Effectiveness of a single-day three-drug regimen of dexamethasone, palonosetron, and aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Multi-day vs single-day dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, several randomized controlled trials have compared single-day dexamethasone (dexamethasone-sparing) regimens to the current standard multi-day dexamethasone antiemetic regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing regimens to standard multi-day dexamethasone, used for the prophylaxis of CINV.

METHODS

Ovid Medline and Embase were searched from database inception to March 2024. Studies were included if they reported on randomized controlled trials of adult cancer patients receiving different scheduling of dexamethasone, for the endpoints of complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety was also assessed. Meta-analysis, leave-one-out meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis were conducted to generate summary effect estimates and assess the influence of single trials on the summary effect estimate.

RESULTS

Ten trials reporting on 2234 patients were included. Dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to control arm in the acute (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08), delayed (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05) and overall phases (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) for complete response. There was likewise no difference for complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety profile was similar. There was no concern for bias in the published literature. No difference was found between studies reporting on anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to current multi-day regimens with respect to efficacy and safety for MEC and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based regimens. Clinicians and future guidelines should strongly consider greater adoption and endorsement of dexamethasone-sparing regimens.

Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the published cost-effectiveness analyses of aprepitant for patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and CBM database. The date of publication is up to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved and reviewers reached a consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS). The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2019 using the CCEMG–EPPI–Certer Cost Converter.

Results: Thirteen articles were included based on the inclusion criteria for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis. Twelve studies were rated as good quality and one as a moderate quality based on the CHEERS checklist. Eight studies compared aprepitant plus 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) and dexamethasone with the standard regimen (5-HT3RA and dexamethasone). It was concluded that aprepitant plus standard regimen was a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV. Only one study that compared aprepitant plus 5-HT3RA with 5-HT3RA, concluded that the addition of aprepitant reduced the incidence of severe nausea, and it might also provide an economic benefit in the overall management. Four studies that compared aprepitant with other antiemetic drugs concluded that aprepitant is a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV compared with metoclopramide. However, netupitan + palonosetron and olanzapine are cost-effective compared with aprepitant.

Conclusion: This study is the first systematic evaluation of adding aprepitant to standard regimens for patients with CINV. Most economic evaluations of antiemetic medications are reported to be of good quality. Adding aprepitant to standard regimens is found to be a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV.

Differential Glucocorticoid-Dependent Regulation and Function of the ERRFI1 Gene in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Glucocorticoids (GCs; eg, hydrocortisone [CORT]) are routinely used as chemotherapeutic, anti-emetic, and palliative agents in breast cancer (BCa) therapy. The effects of GC signaling on BCa progression, however, remain a contentious topic as GC treatment seems to be beneficial for receptor-positive subtypes but elicits unfavorable responses in triple-negative BCa (TNBC). The mechanistic basis for these conflicting effects of GC in BCa is poorly understood. In this study, we sought to decipher the molecular mechanisms that govern the GC-dependent induction of the tumor suppressor ERRFI1 gene, an inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling, and characterize the role of the GC-ERRFI1 regulatory axis in TNBC. Treatment of TNBC cell lines with a protein synthesis inhibitor or GC receptor (GR) antagonist followed by gene expression analysis suggests that ERRFI1 is a direct GR target. Using in silico analysis coupled with enhancer-reporter assays, we identified a putative ERRFI1 enhancer that supports CORT-dependent transactivation. In orthogonal assays for cell proliferation, survival, migration, and apoptosis, CORT mostly facilitated an oncogenic phenotype regardless of malignancy status. Lentiviral knockdown and overexpression of ERRFI1 showed that the CORT-enhanced oncogenic phenotype is restricted by ERRFI1 in the normal breast epithelial model MCF10A and to a lesser degree in the metastatic TNBC line MDA-MB-468. Conversely, ERRFI1 conferred pro-tumorigenic effects in the highly metastatic TNBC model MDA-MB-231. Taken together, our findings suggest that the progressive loss of the GC-dependent regulation and anti-tumorigenic function of ERRFI1 influences BCa progression and may contribute to the unfavorable effects of GC therapy in TNBC.

Heterotargeted Nanococktail with Traceless Linkers for Eradicating Cancer

Clinical application of drug cocktails for cancer therapy is limited by their severe systemic toxicity. To solve a catch-22 dilemma between safety and efficacy for drug cocktails, a hetero-targeted nano-cocktail (PPPDMA) with traceless linkers has been developed. In the PPPDMA nanogel, a hetero-targeting strategy is employed to improve its tumor selective targeting efficacy by overcoming the cancer cell mono-ligand density limitation. Benefit from its glutathione and reactive oxygen species responsiveness, the loaded paclitaxel and doxorubicin can be quickly and tracelessly released into the cytoplasm in their original form, which bestows PPPDMA nanogels the capability to overwhelm the processing capacity of cancer cell's P-glycoprotein efflux pump allows, and ultimately kill them without inducing side effects. The PPPDMA treatment reduced its tumor burden over 99% (in tumor weight) and 96% (in tumor number). Most importantly, no detectable tumor in more than half of the PPPDMA treated mice. We conclude that traceless linker and hetero-targeted nano-cocktail strategy could be a safe and effective approach for cancer treatment.

Opportunities for cannabis in supportive care in cancer

Cannabis has the potential to modulate some of the most common and debilitating symptoms of cancer and its treatments, including nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, and pain. However, the dearth of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of cannabis in treating these symptoms in patients with cancer poses a challenge to clinicians in discussing this option with their patients. A review was performed using keywords related to cannabis and important symptoms of cancer and its treatments. Literature was qualitatively reviewed from preclinical models to clinical trials in the fields of cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and others, to prudently inform the use of cannabis in supportive and palliative care in cancer. There is a reasonable amount of evidence to consider cannabis for nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, and pain as a supplement to first-line treatments. There is promising evidence to treat chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, gastrointestinal distress, and sleep disorders, but the literature is thus far too limited to recommend cannabis for these symptoms. Scant, yet more controversial, evidence exists in regard to cannabis for cancer- and treatment-related cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Adverse effects of cannabis are documented but tend to be mild. Cannabis has multifaceted potential bioactive benefits that appear to outweigh its risks in many situations. Further research is required to elucidate its mechanisms of action and efficacy and to optimize cannabis preparations and doses for specific populations affected by cancer.

Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

Purpose

To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃)-receptor antagonists (RAs).

Summary

CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, neurokinin 1 [NK₁] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, NK₁ RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT₃ RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT₃-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT₃ RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK₁ RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT₃ RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.

Conclusion

Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemet-ics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT₃-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens.

Single-dose palonosetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in breast and colorectal cancer patients

Aims and background

Palonosetron, a unique second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, has been demonstrated to control emesis related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron followed by a single dose of dexamethasone in patients with breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

Methods and study design

Chemotherapy-naive BC and CRC patients were given MEC as adjuvant or first-line treatment. Palonosetron (0.25 mg IV) and dexamethasone (8 mg IV) were administered before chemotherapy on day 1. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall study period (days 1–5). The antiemetic response was evaluated during the acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2–5) phases.

Results

Sixty-eight patients were enrolled (median age 61 years, 56 females; BC = 40, CRC = 28). CR was observed in 46 of 68 patients (67.6%), while CR during the acute and delayed phases was 75.0% in each cancer group. The antiemetic regimen was well tolerated.

Conclusions

A single administration of palonosetron and dexamethasone on day 1 in BC and CRC patients adequately controls CINV during the entire period of emetic risk.

Genetic Risk Factors Associated With Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone in Japanese Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Anthracycline-based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer patients often receive anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most uncomfortable and distressing adverse reactions. Poor control of CINV reduces the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy agents, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes and shorter survival. The aim of the present study was to identify genetic risk factors associated with anthracycline-based CINV.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated CINV attributable to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in Japanese breast cancer patients treated with an antiemetic regimen that included palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone. Furthermore, we investigated the associations between CINV and single nucleotide polymorphisms in 6 candidate genes.

RESULTS

Emesis episodes were rarely observed in the 125 patients included in the present survey (7.2%; n = 9); however, significant nausea occurred in more than one half of the patients (52.8%; n = 66). In particular, acute significant nausea was not effectively controlled. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ABCG2 (rs2231142) AA genotype is significantly associated with acute significant nausea (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-23.60; P = .049).

CONCLUSION

The findings of the present study provide significant insights for developing personalized antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

APF530 versus ondansetron, each in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a post hoc subgroup analysis of the Phase III randomized MAGIC trial

BACKGROUND

APF530, a novel extended-release granisetron injection, was superior to ondansetron in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen in preventing delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in the double-blind Phase III Modified Absorption of Granisetron In the prevention of CINV (MAGIC) trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This MAGIC post hoc analysis evaluated CINV prevention efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron, each with fosaprepitant and dexamethasone, in patient subgroup receiving an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen. Patients were randomized 1:1 to APF530 500 mg subcutaneously (granisetron 10 mg) or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously (IV) (≤16 mg); stratification was by planned cisplatin ≥50 mg/m² (yes/no). Patients were to receive fosaprepitant 150 mg IV and dexamethasone 12 mg IV on day 1, then dexamethasone 8 mg orally once daily on day 2 and twice daily on days 3 and 4. Patients were mostly younger females (APF530 arm, mean age 54.1 years, female, 99.3%; ondansetron arm, 53.8 years, female 98.3%). The primary end point was delayed-phase (>24-120 hours) complete response (CR).

RESULTS

APF530 versus ondansetron regimens achieved numerically better CINV control in delayed and overall (0-120 hours) phases for CR, complete control, total response, rescue medication use, and proportion with no nausea. APF530 trends are consistent with the overall population, although not statistically superior given the underpowered AC subgroup analysis. The APF530 regimen in this population was generally well tolerated, with safety comparable to that of the overall population.

CONCLUSION

APF530 plus fosaprepitant and dexamethasone effectively prevented CINV among patients receiving AC-based HEC, a large subgroup in whom CINV control has traditionally been challenging.

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among published guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication [complete response (CR)] in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication [complete control (CC)].

RESULTS

Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100, 91.9 and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100, 84.4 and 84.4%, respectively. The most common adverse event was mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen.

Efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, ondansetron, and prednisone for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by R-CEOP or CEOP chemotherapy regimen for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 2 open-label, randomized comparative trial

We performed a prospective study to investigate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, ondansetron, and prednisone in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients receiving R-CEOP or CEOP chemotherapy regimen. All patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and prednisone), or a control regimen (ondansetron and prednisone) treatment group. For the complete response, the aprepitant group was statistically superior to the control group in the overall study period (76.5% vs. 56.0%; p = .03), as well as in separate analyses of the acute phase (92.2% vs. 78.0%; p = .045), and even more notably in the delayed phase (82.4% vs. 64.0%; p = .037). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the two treatment groups (p > .05). The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving R-CEOP or CEOP regimen and was generally well tolerated.

Evaluation of palonosetron and dexamethasone with or without aprepitant to prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Although antiemetic management has improved, better control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), particularly during the delayed phase, is needed. The benefit of combination therapy using dexamethasone and the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron compared with that of other such receptor antagonists in carboplatin-based chemotherapy is unclear. The effectiveness of adding aprepitant for CINV treatment in moderate emetogenic chemotherapy is also unknown. We compared the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy using aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone with that of double antiemetic therapy using palonosetron and dexamethasone in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either double antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone, or triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. Complete response rate (no vomiting episode and no rescue therapy) was evaluated as the primary endpoint during the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

RESULTS

The aprepitant add-on and double therapy groups showed overall complete response rates of 80.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.4-92.6%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 63.7-90.1%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.81; 95% CI; 0.27-2.36; p=0.788), respectively. Complete responses in the acute and delayed phases and overall incidences of treatment-related adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

According to the selection design, triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone was not considered as an option for further studies.

