Establishing the dose of the oral NK1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Efficacy of 3-day versus 5-day aprepitant regimens for long-delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an ongoing problem. While effectiveness of triplet antiemetic regimens in the delayed CINV phase (24-120 hours after administration of chemotherapy) has been studied, their effectiveness in the long-delayed phase (120-168 hours post-administration) is unknown. We compared the efficacy of 3- and 5-day courses of a triplet antiemetic prophylaxis containing aprepitant (APR) in controlling long-delayed CINV after cisplatin (CDDP)-based chemotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We obtained patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study in Japan. The incidence and timing of CINV after 3- and 5-day APR-containing regimens were compared using inverse probability treatment weighting.

RESULTS

The analysis included 380 patients. The incidence rates of long-delayed nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced for the 5-day compared with the 3-day regimen (29.1% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0042; 6.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Among those without CINV, vomiting was not reported after day 2 in the 5-day APR group but increased after day 4 in the 3-day APR group.

CONCLUSION

A 5-day regimen triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with APR decreased long-delayed vomiting compared with a 3-day regimen in patients receiving CDDP-based chemotherapy. However, the 5-day regimen showed no advantage over the 3-day regimen against long-delayed nausea.

Design and conduct considerations for studies in patients with hepatic impairment

Despite the liver being the primary site for clearance of xenobiotics utilizing a myriad of mechanisms ranging from cytochrome P450 enzyme pathways, glucuronidation, and biliary excretion, there is a dearth of information available as to how the severity of hepatic impairment (HI) can alter drug absorption and disposition (i.e., pharmacokinetics [PK]) as well as their efficacy and safety or pharmacodynamics (PD). In general, regulatory agencies recommend conducting PK studies in subjects with HI when hepatic metabolism/excretion accounts for more than 20% of drug elimination or if the drug has a narrow therapeutic range. In this tutorial, we provide an overview of the global regulatory landscape, clinical measures for hepatic function assessment, methods to stage HI severity, and consequently the impact on labeling. In addition, we provide an in-depth practical guidance for designing and conducting clinical trials for patients with HI and on the application of modeling and simulation strategies in lieu of dedicated trials for dosing recommendations in patients with HI.

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

Evaluation of hepatic CYP3A enzyme activity using endogenous markers in lung cancer patients treated with cisplatin, dexamethasone, and aprepitant

PURPOSE

Aprepitant is used with dexamethasone and 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists as an antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy, including cisplatin. Aprepitant is a substrate of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and is known to cause its inhibition and induction. In addition, dexamethasone is a CYP3A4 substrate that induces CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 expression. In this study, we aimed to quantitatively evaluate the profile of CYP3A activity using its endogenous markers in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving a standard cisplatin regimen with antiemetics, including aprepitant.

METHODS

Urinary 11β-hydroxytestosterone (11β-OHT)/testosterone concentration ratio and plasma 4β-hydroxycholesterol (4β-OHC) concentrations were measured before and after cisplatin treatment (days 1, 4, and 8). CYP3A5 was genotyped, and plasma aprepitant concentrations were measured on day 4 to examine its influence on CYP3A endogenous markers.

RESULTS

The urinary 11β-OHT/testosterone concentration ratio in the 35 patients included in this study increased by 2.65-fold and 1.21-fold on days 4 and 8 compared with day 1, respectively. Their plasma 4β-OHC concentration increased by 1.46-fold and 1.66-fold, respectively. The mean plasma aprepitant concentration on day 4 was 1,451 ng/mL, which is far lower than its inhibitory constant. The allele frequencies of CYP3A5*1 and CYP3A5*3 were 0.229 and 0.771, respectively. In patients with the CYP3A5*1 allele, the plasma 4β-OHC concentration was significantly lower at baseline but more potently increased with chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

CYP3A activity was significantly induced from day 4 to day 8 in patients receiving cisplatin and three antiemetic drugs.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Simple Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Method for Quantitation of Total and Free Aprepitant and Its Active N-Dealkylated Metabolites in Human Plasma

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant, an antiemetic selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is primarily metabolized to the active N-dealkylated form (ND-AP) and then converted to its carbonyl form (ND-CAP) in humans. This study developed a simple liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method using electrospray ionization for the quantitation of plasma total and free aprepitant and its N-dealkylated metabolites and used them to analyze patient plasma.

METHODS

Free aprepitant and ND-AP in plasma were fractionated using centrifugal ultrafiltration. The analytes in plasma or their ultrafiltered specimens treated with triethylamine/acetonitrile were isocratically separated using a 3-μm octadecylsilyl column with a total run time of 10 minutes and scanned using positive ion electrospray ionization.

RESULTS

The calibration curves of total aprepitant, ND-AP, and ND-CAP were prepared at concentration ranges of 50-2500, 20-1000, and 5-250 ng/mL, respectively, whereas that of free aprepitant and ND-AP were at a concentration range of 2-150 ng/mL. The intraassay and interassay accuracy and imprecision values were 93.5%-107.7% and 94.6%-103.3%, and 2.1%-7.5% and 1.0%-8.9%, respectively. Aprepitant and its metabolites did not exhibit any matrix effects or instabilities in the plasma specimens. In cancer patients receiving oral aprepitant, the plasma concentration ranges of total aprepitant, ND-AP, and ND-CAP, and free aprepitant and ND-AP were 137-2170, 104-928, 22.4-97.6, 8.11-60.0, and 3.53-56.0 ng/mL, respectively. The median plasma free fraction proportion of aprepitant and ND-AP was 4.14% and 4.90%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The present developed method showed an acceptable analytical performance and can be used to evaluate total and free aprepitant and its N-dealkylated metabolites in patient plasma.

