Comparison between 5-day aprepitant and single-dose fosaprepitant meglumine for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy

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.

Prevalence and predictors of long-delayed (> 120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although there have been reports of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) beyond 120 h, its overall prevalence has not been systematically examined. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to report on the prevalence of this long-delayed CINV.

METHODS

This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022346963). PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until August 2022. Articles were included if they reported on CINV > 120 h after initiation of the chemotherapy regimen and patients received a single-agent highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) antineoplastic agent for 1 day alone or in combination with low/minimal emetogenic chemotherapy. For all eligible articles, individual study authors were contacted and requested to provide individual patient-level data of demographics, emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens, and daily incidence of nausea and vomiting. Forward stepwise logistic regression identified predictors for the incident day's CINV based on prior day's CINV episodes, controlling for patient demographics, and stratified by regimen emetogenicity.

RESULTS

A total of 2048 patients from 2 studies were included in this individual patient data meta-analysis: 1333 patients (65%) received HEC and 715 (35%) received MEC. Among those receiving HEC, 325 (24%) experienced acute, 652 (49%) delayed, and 393 (31%) long-delayed nausea; 107 (8%) experienced acute, 179 (14%) delayed, and 79 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Among those receiving MEC, 48 (7%) experienced acute, 272 (38%) delayed, and 167 (24%) long-delayed nausea; 12 (2%) experienced acute, 97 (14%) delayed, and 42 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Nausea in the long-delayed phase was as severe as in the delayed phase. Patients experiencing nausea and vomiting on days 4 and 5 were at significant risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

CONCLUSION

While not as prevalent as delayed nausea and vomiting, long-delayed CINV affects a significant proportion of patients and severity is similar. Patients with delayed CINV, specifically on days 4-5, are at risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

Efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative data remain insufficient, as many new regimes lack head-to-head comparisons. In this study, through an indirect comparison, we overcome this limit by providing the most up-to-date estimate of the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until June, 30th 2022. We included phase II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was the overall complete response (defined as the absence of vomiting and of the use of rescue drugs from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of vomiting and use of rescue medicine 0-24 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (24-120 hrs) response and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 53 RCTs enrolling 22 228 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 21 different groups. Overall, 3- or 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, 5HT3 antagonists, mirtazapine or olanzapine with or without NK antagonists, yielded the highest probability to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response. Regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist have the lowest probability of being the most effective regimen in terms of complete, acute, and delayed response.

CONCLUSION

In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens with olanzapine displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response. A 3-drug regimen with olanzapine represents a valid option in a limited resource context.

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.

Long-Term Daily Administration of Aprepitant for the Management of Intractable Nausea and Vomiting in Children With Life-Limiting Conditions: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting is a common symptom in children through their end of life journey. Aprepitant, a NK-1 antagonist, has become a potent weapon in the fight against chemo-induced nausea and vomiting. However, its use in palliative care for refractory nausea and vomiting has been limited due to limited experience or evidence of continuous use. Emerging evidence suggests that continuous use is not only safe, but also effective in patients with nausea and vomiting refractory to multiple lines of antiemetic therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a single centre retrospective chart review of children receiving care from a specialist palliative care team who were given continuous daily aprepitant for nausea and vomiting and were unresponsive to at least two prior lines of antiemetic therapy. Parental reports of the impact of nausea on mobility and feeding were used as proxy efficacy markers. Duration of effect and toxicity was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Ten children (eight with cancer as a primary diagnosis and two with noncancer diagnoses) received continuous aprepitant and all showed resolution of nausea and vomiting and an increased ability to mobilize and tolerate feeds. No adverse events noted.

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests a role for aprepitant in management of refractory nausea and vomiting, demonstrating safety and efficacy. This case series is the first report of aprepitant use in this manner in the paediatric palliative care setting.

Fosaprepitant versus aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-simulated, positive-controlled phase III trial

Background

To establish the role of antiemetic therapy with neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists (RAs) in Chinese patients associated with cisplatin-base chemotherapy regimens, this study evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimen to a 3-day orally aprepitant-based antiemetic triplet schedule for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods

A randomized, double-blind, positive-control design was used to test the noninferiority of fosaprepitant towards aprepitant. Patients receiving cisplatin-base (≥50 mg/m²) chemotherapy were administrated palonosetron and dexamethasone with a single-dose fosaprepitant (150 mg on day 1) or a standard aprepitant regimen (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on day 2 and day 3). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during overall phase (OP). Secondary endpoints include CR during acute phase (AP) and delayed phase (DP), no vomiting and no significant nausea during OP, AP and DP. Accrual of 324 patients per treatment arm was planned to confirm noninferiority with expected CR of 75% and noninferiority margin of minus 10 percentage points.

Results

A total of 648 patients were randomly assigned, and 644 were evaluable for efficacy and safety. Antiemetic efficacy of CR during the OP with fosaprepitant and aprepitant was equivalent (71.96% versus 69.35%, P=0.4894). And a between-group difference of 2.61 percentage points was finally achieved (95% CI, -4.42 to 9.64) within predefined bounds for noninferiority (primary end point achieved). Both regimens were well tolerated and commonly reported adverse events (≥1%) were similar between these two group.

Conclusions

Single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone was well tolerated and demonstrated noninferior control of CINV to aprepitant-based triple regimen in Chinese patients treating with cisplatin-base chemotherapy.

Ghrelin and electrical stimulating the lateral hypothalamus area regulated the discharges of gastric distention neurons via the dorsal vagal complex in cisplatin-treated rats

OBJECTIVE

Cisplatin is an important antineoplastic drug and has side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and dyspepsia. The detailed mechanisms for its side effects are yet not well be illustrated. Our purpose was to investigate the discharges of gastric distention (GD) sensitive neurons regulated by ghrelin and electrical stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus area (LHA) via the dorsal vagal complex (DVC) in cisplatin-treated rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Extracellular discharge recording was performed to observe the effects of ghrelin and electrical stimulation of the LHA on discharges of GD neurons in the DVC.

