes before receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included assessment of prevention of delayed emesis (2-5 days postchemotherapy).
RESULTS: In the current study, 569 patients received study medication and were included in the intent-to-treat efficacy analyses. CR rates during the first 24 hours were 63.0% for palonosetron 0.25 mg, 57.1% for palonosetron 0.75 mg, and 52.9% for dolasetron 100 mg. CR rates during the delayed period (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) were superior for palonosetron compared with dolasetron. Adverse events (AEs) were mostly mild to moderate and not related to study medication, with similar incidences among groups. There were no serious drug-related AEs.
CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of palonosetron is as effective as a single dose of dolasetron in preventing acute CINV and superior to dolasetron in preventing delayed CINV after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile for all treatment groups.
AD
California Cancer Care, Greenbrae, California, USA.
PMID
121
TI
Daily palonosetron is superior to ondansetron in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia.
AU
Mattiuzzi GN, Cortes JE, Blamble DA, Bekele BN, Xiao L, Cabanillas M, Borthakur G, O'Brien S, Kantarjian H
SO
Cancer. 2010;116(24):5659.
 
BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) can be from various causes, including the use of high-dose cytarabine.
METHODS: The authors compared 2 schedules of palonosetron versus ondansetron in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with AML receiving high-dose cytarabine. Patients were randomized to: 1) ondansetron, 8 mg intravenously (IV), followed by 24 mg continuous infusion 30 minutes before high-dose cytarabine and until 12 hours after the high-dose cytarabine infusion ended; 2) palonosetron, 0.25 mg IV 30 minutes before chemotherapy, daily from Day 1 of high-dose cytarabine up to Day 5; or 3) palonosetron, 0.25 mg IV 30 minutes before high-dose cytarabine on Days 1, 3, and 5.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients on ondansetron and 48 patients on each of the palonosetron arms were evaluable for efficacy. Patients in the palonosetron arms achieved higher complete response rates (no emetic episodes plus no rescue medication), but the difference was not statistically significant (ondansetron, 21%; palonosetron on Days 1-5, 31%; palonosetron on Days 1, 3, and 5, 35%; P = .32). Greater than 77% of patients in each arm were free of nausea on Day 1; however, on Days 2 through 5, the proportion of patients without nausea declined similarly in all 3 groups. On Days 6 and 7, significantly more patients receiving palonosetron on Days 1 to 5 were free of nausea (P = .001 and P = .0247, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The daily assessments of emesis did not show significant differences between the study arms. Patients receiving palonosetron on Days 1 to 5 had significantly less severe nausea and experienced significantly less impact of CINV on daily activities on Days 6 and 7.
AD
Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. gmattiuz@mdanderson.org
PMID
122
TI
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in acute leukemia and stem cell transplant patients: results of a multicenter, observational study.
AU
López-Jiménez J, Martín-Ballesteros E, Sureda A, Uralburu C, Lorenzo I, del Campo R, Fernández C, Calbacho M, García-Belmonte D, Fernández G
SO
Haematologica. 2006;91(1):84.
 
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in oncohematology in routine clinical practice, its impact on quality of life, and caregivers' perception of the extent of the problem.
DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational follow-up study including: (i) acute myeloid leukemia patients treated with moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy and (ii) hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, without reduced intensity conditioning. No exclusion criteria were applied. All patients received at least one 5-HT3 antagonist for emesis prophylaxis. Patients recorded emetic episodes and rated nausea daily. Quality of life was assessed through a validated functional living Index-Emesis questionnaire. A survey of caregivers' predictions of CINV was made and the predictions then compared with the observed CINV.
RESULTS: One hundred consecutive transplant and 77 acute myeloid leukemia patients were studied. Transplant conditioning was the most important risk factor for CINV: complete response occurred in only 20% of transplant patients (vs. 47% for leukemia patients). Among patients with emesis, the mean percentage of days with emesis and the mean (+/-SD) total number of emetic episodes were 61% and 9.4+/-8.9 (transplant recipients), and 53.6% and 6.2+/-7.3 (leukemia patients), respectively. CINV control was lower in the delayed than in the acute phase. Antiemetic rescue therapy was ineffective. CINV had a deleterious effect on quality of life, especially among transplant recipients. Caregivers underestimated the incidence of delayed nausea and emesis in the transplant setting.
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite 5-HT3 antagonist prophylaxis, CINV remains a significant problem in oncohematology, especially in the delayed phase and in transplant recipients.
AD
Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. jlopezj.hrc@salud.madrid.org
PMID