Optimizing antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: Update summary of the 2015 Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

Antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and provide updated information for clinical practice.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 3 Chinese literature databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing standard regimen (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and glucocorticoid) with aprepitant triple regimen (aprepitant plus the standard regimen) for preventing CINV were screened. Literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 51 randomized controlled trials were finally included in the systematic review. Compared with the standard regimen, the aprepitant triple regimen significantly improved the complete response in the overall (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.71-2.07), acute (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.65-2.32) and delayed (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.70-2.27) phases, regardless of emetogenic risk of chemotherapy. Aprepitant could also significantly enhance the proportions of patients who have no emesis, nausea, or use of rescue medication respectively in the overall, acute and/or delayed phases. Aprepitant was found to be associated with decreased risk of constipation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97), but increased the incidence of hiccup (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups on other safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The aprepitant triple regimen is effective for the prevention of CINV in patients being treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and has a significant tendency to reduce the risk of constipation and increase the incidence of hiccup.

Unscheduled hydrations: redefining complete response in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting studies

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is nausea and/or vomiting occurring within 5 days of chemotherapy administration despite using guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetic agents. It is highly prevalent (30–40%), usually requiring immediate treatment or “rescue” medication. If breakthrough CINV occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend using an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, along with intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. Data supporting these guideline recommendations are limited. Importantly, costs associated with breakthrough CINV can be substantial (i.e., unscheduled hydrations). Two retrospective analyses evaluating guideline-adherent CINV prophylaxis suggest that the initial antiemetic selection may decrease breakthrough CINV. Here we review optimal CINV prophylactic strategies and introduce unscheduled hydration as a potential important surrogate for breakthrough CINV aligning with cost-effective cancer care.

[Prevention and treatment of antineoplastic drug-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric onco-hematology: An update]

Antineoplastic drug induced nausea and vomiting are common adverse events in cancer care of paediatric patients ; therefore, prevention and management of these adverse events is a major concern for healthcare professionals. There are common features between paediatric and adult patients in terms of the emetogenic level depending on antineoplastic agents or about available medicines. However, there are also specificities for paediatric population including individual risk factors of emesis or nausea assessment for example. Knowledge relative to available medicines is also limited in the paediatric population, especially for recent medicines. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview about antiemetics in paediatric oncology to clinicians and other healthcare professionals involved in paediatric cancer care. First of all, we describe physiopathological paediatric specificity, risk factors and clinical assessment of antineoplastic drug induced nausea and vomiting. Secondly, we focus on available medicines and also address the issue of complementary and alternative medicines.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin₃ receptor antagonist (5-HT₃-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin₁ receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Current antiemetic regimens are less effective in children than in adults. Fosaprepitant was recently approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children aged six months and older.

PROCEDURE

The pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) profile, safety, and tolerability of a single intravenous dose of fosaprepitant administered concomitantly with ondansetron with/without dexamethasone were evaluated in pediatric patients with cancer receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. PK/PD from three doses of fosaprepitant (3.0, 1.2, and 0.4 mg/kg, up to 150, 60, and 20 mg, respectively) were compared with placebo in 2- to 17-year-old subjects; an open-label amendment evaluated a fourth dose (5.0 mg/kg, up to 150 mg) in those under 12 years old. Historical adult PK data were used for comparison. Efficacy was measured as an exploratory endpoint.

RESULTS

PK data were evaluable for 167/234 subjects who completed cycle one. Aprepitant exposures were dose proportional; adolescents (12 to 17 years) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg had exposures similar to adults at the same dose. Higher weight-normalized doses (5 mg/kg) were necessary for children aged < 12 years to achieve comparable adult exposures. The adverse event profile was typical of cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16 (6.8%) subjects, with hiccups being most common (n = 5; 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous fosaprepitant was well tolerated by pediatric subjects with cancer, and dose-proportional exposures were observed. Subjects < 12 years old required higher doses to achieve comparable adult exposures.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis Between Aprepitant- and Fosaprepitant-containing Regimens To Prevent Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Japan

PURPOSE

Clinical trials have shown that the addition of aprepitant (APR) or a phosphorylated prodrug of aprepitant, fosaprepitant (FosAPR) as prophylactic antiemetic therapy consisting of a 5-hydrotryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is effective in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. These combination therapies have been commonly used in Japan. In the present study, we performed a cost-utility analysis of APR and FosAPR in the context of the Japanese medical insurance system, and economic efficiency was compared.