Reviewing current and emerging antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

This review provides background information on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) classification and pathophysiology and reviews various antiemetic agents for CINV prophylaxis, including corticosteroids, serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RAs), and olanzapine. Other less commonly used agents are briefly discussed. Practical considerations are reviewed as well, including emetogenicity of chemotherapeutic regimens, patient-specific risk factors for CINV, principles of CINV management, health economics outcome research, and quality of life. Available data on the newly FDA-approved antiemetic combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is also reviewed. Prevention of CINV is an important goal in managing patients with cancer and is especially difficult with respect to nausea and delayed CINV. Corticosteroids are a mainstay of CINV prophylaxis and are usually given in combination with other therapies. The 5-HT3 RA palonosetron has shown increased efficacy over other agents in the same class for prevention of delayed emesis with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NK1 RAs improve emesis prevention in combination with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone. Olanzapine has shown efficacy for CINV prophylaxis and the treatment of breakthrough CINV. The new combination therapy, NEPA, has been shown to be efficacious for the prevention of acute, delayed, and overall CINV. Risk factors that have been identified for CINV include gender, age, and alcohol intake. It is important to assess the emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens as well as the potential impact of patient risk factors in order to provide adequate prophylaxis. Acute and delayed CINV are severe, burdensome side effects of chemotherapy; however, new data on prevention and the discovery of new agents can further improve CINV control.

Prophylactic treatment for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after non-AC based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important adverse effect of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy not containing anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide (non-AC MEC). In this review, we summarize current literature to update recommendations for delayed CINV prophylaxis after non-AC MEC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and conference proceedings from ASCO, ESMO, and MASCC. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of two or more antiemetic strategies in the prevention of delayed CINV after the administration of non-AC MEC. At least one of the following endpoints was used: complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and/or no use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

Our search provided 247 publications. Nine met the predefined criteria. Included RCTs reported outcomes on palonosetron, aprepitant, casopitant, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), olanzapine, and megestrol acetate.

CONCLUSIONS

Superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV after non-AC MEC has not been proven. The addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists does not significantly improve the incidence of delayed CINV after non-AC MEC. The efficacy of a single-day regimen of dexamethasone with palonosetron is non-inferior to multiday dexamethasone. NEPA, olanzapine, and megestrol acetate show highly effective complete response (CR) rates.

Update on the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - focus on palonosetron

Purpose

Nausea and vomiting are major adverse effects of chemotherapy and can greatly impact patients’ quality of life. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevalence is high, treatment remains difficult. Palonosetron is a 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) approved for treatment of CINV. The purpose of this review is to discuss existing and emerging therapeutic options, and examine studies focusing on palonosetron with regards to efficacy, pharmacology, tolerability, safety, and patient-derived outcomes.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify relevant studies using palonosetron alone or in combination with other antiemetics. Studies were extracted if they included complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no nausea, no vomiting, and no rescue medications as an endpoint. Studies were also included if safety endpoints were examined.

Results

Palonosetron alone has been shown to improve CR and CC rates for patients receiving low, moderate, or high emetogenic chemotherapy. Rates were further improved with the addition of dexamethasone, a corticosteroid. Furthermore, the addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, such as netupitant markedly improved efficacy profiles compared to palonosetron alone. Aprepitant is an antiemetic that has exhibited positive results in combination with palonosetron. Recently, a new drug consisting of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) has demonstrated significantly more efficacious prevention of CINV. Regardless of the combination, palonosetron has been well tolerated. The most common adverse events were constipation, headache, fatigue, and dizziness, with the majority of patients describing them as only mild or moderate.

Conclusion

Palonosetron, alone or with other antiemetics, has improved CINV treatment due to its ability to significantly reduce delayed phases of CINV, compared to similar 5-HT₃RAs. Palonosetron is both more effective than first generation 5-HT₃RAs and safer, as it results in a smaller prolongation of the QTc interval, compared to other 5-HT₃RAs.

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.

Cyclophosphamide causes activation of protein kinase A (PKA) in the brainstem of vomiting least shrews (Cryptotis parva)

Complete control of emesis caused by cyclophosphamide (CPA) is of immense interest to both patients and physicians. Serotonin 5-HT3- and tachykinin NK1-receptor antagonists are widely used antiemetics in clinic, but they fail to completely control CPA-induced emesis. New antiemetic targets for the full control of CPA-induced vomiting are lacking. We therefore examined the effects of CPA on emetic targets downstream of 5-HT3- and NK1- receptors in an attempt to better understand the molecular bases of CPA-induced emesis. Acute CPA (200 mg/kg, i.p.) administration in the least shrew caused a biphasic pattern of emesis over a 40 h observation period, with maximal peak vomit frequency during the 1st hour of treatment (acute phase), followed by a delayed-phase which peaks at 27th hour. The NK1 receptor mRNA levels increased significantly at 8 h post-CPA treatment in the brainstem, and at 28 h in the whole intestine. Substance P mRNA levels tended to increase both in the brainstem and intestine at most time-points post-CPA injection, however due to large variability, they failed to attain significance. Likewise, protein expression profiles of both NK1- and 5-HT3 -receptors in the brainstem were unchanged at any time-point. However, phosphorylation levels of protein kinase A (PKA), but not of extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2), were increased at 2, 8, 22, 28, and 33 h time-points after the treatment with CPA. Moreover, brainstem but not frontal cortex cAMP tissue levels tended to be elevated at most time-points, but significant increases occurred only at 1 and 2 h post-CPA treatment. The phosphodiesterase inhibitor, rolipram, caused significant increases in shrew brainstem cAMP levels which were associated with its capacity to produce vomiting, while pretreatment with SQ22536, an inhibitor of adenylyl cyclase, prevented rolipram-induced emesis. The results demonstrate that accumulation of cAMP and subsequent activation of PKA in the brainstem may help to initiate and sustain emesis induced by CPA in the least shrew. Our findings suggest that suppression of the cAMP/PKA cascade may have antiemetic potential in the management of CPA-induced emesis.

