Elevated serum substance P level as a predictive marker for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A prospective cohort study

Harnessing the synergistic potential of NK1R antagonists and selective COX-2 inhibitors for simultaneous targeting of TNBC cells and cancer stem cells

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks the expression of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), rendering it unresponsive to endocrine therapy and HER2 targeted treatments. Though certain chemotherapeutics targeting the cell cycle have shown efficacy to a certain extent, the presence of chemotherapy-resistant cancer stem cells (CSCs) presents a significant challenge in tackling TNBC. Multiple lines of evidence suggest the upregulation of neuropeptide Substance P (SP), its NK-1 receptor (NK1R) and the Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme in TNBC patients. Upregulation of the SP/NK1R system and COX-2 influences major signalling pathways involved in cell proliferation, growth, survival, angiogenesis, inflammation, metastasis and stem cell activity. The simultaneous activation and crosstalk between the pathways activated by SP/NK1R and COX-2 consequently increase the levels of key regulators of self-renewal pathways in CSCs, promoting stemness. The combination therapy with NK1R antagonists and COX-2 inhibitors can simultaneously target TNBC cells and CSCs, thereby enhancing treatment efficacy and reducing the risk of recurrence and relapse. This review discusses the rationale for combining NK1R antagonists and COX-2 inhibitors for the better management of TNBC and a novel strategy to deliver drug cargo precisely to the tumour site to address the challenges associated with off-target binding.

Integrating nutrition, physical exercise, psychosocial support and antiemetic drugs into CINV management: The road to success

Over the years, advancements in antiemetic drugs have improved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control. However, despite the antiemetics therapies, in a relevant number of adult patients (∼30 %), CINV is still persistent, leading to several complications, such as electrolyte imbalances, anorexia, and treatment discontinuation. Supportive care interventions have gained credibility in cancer care, helping to improve patients' psycho-physical condition, quality of life, and managing symptoms, including CINV. Physical exercise and tailored nutritional counseling have demonstrated benefits in reducing the severity of nausea and vomiting. Psychological intervention has been postulated as a key approach in controlling anticipatory nausea/vomiting, as well as acupuncture/acupressure has been shown to decrease nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy treatments. In the current review, we aim to provide a clinical update on current prophylactic and delayed antiemetic guidelines for CINV and an overview of the non-pharmacological interventions tested for alleviating CINV in patients with cancer.

An assessment of the effects of neurokinin1 receptor antagonism against nausea and vomiting: Relative efficacy, sites of action and lessons for future drug development

A broad-spectrum anti-vomiting effect of neurokinin1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RA), shown in pre-clinical animal studies, has been supported by a more limited range of clinical studies in different indications. However, this review suggests that compared with vomiting, the self-reported sensation of nausea is less affected or possibly unaffected (depending on the stimulus) by NK1 receptor antagonism, a common finding for anti-emetics. The stimulus-independent effects of NK1 RAs against vomiting are explicable by actions within the central pattern generator (ventral brainstem) and the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS; dorsal brainstem), with additional effects on vagal afferent activity for certain stimuli (e.g., highly emetogenic chemotherapy). The central pattern generator and NTS neurones are multifunctional so the notable lack of obvious effects of NK1 RAs on other reflexes mediated by the same neurones suggests that their anti-vomiting action is dependent on the activation state of the pathway leading to vomiting. Nausea requires activation of cerebral pathways by projection of information from the NTS. Although NK1 receptors are present in cerebral nuclei implicated in nausea, and imaging studies show very high receptor occupancy at clinically used doses, the variable or limited ability of NK1 RAs to inhibit nausea emphasizes: (i) our inadequate understanding of the mechanisms of nausea; and (ii) that classification of a drug as an anti-emetic may give a false impression of efficacy against nausea vs. vomiting. We discuss the potential mechanisms for the differential efficacy of NK1 RA and the implications for future development of drugs that can effectively treat nausea, an area of unmet clinical need.

The Role of Substance P Within Traumatic Brain Injury and Implications for Therapy

This review examines the role of the neuropeptide substance P within the neuroinflammation that follows traumatic brain injury. It examines it in reference to its preferential receptor, the neurokinin-1 receptor, and explores the evidence for antagonism of this receptor in traumatic brain injury with therapeutic intent. Expression of substance P increases following traumatic brain injury. Subsequent binding to the neurokinin-1 receptor results in neurogenic inflammation, a cause of deleterious secondary effects that include an increased intracranial pressure and poor clinical outcome. In several animal models of TBI, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonism has been shown to reduce brain edema and the resultant rise in intracranial pressure. A brief overview of the history of substance P is presented, alongside an exploration into the chemistry of the neuropeptide with a relevance to its functions within the central nervous system. This review summarizes the scientific and clinical rationale for substance P antagonism as a promising therapy for human TBI.

Mitigation of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea Using Adjunct Music Listening: A Pilot Study

The persistence of chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) underscores the need to consider nonpharmacologic treatments such as music listening as adjunct interventions. This pilot study investigated the feasibility and overall effects of a 30-minute adjunct music listening intervention in 12 patients experiencing CIN. Music listening was started at the time participants took their as-needed antiemetic medication, and it was repeated as needed during the 5 days after chemotherapy. Data for 66 music listening engagements were collected. A significant reduction of nausea severity (t = 10.97, p < .001) and distress (t = 9.86, p < .001) was noted overall, as well as significant reductions when examining the acute and delayed phases of nausea individually. Qualitative data on study feasibility demonstrated the intervention was well received by participants and held minimal operational difficulty. Investigator feasibility data suggested good understanding of data collection tools. Improvements to the study design have been collected and will form the basis of the future randomized controlled trial.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75 mg/m²). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5 mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) 1 h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30 min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558.

FINDINGS

Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and 2.

INTERPRETATION

Olanzapine (5 mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies.

FUNDING

Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.