METHODS

Data from randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of APR and FosAPR in the Japanese population were used. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the effectiveness of chemotherapy for 5 days from the day of the treatment and the cost associated with outpatient chemotherapy from the perspective of a payer. Health outcome was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were estimated based on medical fees and drug prices from 2018. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each regimen containing either APR or FosAPR. The robustness of the model was assessed using 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

FINDINGS

The base-case analysis estimated that the addition of APR or FosAPR would have incremental effects of 0.00166 and 0.00143 QALY and incremental costs of 8305 and 11,348 JPY (74 and 101 USD [1 USD = 112.17 JPY]), resulting in ICERs of 4,992,172 and 7,955,560 JPY/QALY (44,505 and 70,924 USD/QALY), respectively. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of a complete response for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting had the most influence on the ICERs. Reductions in the drug costs of APR and FosAPR also had an effect on the ICERs. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, APR and FosAPR were dominant in terms of cost-effectiveness in 48.7% and 8.55% of cases, respectively.

IMPLICATIONS

The ICER of outpatient prophylactic antiemetic therapy in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy was calculated in the context of the Japanese medical insurance system. Assuming the willingness-to-pay of 5,000,000 JPY/QALY based on the calculated ICER, our findings suggest that although the addition of APR is cost-effective, FosAPR is not cost-effective.

Cannabinoids: the lows and the highs of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Despite remaining one of the most widely abused drugs worldwide, Cannabis sativa exhibits remarkable medicinal properties. The phytocannabinoids, cannabidiol and Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, reduce nausea and vomiting, particularly during chemotherapy. This is attributed to their ability to reduce the release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells in the small intestine, which would otherwise orchestrate the vomiting reflex. Although there are many preclinical and clinical studies on the effects of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol during nausea and vomiting, little is known about the role that cannabidiol plays in this scenario. Since cannabidiol does not induce psychotropic effects, in contrast to other cannabinoids, its use as an anti-emetic is of great interest. This review aims to summarize the available literature on cannabinoid use, with a specific focus on the nonpsychotropic drug cannabidiol, as well as the roles that cannabinoids play in preventing several other adverse side effects of chemotherapy including organ toxicity, pain and loss of appetite.

Efficacy of the combination use of aprepitant and palonosetron for improving nausea in various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens

BACKGROUND

Nausea is more difficult to control than vomiting in chemotherapy. We therefore analyzed the efficacy of a strong supportive treatment with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone against nausea for various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

A total of 312 cases treated by palonosetron with or without aprepitant receiving MEC regimens using oxaliplatin, carboplatin, and irinotecan from 2014 to 2016 in our outpatient center for digestive organ cancers, lung cancers, and gynecological cancers were analyzed. Through propensity score matching analysis, cases were divided into 97 cases receiving 2 drugs (palonosetron+dexamethasone) and 97 receiving 3 drugs (aprepitant+palonosetron+dexamethasone). We examined the control rates of nausea for the first two consecutive courses in the both groups. Additionally, risk factors for acute and delayed nausea were analyzed using a multivariate analysis among overall 312 cases.

RESULTS

The control rates of nausea in the two- and the three-drug groups were as follows: acute, 92.8 and 95.9% (p = 0.35); and delayed, 83.5 and 81.4% (p = 0.85), although the control rates of vomiting exceeded 95% in both groups. A multivariate analysis showed that significant risk factors for acute nausea (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) were elevation of serum creatinine (12.601, 2.437-65.157), general fatigue (3.728, 1.098-12.661), and performance status (PS) 2 (19.829, 3.200-122.865). The significant risk factors for delayed nausea were elevation of alanine aminotransferase (2.397, 1.153-4.984), general fatigue (2.652, 1.380-5.097), and PS 2 (5.748, 1.392-23.740).

CONCLUSIONS

The control for nausea in MEC was insufficient even with palonosetron and aprepitant, and we should pay attention to risk factors for preventing nausea.

Early Intensive Nutrition Intervention with Dietary Counseling and Oral Nutrition Supplement Prevents Weight Loss in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy: A Clinical Prospective Study

Background

Weight loss in patients with cancer is caused by cancer cachexia and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Recent developments in antiemetic drugs have substantially improved CINV, but nutritional intervention did not improve body weight. This study aimed to investigate the effects of nutrition intervention with appropriate antiemetic treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer during chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients received individualized nutrition counseling by a registered dietitian and were provided with oral supplements for 90 days. Body weight and other parameters were measured at baseline and after 90-day intervention. To evaluate this nutrition intervention, patients were also retrospectively set as control, and then body weight change was compared with inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) analysis.

Results

Ten patients received individualized nutrition counseling and were provided with oral supplements for 90 days. Of them, 7 patients consumed nutritional supplements, and the mean intake was 130 kcal/day. After 90-day intervention, the patients did not show significant weight and BMI loss during the course of cytotoxic chemotherapy. A total of 38 patients were retrospectively enrolled as controls. The number of the patients who gain the body weight after 90 days in the study cohort was significantly larger than that in the retrospective controls with the IPTW analysis (Odds Ratio (OR) = 8.4; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.6-42; P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Early intensive nutrition intervention with appropriate antiemetic treatment prevents weight loss. Nutrition interventions might be also beneficial for quality of life, treatment response and survival.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation: review of the evidence and suggestions

INTRODUCTION

High-dose melphalan (HDMel) is the most common conditioning chemotherapy regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). No consensus exists for the emetogenicity or prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in this regimen.