Addressing the value of novel therapies in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troubling side effect of cancer treatment and is often poorly controlled. As a consequence, CINV is associated with substantially increased costs of care and significant interference with patients' lives. Inadequate control over CINV results from factors that include failure to provide guideline-adherent prophylactic medication and limitations in available therapies. Newer serotonin receptor antagonists, such as palonosetron, and addition of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists to treatment have significantly decreased both acute and delayed CINV. A fixed-dose combination of palonosetron and a new NK-1 receptor, netupitant, is significantly superior to palonosetron alone and has small, but consistent, numerical advantages over aprepitant plus palonosetron for prevention of CINV. The combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist plus an NK-1 receptor antagonist has been shown to be cost-effective for prevention of CINV and the availability of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron may enhance this benefit.

Aprepitant plus granisetron and dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gastric cancer treated with S-1 plus cisplatin

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a new combination antiemetic therapy comprising aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone in gastric cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with cisplatin and S-1.

METHODS

Gastric cancer patients scheduled to receive their first course of chemotherapy with cisplatin (60 mg/m(2)) and S-1 (80 mg/m(2)) were treated with a new combination antiemetic therapy aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 and 3; and dexamethasone on day 4. The patients reported vomiting, nausea, use of rescue therapy, and change in the amount of diet intake, and completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and use of no rescue antiemetics) during the overall study phase (0-120 h after cisplatin administration). The secondary endpoints included complete protection (CP; CR plus no significant nausea); change in the amount of diet intake; and the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on daily life during the overall, acute (0-24 h), and delayed (24-120 h) phases.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were included. CR was achieved in 88.7, 98.1, and 88.7% of patients in the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The corresponding rates of CP were 67.9, 96.2, and 67.9%. Approximately half of the patients had some degree of anorexia. FLIE results indicated that 79.5% of patients reported "minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life".

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy was effective in gastric cancer patients undergoing treatment with cisplatin and S-1.

Palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains both a feared side effect of cancer treatment and a focus of many supportive care initiatives/guidelines. The class of medications known as serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) are integral in the prevention of CINV from both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron (ALOXI(®)), a second-generation 5-HT3RA, has a higher affinity for the 5-HT3 receptor, has a longer half-life and has unique interactions with the 5-HT3 receptor compared with the current first-generation 5-HT3RA such as ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron and tropisetron. This may allow palonosetron an advantage in control of CINV. This review article examines the available evidence, the pharmacokinetics and the safety and tolerability of palonosetron in the prevention of CINV.

Effect of netupitant, a highly selective NK₁ receptor antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, erythromycin, and dexamethasone

PURPOSE

Netupitant is a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist being studied for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In vitro studies suggest that netupitant inhibits the cytochrome P-450 isoenzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4). Because netupitant may be used with a variety of drugs, which may be substrates of CYP3A4, two studies were designed to establish the potential risk for drug-drug interaction with three different CYP3A4 substrates: midazolam, erythromycin, and dexamethasone.

METHODS

Both trials were three-period crossover studies performed in healthy subjects. In the first study, 20 subjects received netupitant and either midazolam or erythromycin. In the second study, 25 subjects received netupitant and dexamethasone. Serial blood samples were collected over the course of the two studies and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for all analytes.

RESULTS

Netupitant, by inhibiting the CYP3A4, increased the C max and AUCinf of midazolam by 40 and 144 %, respectively, and the C max and AUCinf of erythromycin by 30 %. Netupitant was shown to increase the exposure to dexamethasone in a dose-dependent manner with the mean increase in AUC and C max by 72 and 11 %, respectively, on day 1 and by 138 and 75 %, respectively, on day 4 when co-administered with 300 mg of netupitant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of these studies suggest that netupitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4 and therefore, co-administration with drugs that are substrates of CYP3A4 may require dose adjustments. Treatments were well tolerated in both studies.

An update on palonosetron hydrochloride for the treatment of radio/chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are well recognized in different clinical situations, suggesting that no single mechanism is likely to be responsible for their production. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a negative impact on quality of life and this may lead to a refusal of curative therapy or to a decline in palliative benefits offered by cytotoxic treatment. Palonosetron is a new agent in the class of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), and differs from the other agents by its higher receptor-binding affinity and longer half-life. These pharmacological properties have resulted in improved antiemetic activity in clinical trials, particularly in the treatment of delayed CINV following moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

AREA COVERED

A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library and meeting materials from ASCO and MASCC were all searched.

EXPERT OPINION

Palonosetron was the only serotonin receptor antagonist approved for prevention of delayed CINV caused by MEC and its use was incorporated in guideline recommendations. To date, several treatment settings such as multiple day chemotherapy require further studies to improve emesis related to therapy.

Safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of single-dose fosaprepitant regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a crucial factor in ensuring that patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy can get the full benefit of therapy. Current antiemetic guidelines recommend that the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonist aprepitant should be used as part of a combination regimen with dexamethasone and a serotonin receptor antagonist for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Fosaprepitant is a water-soluble N-phosphoryl derivative of aprepitant that, when infused, is rapidly metabolized back to an active aprepitant. The existing literature in PubMed about fosaprepitant was screened and selected in order to address the emerging data from two randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen. These phase III trials demonstrated that fosaprepitant given as a single intravenous dose of 150 mg was either noninferior to the conventional 3-day aprepitant or significantly superior to placebo for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. In both trials, fosaprepitant was well tolerated although more frequent infusion-site adverse events were observed with fosaprepitant. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant, therefore, would be an option for CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The clinical efficacy is consistent with the findings from a time-on-target, positron-emission tomography study evaluating the NK-1R occupancy in the central nervous system (CNS) over 5 days after a single-dose infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant in healthy participants. The single-dose regimen is capable of blocking more than 90% of the NK-1Rs in the CNS for at least 48 hours after infusion, which is sufficient to control delayed CINV for 2 to 5 days after HEC. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant can provide a simplified treatment option that maintains high protection while ensuring adherence to scheduled antiemetic medication throughout most of the 5-day period encompassing the major risk for CINV.

