↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Core Evidence, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy
Published in
Core Evidence, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/ce.s65555
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luigi Celio, Monica Niger, Francesca Ricchini, Francesco Agustoni

Abstract

The second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist palonosetron is effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC, respectively). In addition, palonosetron has been the first and, at present, the only 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to have a specific indication for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with MEC. The unique pharmacology of this antagonist is thought to partly explain its improved efficacy against delayed symptoms. To review the evidence underlying the use of palonosetron in preventing CINV. A recent meta-analysis consistently showed that palonosetron significantly increases the control of both emesis and nausea during the acute and delayed phases after single-day HEC or MEC. Consistent with these findings from trials that did not include an neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist, randomized controlled trials recently showed that a triple combination with palonosetron achieves significantly better control of delayed CINV, particularly delayed nausea, in patients undergoing HEC or the high-risk combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC). Evidence from randomized studies also supports palonosetron as a valuable option to reduce the total corticosteroid dose administered in patients undergoing multiple cycles of MEC or AC chemotherapy. Additional benefits of palonosetron include the lack of a warning on cardiac safety and no known clinically significant drug-drug interactions. Place in therapy and conclusion: Evidence currently available indicates that palonosetron significantly adds to the clinician's ability to effectively control CINV in patients undergoing HEC or MEC. It is recommended in the international guidelines for the prevention of CINV caused by MEC. The high safety profile and the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose with no loss in efficacy against delayed CINV should also contribute to a wider use of palonosetron in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 25%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Core Evidence
#60
of 77 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,511
of 276,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Core Evidence
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 77 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them