METHODS

Data on the incidence and efficacy/safety of CINV prophylaxis among patients affected by MM undergoing autologous SCT with the HDMel regimen was extracted from electronic databases and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving multiple CINV prophylaxis regimens were identified and included. No consensus on HDMel emetogenicity was reached, but most studies summarized the emetogenicity as moderate-high risk. An aprepitant-based three-drug regimen (aprepitant + serotonin receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) + dexamethasone) showed better efficacy than a two-drug regimen (5HT3RA + dexamethasone) for CINV prevention without increasing the frequency in adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant-based three-drug regimen should be the regimen of choice for CINV prophylaxis for MM patients undergoing autologous SCT with HDMel conditioning.

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Mice Beneficially Alters Lung NK1R and Structural Protein Expression to Enhance Survival after Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in a murine model increases survival to a bacterial pulmonary challenge compared with blunt tail trauma (TT). We hypothesize substance P and its receptor, the neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R; official name TACR1), play a role in the increased survival of mTBI mice. Mice were subjected to mTBI or TT, and 48 hours after trauma, the levels of NK1R mRNA and protein were significantly up-regulated in mTBI lungs. Examination of the lung 48 hours after injury by microarray showed significant differences in the expression of 433 gene sets between groups, most notably genes related to intercellular proteins. Despite down-regulated gene expression of connective proteins, the presence of an intact pulmonary vasculature was supported by normal histology and bronchoalveolar lavage protein levels. To determine whether these mTBI-induced lung changes benefited in vivo responses, two chemotactic stimuli (a CXCL1 chemokine and a live Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection) were administered 48 hours after trauma. For both stimuli, mTBI mice recruited more neutrophils to the lung 4 hours after instillation (CXCL1: mTBI = 6.3 ± 1.3 versus TT = 3.3 ± 0.7 neutrophils/mL; Pseudomonas aeruginosa: mTBI = 9.4 ± 1.4 versus TT = 5.3 ± 1.1 neutrophils/mL). This study demonstrates that the downstream consequences of mTBI on lung NK1R levels and connective protein expression enhance neutrophil recruitment to a stimulus that may contribute to increased survival.

Effectiveness of Antiemetic Regimens for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed.

HTX-019: polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may occur during the acute (0-24 h) or delayed (25-120 h) phase following chemotherapy administration. The addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic regimens containing a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone has resulted in improved CINV prophylaxis. Due to numerous adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions associated with fosaprepitant, a commonly used neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, there remains an unmet need for better-tolerated formulations. HTX-019, the US FDA-approved polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free aprepitant injectable emulsion, is bioequivalent to and better tolerated (fewer treatment-emergent adverse events) than fosaprepitant. HTX-019 represents a valuable alternative to fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis.

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in Japanese patients treated with cisplatin-containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse event in cancer chemotherapy. Although aprepitant is effective in preventing CINV, an increment in financial burden for uniform use of aprepitant is a concern. The aim of the present study was to define the cost‐effectiveness of aprepitant from the perspective of the Japanese National Health Insurance system. Based on the results of a randomized phase II trial comparing an aprepitant‐containing regimen versus a nonaprepitant regimen in Japanese patients who received cisplatin‐containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy, a decision analytic model was developed. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated both in the outpatient care setting (OCS) and in the inpatient care setting (ICS). The use of the aprepitant‐containing regimen was associated with improved quality of life compared with the nonaprepitant regimen, with an increment in quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) of 0.0016. The incremental total medical costs associated with the use of the aprepitant regimen were lower in the OCS than in the ICS, 6192 JPY (56.92 USD) and 9820 JPY (90.27 USD), respectively. The ICER was calculated as 3 906 698 JPY (35 910 USD) per QALY gained in the OCS and 6 195 781 JPY (56 952 USD) per QALY gained in the ICS. Cost‐effectiveness of the aprepitant‐containing antiemetic therapy was limited to the OCS, considering the threshold of willingness‐to‐pay commonly accepted (5 million JPY [45 960 USD] in Japan and 50 000 USD in the USA). The efficacy of aprepitant offsets the costs for revisiting clinics or rehospitalization added with rescue medications in the OCS.

A phase II randomised study to evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant plus palonosetron for preventing delayed-phase CINV associated with TC therapy in gynaecological cancer

AIM

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequently encountered side effects of cancer treatment. Severe CINV can lead patients to refuse chemotherapy, which ultimately affects cancer outcomes. The development of fairly new antiemetic agents, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists and aprepitant has reduced the risk and incidence of CINV. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of aprepitant plus palonosetron against palonosetron for CINV in patients receiving moderately emetic cancer chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin combination [TC] therapy).

METHODS

Between November 2010 and March 2014, 78 patients with gynecological cancer treated with TC therapy were randomized into two groups: an aprepitant group (administered aprepitant, dexamethasone and palonosetron) and a control group (administered dexamethasone and palonosetron). The primary study endpoint was complete response, defined as the complete absence of emetic events in the delayed phase.

RESULTS

The complete response rate in the delayed phase differed significantly between the two groups, with 82% in the aprepitant group and 97% in the control group (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

The combination of aprepitant and palonosetron appears to be of greater efficacy than palonosetron alone for the prevention of delayed-phase CINV induced by TC therapy.

Olanzapine-Based Triple Regimens Versus Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

Genetic risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Younger age and female sex have already been well-known risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and 30-50% of cancer patients still suffer from CINV. Genetic polymorphisms are suggested to influence antiemetic treatment response.