Efficacy and safety of single-dose fosaprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-dose fosaprepitant in combination with intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone.

Patients and methods

Patients receiving chemotherapy including cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²) were eligible. A total of 347 patients (21% had received cisplatin with vomiting) were enrolled in this trial to receive the fosaprepitant regimen (fosaprepitant 150 mg, intravenous, on day 1 in combination with granisetron, 40 μg/kg, intravenous, on day 1 and dexamethasone, intravenous, on days 1–3) or the control regimen (placebo plus intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone). The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) over the entire treatment course (0–120 h).

Results

The percentage of patients with a complete response was significantly higher in the fosaprepitant group than in the control group (64% versus 47%, P = 0.0015). The fosaprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen in both the acute (0–24 h postchemotherapy) phase (94% versus 81%, P = 0.0006) and the delayed (24–120 h postchemotherapy) phase (65% versus 49%, P = 0.0025).

Conclusions

Single-dose fosaprepitant used in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone was well-tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic cancer chemotherapy, including high-dose cisplatin.

Prevention of delayed nausea: a University of Rochester Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program study of patients receiving chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We conducted a double-blind randomized clinical trial of the following four regimens for controlling delayed nausea (DN): group 1: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 2: granisetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 3: aprepitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with aprepitant + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3; and group 4: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients received doxorubicin, epirubicin, cisplatin, carboplatin, or oxaliplatin. The primary end point was average nausea assessed four times daily on days 2 and 3. Primary analyses were whether nausea control would be improved by using palonosetron versus granisetron on day 1 (group 1 v group 2); by adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (group 1 v group 4); and by using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine (group 3 v group 4). Statistical significance was set at P = .017.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four, 234, 241, and 235 evaluable patients were accrued to groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Adjusted mean differences for the three planned analyses were as follows: palonosetron versus granisetron: -0.01 (95% CI, -0.23 to 0.20; P = .72); adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3: 0.20 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.41; P = .01); and using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine: -0.03 (95% CI, -0.24 to 0.19; P = .56).

CONCLUSION

The addition of dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 reduced DN. Palonosetron and granisetron have similar effects on DN. The beneficial effect of adding aprepitant for control of DN was the same as adding prochlorperazine.

Efficacy and safety of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pooled analysis

PURPOSE

A number of studies have reported that aprepitant has been used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In this study, we aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, which can provide evidence for aprepitant administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen trials involving patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in this pooled analysis. Antiemetic drugs in these studies included aprepitant, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

RESULTS

A total of 4,798 cases were investigated in these clinical trials. Compared with placebo or the standard antiemetic therapy, the cumulative incidence of emesis was significantly reduced in the patients treated with aprepitant-based (125 mg/80 mg) therapy on the first day [relative risk (RR) = 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.16], from 2 to 5 days (RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.48) and in the overall 5 days (RR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.22-1.39). In terms of drug safety, there was no significant difference between aprepitant-based regimens and non-aprepitant regimens.

CONCLUSION

Results from the analysis suggest that aprepitant with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone is highly effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in the days after administration of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) agents.

Palonosetron: An Evidence-Based Choice in Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Aims and background

In 2003, the second-generation, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) palonosetron was approved by the FDA for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. We reviewed the current knowledge on the role of palonosetron against acute and delayed emesis in patients with solid tumors undergoing single-day moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

Methods

A literature review in PubMed was performed to update currently available preclinical and clinical evidence on palonosetron, prioritizing randomized clinical trials.

Results

The distinct pharmacology of palonosetron provides a rationale behind the improved efficacy observed with the drug in prevention of delayed symptoms. This may be explained by allosteric binding properties and by palonosetron-triggered receptor internalization, which result in prolonged inhibition of the 5-HT3 receptor function. Very recent pharmacology experiments have also suggested that palonosetron would be able to differentially inhibit 5-HT3/neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor signaling cross-talk. In two recent meta-analyses, palonosetron was shown to be more effective than other available 5-HT3 RAs in preventing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting for both HEC and MEC. Recent findings also suggest that a single-day regimen of palonosetron plus dexamethasone (both drugs administered intravenously) may provide a reasonable therapeutic alternative to reduce the total dexamethasone dose administered in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Conclusions

On the basis of accumulating data, the evidence-based international guidelines devised from the major organizations have been recently updated to recommend the use of palonosetron plus 3-day dexamethasone for the optimal prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. There is still a need to investigate the efficacy of palonosetron in combination with an NK-1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in well-designed randomized trials.

Palonosetron plus 1-day dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: effect of established risk factors on treatment outcome in a phase III trial

BACKGROUND

The non-inferiority of palonosetron plus 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has been previously demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this prespecified post hoc analysis were to demonstrate the non-inferiority hypothesis in an adjusted model for known risk factors (age, gender, alcohol consumption, and type of MEC [anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based versus other MEC]) for CINV and to explore the impact on antiemetic outcome of these risk factors.

METHODS

Chemonaive patients (n = 324) with solid tumors were randomized to receive palonosetron 0.25 mg IV plus dexamethasone 8 mg IV on day 1 of chemotherapy or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2 and 3. The primary end point was complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) during the 5-day study period. A modified intention-to-treat approach was used for multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of the 1-day regimen was confirmed even after adjusting for risk factors (risk difference -4.4%, 95% CI -14.1% to 5.4%; P = .381). Only age less than 50 years (P = .044) independently predicted a poor outcome of antiemetic treatment. However, most of the younger patients were women (1-day regimen 81.8%, 3-day regimen 88.4%) who underwent AC-based chemotherapy (1-day regimen 61.1%, 3-day regimen 71.0%). There were no significant between-treatment differences in the CR rate according to risk factors.

CONCLUSION

This analysis confirmed that the 1-day regimen provides a valid treatment option for prevention of CINV in delayed, non-AC-based MEC.

