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
Sustained antiemetic responses with APF530 (sustained-release granisetron) during multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy.
AU
Boccia R, Cooper W, O'Boyle E
SO
J Community Support Oncol. 2015 Feb;13(2):38-46.
 
BACKGROUND: A phase 3 trial in patients with cancer who received chemotherapy has shown that subcutaneous (SC) APF530, a sustained-delivery formulation of granisetron, is noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute (0-24 hours) and delayed (>24-120 hours) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the sustainability of APF530 antiemetic responses during multiple chemotherapy cycles.
METHODS: 1,395 patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively) were randomized either to APF530 250 or 500 mg SC (containing granisetron 5 or 10 mg, respectively) or palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously before cycle 1 of chemotherapy. Patients who received palonosetron in cycle 1 were rerandomized in cycles 2-4 to APF530 250 or 500 mg; those who received APF530 in cycle 1 continued their APF530 dose. Between-group response rates were compared using the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: Complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) for APF530 500 mg with HEC increased from 81.3% to 87.8% over 4 cycles in the acute phase of CINV, and from 67.1% to 83.1% in the delayed phase. Rates were slightly lower with MEC. Within-cycle CR rates between APF530 doses showed no significant differences. With HEC, APF530 500 mg provided sustained CRs through 4 cycles of chemotherapy in 68.4% of patients in the acute phase and in 57.9% in the delayed phase; with MEC, corresponding CRs were 56.5% and 41.3%. Nausea prevention was nearly as effective as emesis prevention.
LIMITATIONS: Chemotherapy emetogenicity was classified according to Hesketh criteria during the time of this study. However, subsequent post hoc analyses indicate that reclassification according to newer ASCO emetogenicity guidelines did not alter the original study noninferiority conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: CR rates with APF530 during the acute and delayed phases of CINV in MEC and HEC were maintained over multiple cycles.
AD
Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. rboccia@ccbdmd.com.
PMID
122
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