METHODS

This study included a subset of patients previously enrolled in a randomised controlled trial; 156 patients were evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the role of pharmacogenomic polymorphisms relevant to antiemetic response in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The study's efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR). The study endpoint was evaluated separately in the acute (CR_0-24) and delayed (CR_24-120) phases. Thirteen polymorphisms were genotyped, and the association of these genotypes with the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics was then investigated. Confounding variables for the CR were identified using stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis. Age and sex were included as independent variables by the forced-entry method, and the stepwise method was used to select the pharmacogenomic factors for inclusion as independent variables.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ERCC1 8092AA (odds ratio [OR] = 11.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-72.71; p = 0.011) and female sex (OR = 3.63; 95% CI 1.14-11.58; p = 0.029) were significant predictors of CR_0-24. No significant association of CR_24-120 with pharmacogenomic polymorphisms was found via multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCC1 polymorphism influenced the extent of CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial information: UMIN 000009335.

Anti-nausea effects and pharmacokinetics of ondansetron, maropitant and metoclopramide in a low-dose cisplatin model of nausea and vomiting in the dog: a blinded crossover study

BACKGROUND

Nausea is a subjective sensation which is difficult to measure in non-verbal species. The aims of this study were to determine the efficacy of three classes of antiemetic drugs in a novel low dose cisplatin model of nausea and vomiting and measure change in potential nausea biomarkers arginine vasopressin (AVP) and cortisol. A four period cross-over blinded study was conducted in eight healthy beagle dogs of both genders. Dogs were administered 18 mg/m² cisplatin intravenously, followed 45 min later by a 15 min infusion of either placebo (saline) or antiemetic treatment with ondansetron (0.5 mg/kg; 5-HT₃ antagonist), maropitant (1 mg/kg; NK₁ antagonist) or metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg; D₂ antagonist). The number of vomits and nausea associated behaviours, scored on a visual analogue scale, were recorded every 15 min for 8 h following cisplatin administration. Plasma samples were collected to measure AVP, cortisol and antiemetic drug concentrations.

RESULTS

The placebo treated group vomited an average number of 7 times (range 2-13). None of the dogs in either the ondansetron or maropitant treated groups vomited during the observation period. The onset of nausea-like behaviour in the placebo-treated group occurred at t_3.5h and peaked at t_4.75h with nausea behaviour score of 58.5 ± 4.6 mm. Ondansetron and maropitant reduced overall the area under the curve of nausea behaviour score by 90% and 25%, respectively. Metoclopramide had no effect on either vomiting or nausea. Cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting caused concomitant increases in AVP and cortisol. In the placebo-treated group, AVP and cortisol increased from t_2.5h, peaked at t_5h (11.3 ± 2.9 pmol L^-1 and 334.0 ± 46.7 nmol/L, respectively) and returned to baseline by t_8h. AVP and cortisol increases were completely prevented by ondansetron and only partially by maropitant, while metoclopramide had no effect. The terminal half-lives (harmonic mean ± pseudo SD) for ondansetron, maropitant and metoclopramide were 1.21 ± 0.51, 5.62 ± 0.77 and 0.87 ± 0.17 h respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

5-HT₃ receptor antagonist ondansetron demonstrates the greatest anti-emetic and anti-nausea efficacy of the three drugs. AVP and cortisol appear to be selective biomarkers of nausea rather than emesis, providing a means of objectively measuring of nausea in the dog.

Efficacy of the oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant for nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin and carboplatin in Japanese patients with gynecological cancer

AIM

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and the difference in effects of the oral neurokinin-1(NK-1) receptor antagonist aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) in Japanese patients with gynecological cancer receiving highly emetogenic (cisplatin) and moderately emetogenic (carboplatin) chemotherapy.

METHODS

Aprepitant was added during the second course of chemotherapy in Japanese patients with grade ≥ 2 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0) nausea and vomiting during the first course despite receiving antiemetic therapy (a first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist + dexamethasone), and in patients who requested stronger antiemetic therapy despite only having grade 1 nausea and vomiting. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was compared between the first and second courses in each group.

RESULTS

Ninety-six (55.5%) out of 173 patients received add-on therapy with aprepitant. There was a significant increase in the complete response (CR: no vomiting or salvage therapy) rate in the patients receiving aprepitant, with marked improvement being confirmed for delayed CINV. Stratified analysis showed that patients with delayed CINV treated with carboplatin had a significantly higher CR rate, while patients with both acute and delayed CINV treated with cisplatin had significantly higher CR rates. There was a positive correlation between the incidence of nausea and the incidence of vomiting in the patients treated with aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

The oral NK-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant could be effective for both acute and delayed CINV with cisplatin and for delayed CINV with carboplatin in Japanese gynecological cancer patients.

Aprepitant for refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma-associated pruritus: 4 cases and a review of the literature

Background

Aprepitant is an FDA-approved medication for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. It blocks substance P binding to neurokinin-1; substance P has been implicated in itch pathways both as a local and global mediator.

Case presentations

We report a series of four patients, diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, who experienced full body pruritus recalcitrant to standard therapies. All patients experienced rapid symptom improvement (within days) following aprepitant treatment.