Glucocorticoid receptor and breast cancer

Stress enhances glucocorticoid (GC) synthesis, which alters inflammation and immune responses, as well as cellular proliferation and apoptosis in a number of tissues. Increasingly, stress has been associated with cancer progression, and in particular in breast cancer. Consequently, an operational glucocorticoid receptor system in breast tissue influences breast cancer development. In this review, we summarize the data on the GC/GR system in normal and tumoral breast tissue. We also review the molecular mechanisms by which GCs control apoptosis and proliferation in breast cancer models and how GCs alter the chemotherapy of breast cancer treatment when used in combination. Finally, we discuss the participation of GR in breast tumorigenesis under hormone replacement therapy.

Impact of 5-HT(3) RA selection within triple antiemetic regimens on uncontrolled highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that patients initiate triple antiemetic therapy with one of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs), aprepitant (or its intravenous prodrug fosaprepitant) and dexamethasone prior to the start of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, the impact of 5-HT(3) RA selection within triple antiemetic regimens on the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with HEC has not been well studied.

AIM

To assess the likelihood of an uncontrolled CINV event following antiemetic prophylaxis with the 5-HT(3) RA palonosetron + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone (palonosetron cohort) versus any of the other 5-HT(3) RAs + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone (other 5-HT(3) RA cohort) among single-day HEC cycles.

METHODS

Single-day HEC cycles (a gap of at least 5 days between two administrations) among patients with a cancer diagnosis and receiving antiemetic prophylaxis with the aforementioned regimens between 1/1/2006 and 6/30/2010 were identified from the IMS LifeLink claims database. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea and vomiting), Current Procedural Terminology codes (hydration), rescue medications and/or use of antiemetic therapy from days 2-5 following HEC administration. Risks for an uncontrolled CINV event among all patients, and within breast cancer and multiple cancer subpopulations, were analyzed at cycle level using logistic multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 8018 cycles for the palonosetron cohort and 1926 cycles for the other 5-HT(3) RA cohort (3574 and 978 patients, respectively) were analyzed. Single-day HEC cycles received by the palonosetron cohort had a significantly lower unadjusted risk of an uncontrolled CINV event (17.5 vs 20.7% for the other 5-HT(3) RA cohort; p = 0.0010), with a 17% lower adjusted risk for palonosetron-administered cycles (odds ratio: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94; p = 0.0042). Results in the breast cancer and multiple cancer subgroups were consistent with those for the overall population.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective claims data analysis, single-day HEC cycles administered with palonosetron + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone had a lower risk for an uncontrolled CINV event versus other 5-HT(3) RAs + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone.

Comparative clinical effectiveness of various 5-HT3 RA antiemetic regimens on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with hospital and emergency department visits in real world practice

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events for various 5-HT(3) RAs in patients who received moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) by evaluating hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.

METHODS

PharMetrics claims database was used to identify patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) who were initiated on cyclophosphamide-based adjuvant chemotherapy or with lung cancer (LC) initiated on carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based chemotherapy between 2005 and 2008. Patients were stratified in two groups: those initiated and maintained on palonosetron versus those treated with any other 5-HT(3) RA regimens in the 6-month post first chemotherapy. Risk for CINV events, identified by ICD-9-CM for nausea, vomiting, and/or dehydration, were estimated using logistic regressions, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, and total chemotherapy doses or days.

RESULTS

Of the 4,868 cyclophosphamide-treated BC, 5,414 carboplatin-treated LC, and 1,692 cisplatin-treated LC identified, there were 1,864 BC (38.5%), 1,806 carboplatin-treated LC (33.4%), and 390 cisplatin-treated LC (23.0%) in the palonosetron-only group. Palonosetron-only group had significantly lower probability of CINV events associated with ED/hospital admissions in all three cohorts (3.5% vs. 6.3% in BC, 9.5% vs. 13.8% in carboplatin-treated LC, and 16.4% vs. 22.6% in cisplatin-treated LC, all at p < 0.05). Logistic regressions found palonosetron-only group had significantly lower risk of CINV events (odds ratios = 0.550, 0.653, and 0.689 in BC, carboplatin-treated LC and cisplatin-treated LC, respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with lung or breast cancer receiving MEC or HEC had significantly lower risk of CINV events associated with hospital/ED admissions if initiated and maintained on palonosetron relative to patients receiving 5-HT(3) RA regimens.

Short pulse gastric electrical stimulation for cisplatin-induced emesis in dogs

BACKGROUND

In a previous study, we investigated the ameliorating effect of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) with a single set of parameters on emesis and behaviors suggestive of nausea induced by cisplatin in dogs. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of GES with different parameters on cisplatin-induced emesis in dogs.

METHODS

Seven dogs implanted with gastric serosal electrodes were studied in six randomized sessions: one control session with cisplatin (2 mg kg(-1)) and five sessions with cisplatin plus GES of different parameters: GES-A: 14 Hz, 5 mA, 0.3 ms, 0.1 s on and 5 s off; GES-B: increased frequency and on-time; GES-C: increased frequency; GES-D: increased frequency and pulse width; and GES-E: increased frequency and amplitude. Gastric slow waves and emetic responses were recorded in each session.

KEY RESULTS

(i) Cisplatin induced emetic responses and gastric dysrhythmia. The peak time of the emetic response was during the fourth hour after cisplatin. (ii) GES with appropriate parameters reduced cisplatin-induced emesis. The number of vomiting times during the 6 h after cisplatin was 7.0 ± 1.4 in the control, 4.7 ± 1.2 with GES-A (P = 0.179), 4.2 ± 1.2 with GES-B (P = 0.109), 7.0 ± 0.8 with GES-C (P = 0.928), 2.1 ± 0.3 with GES-D (P = 0.005) and 4.7 ± 1.5 with GES-E (P = 0.129). However, none of the GES parameters could improve gastric dysrhythmia.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Gastric electrical stimulation with appropriate parameters reduces cisplatin-induced emetic responses and behaviors suggestive of nausea in dogs. Among the tested parameters, GES with increased pulse width seems to produce better relief of cisplatin-induced emesis.