RESULTS

GD neurons were recorded in DVC in saline-treated and cisplatin-treated rats and identified as GD-excitatory (GD-E) neurons, which are excited by gastric distension, and GD-inhibitory (GE-I) neurons, which are inhibited by gastric distension. Microinjection of ghrelin into the DVC increased the firing frequency of most GD neurons, while the ratios of excited GD-E and GD-I neurons in cisplatin-treated rats were significantly lower than those in saline-treated rats. The excitatory effect of ghrelin was eliminated completely by DVC pretreatment with ghrelin receptor antagonist [D-Lys-3]-GHRP-6. After electrical stimulation of the LHA, the firing frequency of these neurons significantly increased. This excitatory effect was weaker in cisplatin-treated rats than in saline-treated rats and could be partly blocked by DVC pretreatment with [D-Lys-3]-GHRP-6.

CONCLUSION

GD neurons in the DVC could be excited by microinjecting ghrelin into the DVC and electrical stimulation of the LHA, respectively. The excitatory effect was attenuated by cisplatin injected intraperitoneally.

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.

Addition of 3-day aprepitant to ondansetron and dexamethasone for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma receiving 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, such as aprepitant are currently emerging as powerful prophylactic agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Therefore, it is important to adjust the anti-emetic regimens based on personal risk factors of the patient, duration of the chemotherapy regimen and cost-effectiveness.

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy of the 3-day aprepitant along with ondansetron and dexamethasone in controlling CINV in patients with large B cell lymphoma receiving multiday-cisplatin regimen chemotherapy.

METHODS

This is a pilot prospective cross-over trial. Patients were allocated to either aprepitant 125mg on day 1 and 80mg on days 2 & 3 or placebo in the first 2 cycles, with crossover to the opposite treatment in the 3rd and 4th cycles. The primary end point was complete response (CR) of both acute (days 1-5) and delayed (days 6-8) CINV. CR means neither to develop emetic episodes nor to use rescue anti-emetics medication.

RESULTS

Twelve of the 15 patients recruited for the study were fully evaluable and completed 4 cycles of ESHAP regimen with a total of 48 cycles given. In the cycles with aprepitant and those without the CR were 83.3% and 0% respectively (p<0.05). Patients receiving aprepitant in the first 2 cycles recorded less nausea in subsequent cycles that were given without aprepitant. This was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This triple anti-emetic regimen showed efficacy in controlling the multi-day cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to compare between 3-day and 7-day aprepitant for multi-day cisplatin regimens.

Efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese people: A randomized, double-blind, phase III study

The prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting was one of the most challenging supportive care issues in oncology, especially to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). A total of 645 patients were randomized into fosaprepitant group (fosaprepitant/placebo 150 mg d1 in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone) or aprepitant group (aprepitant/placebo 125 mg d1; 80 mg d2‐d3 plus granisetron and dexamethasone).The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who had a complete response (CR) over the entire treatment course (0–120 hr, overall phase [OP]). It was assessed by using a non‐inferiority model, with a non‐inferiority margin of 10%. The difference of the CR rate was compared between two groups with chi‐square analysis. Six hundred and twenty‐six patients were included in the per protocol analysis. The percentage of patients with a CR in the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that in the aprepitant group (90.85% versus 94.17%, p = .1302) during OP. Whether the cisplatin‐based chemotherapy or not, the CR rate of the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that of the aprepitant group. Both regimens were well tolerated. The most common adverse event was constipation. Fosaprepitant provided effective and well‐tolerated control of nausea and vomiting associated with HEC in Chinese patients.

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.

Neurokinin-1 inhibitors in the prevention of nausea and vomiting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

A network meta-analysis of the comparative effectiveness of neurokinin 1 (NK-1) inhibitors in the prophylaxis of highly emetogenic chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting has been conducted. Eligible studies included randomized trials evaluating aprepitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant (NEPA), casopitant and rolapitant containing regimens in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest include complete response (CR) and rate of no significant nausea. After preclusion of ineligible studies, 19 studies were included in the final analysis. The majority of the regimens containing NK-1 inhibitors (including NEPA, aprepitant/palonosetron (palono)/dexamethasone (dexa), casopitant/granisetron (grani) or ondansetron (ondan)/dexa, aprepitant/ondan/dexa) are better than regimens not containing them (palono/dexa, ondan/dexa, grani/dexa) in terms of achieving a CR in the overall phase. Moreover, casopitant/grani or ondan/dexa and aprepitant/grani or ondan/dexa are better than rolapitant/ondan or grani/dexa in terms of CR achievement [odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% credible interval (CrI) 1.14-2.23, and OR 1.28, 95% CrI 1.01-1.59, respectively]. Taking into consideration the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, regimens containing neurokinin inhibitors are associated with higher CR rates than regimens not containing them. Moreover, casopitant and aprepitant regimens seem to be more effective than rolapitant regimens.

Fosaprepitant dimeglumine for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: patient selection and perspectives

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of antineoplastic agents. Several treatment regimens are used to address this problem. Fosaprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor blocker used in the prevention and treatment of CINV, especially for moderately and severely emetogenic chemotherapy. It is highly effective in the treatment of delayed CINV. Data from previous studies show that fosaprepitant is noninferior to aprepitant in the management of CINV. Fosaprepitant is given as a single-dose intravenous infusion, thus offering better patient compliance. The dose-limiting side effect of fosaprepitant is an infusion-related reaction, ranging from pain at the infusion site to thrombophlebitis. This side effect has been reported with coadministration of anthracycline agents.