Conclusion

Aprepitant has been shown in small studies to be efficacious for treating chronic and malignancy-associated pruritus. Prior studies have shown no change in clinical efficacy of chemotherapeutics with concurrent aprepitant administration. These cases further demonstrate that aprepitant can be considered as a therapeutic option in malignancy-associated pruritus and further support the need for larger clinical trials.

Combination of Aprepitant, Azasetron, and Dexamethasone as Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Women with Gynecologic Cancers Receiving Paclitaxel/Carboplatin Therapy

Background

Material/Methods

Results

Conclusions

Efficacy and Safety of Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Can addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs) be considered as an ideal strategy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)? Researchers differ on this question.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of NK1-RAs in preventing CINV. The primary end point was complete response (CR) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases after chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses evaluated the types of NK1-RAs, routines of administration, types of malignancies, regimens used in combination with NK1-RAs, and age of patients included in the studies. The incidences of different types of adverse events were also extracted to estimate the safety of NK1-RAs.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs involving 13,923 patients were identified. The CR rate of patients receiving NK-RAs was significantly higher than patients in the control groups during overall phase (70.8% vs 56.0%, <0.001), acute phase (85.1% vs 79.6%, <0.001), and delayed phase (71.4% vs 58.2%, <0.001). There were three studies including patients of children or adolescents, the CR rate was also significantly higher in the treatment group (overall phase: OR=2.807, <0.001; acute phase: OR=2.863, P =0.012; delayed phase: OR=2.417, <0.001). For all the other outcomes, patients in the NK1-RAs groups showed improvements compared to the control groups (incidence of nausea: 45.2% vs 45.9%, <0.001; occurrence of vomiting: 22.6% vs 38.9%, <0.001; usage of rescue drugs: 23.5% vs 34.1%, <0.001). The pooled side effects from NK1-RAs did not significantly differ from previous reports and the toxicity rates in patients less than eighteen years old also did not diff between the two groups (P=0.497). However, we found that constipation and insomnia were more common in the patients of control groups, whereas diarrhea and hiccups were more frequently detected in patients receiving NK1-RAs.

CONCLUSIONS

NK1-RAs improved the CR rate of CINV. They are effective for both adults and children. The use of NK1-RAs might be associated with the appearance of diarrhea and hiccups, while decreasing the possibility of constipation and insomnia.

Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) are widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Whether the efficacy and toxicity of antiemesis are different among various NK-1RA-based triple regimens is unknown.

Methods

Data of complete responses (CRs) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted from electronic databases. Efficacy and toxicity were integrated by pairwise and network meta-analyses.

Results

Thirty-six trials involving 18 889 patients using triple regimens (NK-1RA+serotonin receptor antagonists [5HT3RA] + dexamethasone) or duplex regimen (5HT3RA+dexamethasone) to control CINV were included in the analysis. Different NK-1RA-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CRs. In patients with HEC, almost all triple regimens showed statistically significantly higher CRs than duplex regimen (odds ratio [OR]_{duplex/triple} = 0.47-0.66). However, in patients with MEC, only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better effect than duplex regimen statistically significantly in CRs (OR_{duplex/triple} = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34 to 0.68). No statistically significant difference of TRAEs was found among different triple regimens. Palonosetron-based triple regimens were equivalent to first-generation 5HT3RAs-based triple regimens for CRs. Moreover, different doses of dexamethasone plus NK-1RA and 5HT3RA showed no statistically significant difference in CRs.

Conclusions

Different NK-1RAs-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CINV control. Various triple regimens had superior antiemetic effect than duplex regimen in patients with HEC. Only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better CINV control compared with duplex regimen in patients receiving MEC. Palonosetron and first-generation 5HT3RAs might share equivalent CINV control in the combination of NK-1RAs and dexamethasone. Lower doses of dexamethasone might be applied when used with NK-1RAs and 5HT3RAs.

5-Hydroxyindoleacetic acid and substance P profiles in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy

Background. Even though direct cause and effect has not been proved, clinical evidence suggests serotonin and substance P (SP) are involved in the emetic response following chemotherapy. Because of several parallels, we hypothesized that SP release, like serotonin, may be propagated by chemotherapy and both substances can be measured in biological fluids, and correlated with a particular phase of emesis.

Methods. Urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) was assessed by HPLC; serum and urine SP were measured by immunoassay. In addition to construction of neurotransmitter profiles, all SP data were grouped according to cisplatin dosages, = or>75 mg/m 2 versus <75 mg/m2, and phase of emesis, acute versus delayed. Analyses of these data were performed by repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results. Samples were collected over a 72-hour period from 26 adult patients who received cisplatin-( n=13) or non-cisplatin-containing ( n=13) chemotherapy. Mean baseline 5-HIAA: creatinine ratios were 5.23 and 5.16 in females and males, respectively; mean baseline SP levels were 392 and 181 pg/mL in females and males, respectively. Comparisons between SP data stratified by cisplatin dosage and emetic phase were significantly different, P <0.0001.

Conclusions. Laboratory studies provide additional evidence that serotonin and SP are involved primarily, though not exclusively, in acute and delayed vomiting, respectively.

Aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone versus palonosetron and dexamethasone for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer: a randomized crossover phase II trial (KDOG 1002)

We conducted a randomized trial to compare the safety and effectiveness of aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone (AGD) with those of palonosetron and dexamethasone (PD) in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients with esophageal or gastric cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC including at least 60 mg/m of cisplatin as the first-line treatment were randomly assigned to receive AGD (oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3; intravenous granisetron 3 mg on day 1; intravenous dexamethasone 6.6 mg on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 4 mg on days 2-3) or PD (intravenous palonosetron 0.75 mg on day 1; intravenous dexamethasone 13.2 mg on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2-3). The primary endpoint was a complete response during the overall study period (0-120 h after the start of chemotherapy) in the first cycle. Eighty-five patients were enrolled, and 84 were eligible. The complete response rate did not differ between the treatment groups, but the proportion of patients with no vomiting was significantly higher in the AGD group than in the PD group (81.4 vs. 58.5%; P=0.031). The results of a quality-of-life survey indicated that the proportion of patients with no or minimal impact on daily life in the vomiting domain was significantly higher in the AGD group (79.1 vs. 53.7%; P=0.020). The primary endpoint of complete response was not achieved, but AGD seems to be more effective than PD for the prevention of HEC-induced vomiting.

Influence of ABCB1 and ABCG2 polymorphisms on the antiemetic efficacy in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a TRIPLE pharmacogenomics study

Resistance to antiemetic treatment with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist is an issue. This study evaluated the potential roles of ABCB1 and ABCG2 polymorphisms in antiemetic treatment resistance in patients with cancer previously enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. A total of 156 patients were evaluated for their responses to antiemetic therapy and then subdivided into granisetron or palonosetron groups. The genotypes were evaluated for their association with antiemetic efficacy in each treatment groups. Additional risk factors associated with complete response (CR) were examined using a multivariate regression analysis. No significant associations were identified for genetic polymorphisms in the palonosetron group. In the granisetron group, patients with ABCB1 2677TT and 3435TT genotypes had higher proportion of CR. In addition to ABCB1 polymorphisms, gender and cisplatin dose were associated with granisetron response by univariate analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ABCB1 3435C>T polymorphism and cisplatin dose were significant predictors of CR.

Prevention of cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced delayed nausea and vomiting using triple antiemetic regimens: a mixed treatment comparison

A variety of triple antiemetic regimens are being used to prevent cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced delayed emesis and nausea in cancer patients. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of the different regimens. Electronic searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases were performed to identify randomized controlled trials, and data were analyzed using JAGS, Stata 14.0 and R project. The primary outcome was a complete response (CR). The secondary outcomes were no vomiting (NV) and no nausea (NN). Among the 398 studies identified, 10 were eligible and included, providing data on nine regimens. In the CR analysis, the absolute rank of netupitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone (NEPA) was 0.8579. In the NV and NN analyses, NEPA's absolute ranks were 0.8631 and 0.7902, respectively. The compliance of patients treated with rolapitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (RGD) was the best due to a low incidence of adverse events, and good compliance was also observed with NEPA. It was difficult to achieve good compliance with aprepitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (AGD). Overall, NEPA was the best regimen, and aprepitant + ondansetron + dexamethasone (AOD) is also worthy of recommendation because of its low cost and good effect. For patients with severe constipation, hiccups, asthenia and/or delayed nausea, RGD is worthy of consideration.

Safety of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA): Pooled Data From the Phase II/III Clinical Program

BACKGROUND

Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures.

RESULTS

Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare.

CONCLUSION

NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity.

Preparation and Characterization of Nanosuspension of Aprepitant by H96 Process

PURPOSE

Nanosuspension in drug delivery is known to improve solubility, dissolution and eventually bioavailability of the drugs. The purpose of the study was to compare particle size of nanosuspensions prepared by the first generation approach and H96 approach and to evaluate the effectiveness of H96 approach.

METHODS

The nanosuspension of aprepitant was prepared by HPH and H96 approach. The prepared nanosuspensions were characterized for their particle size and zeta potential. The optimized nanosuspension was further evaluated for DSC, FT-IR, solubility and dissolution.

RESULTS

The optimized nanosuspension (NCLH5) prepared using combination of tween 80 and poloxamer 188 as stabilizer, showed particle size of 35.82 nm and improved solubility and dissolution profile over pure drug. NCLH5 was chosen optimized formulation and further evaluated for other parameters after lyophilization. Lyophilization resulted in increase in particle size. The solubility and dissolution studies showed favorable increase in the performance. The FT-IR and DSC analysis showed change in the crystallinity after nanosizing.

CONCLUSION

The observations indicated that lyophilization prior to high pressure homogenization resulted in efficient particle size reduction yielding smaller particles than first generation preparation technique. H96 is a good and easy alternative to achieve efficient particle size reduction of drug in lesser time and increase its solubility and dissolution.

Phase II study of fosaprepitant + 5HT3 receptor antagonist + dexamethasone in patients with germ cell tumors undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a Hoosier Cancer Research Network study

PURPOSE

A phase III study adding aprepitant to a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) plus dexamethasone in germ cell tumor (GCT) patients treated with 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in complete response (CR) (J Clin Onc 30:3998-4003, 2012). Fosaprepitant has demonstrated non-inferiority compared to aprepitant in single-day cisplatin chemotherapy and is approved as a single-dose alternative. This single-arm phase II study is the first clinical trial evaluating fosaprepitant in patients receiving multi-day cisplatin regimen.