Single-Dose Fosaprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated With Cisplatin Therapy: Randomized, Double-Blind Study Protocol—EASE

Purpose

Addition of aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), to an ondansetron and dexamethasone regimen improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV), particularly during the delayed phase (DP; 25 to 120 hours). Therefore, recommended antiemetic regimens include multiple-day NK1RA administration. Preliminary data suggested that single-dose aprepitant before chemotherapy could provide CINV protection throughout the overall risk phase (OP; 0 to 120 hours). This study compared a 3-day oral aprepitant schedule to a regimen containing a single dose of the intravenous NK1RA fosaprepitant.

Patients and Methods

A randomized, double-blind, active-control design was used to test whether fosaprepitant is noninferior to aprepitant. Patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 for the first time received ondansetron and dexamethasone with a standard aprepitant regimen (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on day 2, 80 mg on day 3) or a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen (150 mg on day 1). The primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting, no rescue medication) during OP. Secondary end points were CR during DP and no vomiting during OP. Accrual of 1,113 evaluable patients per treatment arm was planned to confirm noninferiority with expected CR of 67.7% and noninferiority margin of minus 7 percentage points.

Results

A total of 2,322 patients were randomly assigned, and 2,247 were evaluable for efficacy. Antiemetic protection with aprepitant and fosaprepitant was equivalent within predefined bounds for noninferiority. Both regimens were well tolerated, although more frequent infusion site pain/erythema/thrombophlebitis was seen with fosaprepitant relative to aprepitant (2.7% v 0.3%, respectively).

Conclusion

Given with ondansetron and dexamethasone, single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) was noninferior to standard 3-day oral aprepitant in preventing CINV during OP and DP.

Impact of initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus ondansetron on risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer receiving multi-day chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) among lung cancer patients receiving multi-day chemotherapy and ondansetron- or palonosetron-initiated prophylactic antiemetic regimens in a community oncology setting.

METHODS

The Georgia Cancer Specialists electronic medical records database was used to retrospectively identify lung cancer patients who received multi-day cisplatin or carboplatin regimens with ondansetron or palonosetron on day 1 between April 1, 2006 and July 31, 2009. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea/vomiting), CPT codes (dehydration), rescue medications, nausea/vomiting hospitalizations, and/or antiemetic therapy after last chemotherapy administration of the cycle. Risk for uncontrolled CINV, up to 7 days after last chemotherapy administration, was analyzed at cycle level using logistic regression with regressors of gender, age, number of chemotherapy administration days, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer type, multicancer diagnoses, and chemotherapy regimen.

RESULTS

A total of 209 palonosetron and 153 ondansetron patients (702 and 515 cycles, respectively) met the inclusion criteria. Palonosetron patients were significantly older (mean 67.9 versus 63.9 years; P < 0.0001), with no significant difference in gender, baseline comorbidity score, or multicancer diagnosis. Palonosetron cycles had 63% lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron cycles [odds ratio (OR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.54; P < 0.0001]. Sub-analysis by chemotherapy supported overall analysis (cisplatin OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.04-0.25; P < 0.0001; carboplatin OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.70; P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis of lung cancer patients, multi-day chemotherapy cycles administered with palonosetron on day 1 were associated with a significantly lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron-initiated chemotherapy cycles.

Safety evaluation of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Aprepitant is the only neurokinin (NK(1)) receptor antagonist (RA) approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Aprepitant is co-administered with a 5-HT(3) RA and a corticosteroid. Although aprepitant is safe, in most clinical settings potential drug-drug interactions need to be considered before prescription.

AREAS COVERED

This article thoroughly reviews aprepitant and, in particular, clinically relevant safety aspects of the drug. The literature review was performed using Medline with the following search terms: adverse events, aprepitant, chemotherapy, CYP3A4, MK-0869, neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, safety and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

The recommended antiemetic regimen of aprepitant, a 5-HT(3) RA and a corticosteroid is safe. The combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT(3) RA and dexamethasone is now the gold standard of antiemetic treatment in prevention of CINV induced by HEC, or by the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. The intravenous formulation of aprepitant used as a single dose is expected to be of benefit to cancer patients.

Cost-utility analysis of palonosetron-based therapy in preventing emesis among breast cancer patients

We estimated the cost-utility of palonosetron-based therapy compared with generic ondansetron-based therapy throughout four cycles of anthracycline and cyclophosphamide for treating women with breast cancer. We developed a Markov model comparing six strategies in which ondansetron and palonosetron are combined with either dexamethasone alone, dexamethasone plus aprepitant following emesis, or dexamethasone plus aprepitant up front. Data on the effectiveness of antiemetics and emesis-related utility were obtained from published sources. Relative to the ondansetron-based two-drug therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the palonosetron-based regimens were $115,490/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for the two-drug strategy, $199,375/QALY for the two-drug regimen plus aprepitant after emesis, and $200,526/QALY for the three-drug strategy. In sensitivity analysis, using the $100,000/QALY benchmark, the palonosetron-based two-drug strategy and the two-drug regimen plus aprepitant following emesis were shown to be cost-effective in 39% and 26% of the Monte Carlo simulations, respectively, and with changes in values for the effectiveness of antiemetics and the rate of hospitalization. The cost-utility of palonosetron-based therapy exceeds the $100,000/QALY threshold. Future research incorporating the price structure of all antiemetics following ondansetron's recent patent expiration is needed.

Anti-emetic drugs in oncology: pharmacology and individualization by pharmacogenetics

OBJECTIVE

Nausea and vomiting are the most distressful side effects of cytotoxic drugs in cancer patients. Antiemetics are commonly used to reduce these side effects. However, the current antiemetic efficacy is about 70-80% in patients treated with highly-emetogenic cytotoxic drugs. One of the potential factors explaining this suboptimal response is variability in genes encoding enzymes and proteins which play a role in metabolism, transport and receptors related to antiemetic drugs. Aim of this review was to describe the pharmacology and pharmacogenetic concepts of of antiemetics in oncology.