METHODS

GCT patients receiving a 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy were enrolled. Fosaprepitant 150 mg was given IV on days 3 and 5. A 5HT3-RA days 1-5 (days 1, 3, and 5, if palonosetron) plus dexamethasone 20 mg days 1 and 2 and 4 mg po bid days 6, 7, and 8 was administered. Rescue antiemetics were allowed. The primary objective was to determine the CR rate-no emetic episodes or use of rescue medications. Accrual of 64 patients was planned with expected CR > 27 %.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were enrolled of whom 54 were eligible for analysis. Median age was 33. Fifty-one patients received bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) chemotherapy. CR was observed in 13 (24.1 %) patients (95 % Agresti-Coull binomial C.I. 14.5 %, 37.1 %).

CONCLUSION

The data in this phase II study, in contrast to our prior phase III study, appears to indicate a lower CR rate with the substitution of fosaprepitant for aprepitant. It is unknown whether the substitution of fosaprepitant for aprepitant provides the same benefit in multi-day cisplatin that was achieved with single-day cisplatin. Trial registration Clinical trial information NCT01736917.

Defining the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in different emetogenic settings-a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) across different categories of chemotherapeutic emetogenicity.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed) and OVID databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized, controlled trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT3 RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy end points were no emesis, no nausea, and complete response (CR) rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials (N = 11,814) were identified. Based on absolute differences (AD) for no emesis (21 %), no nausea (8 %), CR (16 %), and odd ratios (OR) of 2.62, 1.43, and 2.16, respectively, NK1RA regimens provided better CINV protection versus control groups (all p < 0.00001) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In patients receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based HEC, respective ADs and ORs were 14, 4, and 11 % and 1.97 (p < 0.0001), 1.17 (p = 0.04), and 1.62 (p < 0.00001). In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (3 trials), no statistically significant benefit of NK1RAs was found; however, positive trends were detected for CR and no emesis. NK1RAs were effective for CINV prevention in a small number of studies using high-dose chemotherapy as conditioning prior to stem cell transplant and cisplatin-based multiple-day chemotherapy (MDC).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of NK1RA in preventing vomiting in patients receiving HEC (including AC), with smaller effects on prevention of nausea. Efficacy is also seen with high-dose chemotherapy and cisplatin-based MDC.

Aprepitant in the prevention of vomiting induced by moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is a major therapeutic approach for malignant neoplasms; however, due to the most common adverse events of nausea and vomiting, scheduled chemotherapeutic programs may be impeded or even interrupted, which severely impairs the efficacy. Aprepitants, 5-HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone are primary drugs used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). These drugs have excellent efficacy for control of acute vomiting but are relatively ineffective for delayed vomiting. Aprepitant may remedy this deficiency. Substance P was discovered in the 1930s and its association with vomiting was confirmed in the 1950s. This was followed by a period of non-peptide neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist synthesis and investigation in preclinical studies and clinical trials (phases I, II and III). The FDA granted permission for the clinical chemotherapeutic use of aprepitant in 2003. At present, the combined use of aprepitant, 5-HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone satisfactorily controls vomiting but not nausea. Therefore, new therapeutic approaches and drugs are still needed.

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant: a 10-year review of efficacy and safety

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with anticancer treatment that can have a significant adverse impact on patient health-related quality of life and that can potentially undermine the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Traditional regimens to prevent CINV generally involved a combination of a corticosteroid plus a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). In the past 10 years, antiemetic treatment has greatly advanced with the availability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) aprepitant and its prodrug fosaprepitant. NK1 RAs have a different mechanism of action in CINV than corticosteroids and 5HT3 RAs, thus their use can complement traditional antiemetic drugs and can enhance control of CINV. This review examined accumulated data regarding the safety and efficacy of aprepitant and fosaprepitant over the decade since the first regulatory approval. Data from key studies of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were explored, as were recommendations in currently available guidelines for their use. In addition, their use as antiemetic therapy in special patient populations was highlighted. Future perspectives on potential uses of aprepitant and fosaprepitant for indications other than CINV are presented.

Antiemetic therapy of fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone combined with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for head and neck carcinomas

CONCLUSION

Concomitant antiemetic therapy comprising fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is effective for head and neck carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

A patient diary was constructed to determine the effectiveness of concomitant antiemetic therapy with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant), 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (palonosetron), and dexamethasone in accordance with guidelines.

METHODS

Subjects comprised 41 patients who received 71 courses of chemotherapy, along with fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. A patient diary was compiled concerning the presence/absence of vomiting, vomiting episodes, presence/absence of rescue therapy, food intake, presence/absence of nausea, and general condition.

RESULTS

The frequency of the primary end point of complete response in the overall phase was 69.0%. The proportion of patients with no vomiting in the overall phase was 90.1%. In the acute phase, the proportion of no nausea and slight nausea together was 91.5%, no change in and slightly reduced food intake together was 87.3%, and the proportion of good general condition and relatively good general condition was 85.9%. In the delayed phase, the proportion of no nausea and slight nausea together was 56.3%, no change in and slightly reduced food intake together was 43.7%, and the proportion of good general condition and relatively good general condition together was 53.5%.