METHOD

Pharmacogenetic and pharmacology studies of antiemetics in oncology published between January 1997 and February 2010 were searched in PubMed. Furthermore, related textbooks were also used for exploring the pharmacology of antiemetic drugs. The antiemetic drugs which were searched were the 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, antihistamines and neurokinin-1 antagonists.

RESULT

The 5-HT3RAs are widely used in highly emetogenic chemotherapy in combination with dexamethasone and a neurokinin-1 antagonist, especially in acute phase. However, the dopamine antagonists and benzodiazepines were found more appropriate for use in breakthrough and anticipatory symptoms or in preventing the delayed phase of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The use of cannabinoids and antihistamines need further investigation. Only six articles on pharmacogenetics of the 5-HT3RAs in highly emetogenic chemotherapy are published. Specifically, these studies investigated the association of the efficacy of 5-HT3RAs and variants in the multi drug resistance 1 (MDR1) gene, 5-HT3A,B and C receptor genes and CYP2D6 gene. The pharmacogenetic studies of the other antiemetics were not found in this review.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that pharmacogenetic studies with antiemetics are sparse. It is too early to implement results of pharmacogenetic association studies of antiemetic drugs in clinical practice: confirmation of early findings is required.

Use of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a serious adverse effect of chemotherapy that limits patients' physical, mental, and functional capabilities and may cause a delay or cessation of treatment. Antiemetic therapy can reduce the incidence of CINV. Research, using data from visits by patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), identified that antiemetics were prescribed for 86% (in 2007) and 82% (in 2008) of patients receiving MEC or HEC. For these visits, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists were prescribed in at least 97% of visits for both years, whereas neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists were prescribed at a rate of 10% and 11%, respectively. Studies show that nurses and physicians underestimate the incidence of CINV after HEC and MEC. Oncology nurses often critically influence patients' selection of CINV therapy and can play a significant role in increasing awareness about the benefits of adding an NK-1 receptor antagonist to standard prophylactic regimens for acute and delayed CINV.

Differential time course of action of 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists when used with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC)

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to further investigate the impact of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant on these patterns.

METHODS

Three phase III HEC (patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy) and one phase III MEC (breast cancer patients scheduled to receive anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)) trials of aprepitant were included. In all studies, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or the standard regimen (ondansetron plus dexamethasone). The exact dosing regimen for ondansetron and dexamethasone was different in each study. In a post hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on first emesis at different time intervals after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred twenty-seven patients and 856 patients were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials, respectively. For HEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-77% vs. standard regimen, beginning 15-18 h after cisplatin and extending to 60 h. For MEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-61% vs. active control, beginning 3 h after AC and for up to 12 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Time of onset and duration of enhanced control of emesis with the addition of aprepitant differed between HEC and MEC. This suggests that the pattern of NK1-sensitive mechanisms may vary for different chemotherapy regimens.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

CONTEXT

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem in the treatment of children with cancer. The last decade has seen a variety of newer antiemetics being evaluated for CINV; their efficacy and side effects need to be assessed in children. This article attempts to highlight this revised management of CINV.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Online search; journals. Search period: 6 months.

RESULTS

Newer drugs (aprepitant, fosapritant and newer 5HT3 antagonists) have been found to be effective in CINV: both acute and delayed phases. Most of the available literature is, however, based on adult oncology patients, with a few trials on adolescent patients.

CONCLUSION

Every child receiving treatment for cancer should be evaluated for possible CINV. Their treatment should take into account the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic drugs. Newer antiemetic drugs have good efficacy and can be tried in pediatric patients, especially in children > 11 years of age.

Palonosetron in combination with 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial

PURPOSE

A phase III trial assessed the efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone given once in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial evaluated two different treatment groups. One group received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (8 mg intravenously) before chemotherapy, while the other was administered the same regimen on day 1 followed by dexamethasone 8 mg orally on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5 after chemotherapy initiation). The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 15% difference between groups in the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Of 332 chemotherapy-naïve patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 65.1% were female, and 35.2% received anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens. Overall CR rates were 67.5% for those administered dexamethasone only on day 1 (n = 166), and 71.1% for those also administered dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (n = 166; difference -3.6% (95% confidence interval, -13.5 to 6.3)). CR rates were not significantly different between groups during the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy; 88.6% versus 84.3%; P = 0.262) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 68.7% versus 77.7%; P = 0.116).

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone administered before common MEC regimens provide protection against acute and delayed CINV which is non-inferior to that of palonosetron plus dexamethasone for 3 days. However, the major benefit of the single-day regimen occurs in patients receiving non-AC MEC regimens.

Palonosetron plus 3-day aprepitant and dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The combination of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist is currently the standard antiemetic treatment in patients receiving cisplatin-based high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of palonosetron, a unique second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, aprepitant, the only approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving HEC (cisplatin ≥50 mg/mq).

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve adult patients, receiving cisplatin-based HEC, were treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg/i.v., dexamethasone 20 mg/i.v., and aprepitant 125 mg/p.o., 1-h before chemotherapy. Aprepitant 80 mg/p.o. and dexamethasone 4 mg p.o. were administered on days 2-3. Primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication), during the overall study period (0-120 h). Secondary end points were complete control (CR and no more than mild nausea), emesis-free rate, and nausea-free rate during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) periods. Safety was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included in the study. Median age was 62 years, 76.6% were male and 23.4% female, and most common tumors were lung (66.7%) and head and neck (15.8%); 70.3% of patients achieved CR during the overall study period. Complete control, emesis-free rate, and nausea-free rate were 70.3%, 92.8%, and 59.9%, respectively, during the overall phase. The most commonly reported side effects were constipation (39% of patients) and headache (5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that palonosetron in combination with aprepitant and dexamethasone is effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients treated with cisplatin-based HEC.