Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists

Defining the clinical benefits of adding a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis 2023 from the Japan society of clinical oncology

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly affects patient quality of life and the overall effectiveness of chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) and corticosteroids provides clinically meaningful benefits in preventing CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web to identify clinical studies evaluating NK1RAs combined with 5-HT3RAs and dexamethasone for managing CINV in MEC. The endpoints were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), total control (TC), adverse events, and costs. The data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

From 142 articles identified, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 4,405 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Approximately 60% of the patients received carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. The meta-analysis showed that triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1RA was significantly more effective for achieving CR than doublet prophylaxis in each phase. Regarding CC, the triplet antiemetic prophylaxis was significantly more effective than the doublet in the overall (risk difference [RD]: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.17) and delayed (RD: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13) phases. For TC, no significant differences were observed in any phase. Adding NK1RA did not cause adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding NK1RA to CBDCA-based chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits. However, the clinical benefits of NK1RA-containing regimens for overall MEC have not yet been established and require RCTs that exclusively evaluate MEC regimens other than CBDCA-based chemotherapy.

Characteristics of nausea and its impact on health-related quality of life in cisplatin-treated patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing prophylaxis: an analysis of the LUNG-NEPA study

PURPOSE

We investigated the intensity and duration of nausea as well as its impact on health-related quality of life among cisplatin-treated patients who participated in a study of dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens based on NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included chemo-naive patients from a trial evaluating non-inferiority of DEX on day 1 (DEX1 arm) combined with NEPA, compared with the same regimen with DEX administered on days 1-4 (DEX4; reference arm) following cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) administration. Nausea intensity was self-rated using a four-point Likert scale. Extended nausea duration was considered ≥ 3 days within the 5 days post-chemotherapy. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on day 6.

RESULTS

In the DEX1 arm, more patients (20/76) experienced acute nausea, influencing the outcome of delayed nausea (38/76). During days 1 to 5, 51.3% (39/76) and 39.5% (30/76) of patients experienced nausea in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms, respectively (P = 0.192). Of these, 43.6% and 60% reported moderate-to-severe nausea, respectively, in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms (P = 0.200), while 74.4% and 56.7% of patients experienced extended nausea duration (P = 0.122). Similar between-arm rates of nauseated patients reported an impact on daily life (79.5% vs. 70%; P = 0.408). In analyses stratified for antiemetic regimen, moderate-to-severe nausea or extended nausea duration was associated with an impact on daily life (P ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the higher incidence, there was no suggestion of any strong adverse effect of NEPA plus single-dose DEX on the characteristics of nausea as well as its impact on daily life in patients with cisplatin-induced nausea. Further prospective controlled study is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019.

Xiaobanxia decoction alleviates chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by inhibiting GSDME-mediated pyroptosis

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Xiaobanxia Decoction (XBXD), a traditional antiemetic formula, is effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but its underlying mechanism has not been fully clarified.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To investigate whether the antiemetic mechanisms of XBXD against CINV is associated with the reduction of GSDME-mediated pyroptosis and the alleviation of gastrointestinal inflammation induced by cisplatin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We established the in vivo pica rat model and the in vitro small intestinal epithelial cell (IEC-6 cell) injury model by cisplatin challenge. The levels of ROS, IL-1β, IL-18, HMGB1 were measured by ELISA. The histopathological changes of gastrointestinal (GI) tissues were examined by HE staining. The expression and localization of GSDME in GI tissues were determined by IHC. The GSDME mRNA expression in GI tissues was determined by RT-PCR. The IEC-6 cell viability was detected by CCK-8. The morphology of IEC-6 cells was observed by optical microscope and scanning electron microscopy. Pyroptosis was examined using Hoechst33342/PI staining. The intracellular ROS levels were measured with the fluorescent probe DCFH-DA. The expression levels of JNK, p-JNK, Bax, Bcl-2, caspase-9, caspase-3 and GSDME in GI tissues and IEC-6 cells were determined by WB.

RESULTS

We found that the cumulative kaolin intake (pica behavior, analogous to emesis) significantly increased in cisplatin-treated rats, accompanied by significant inflammatory pathological changes of GI tissues. XBXD decreased the cumulative kaolin intake and alleviated GI inflammation in cisplatin-treated rats by inhibiting the activation of the ROS/JNK/Bax signaling pathway and by reducing GSDME-mediated pyroptosis. Additionally, cisplatin damaged IEC-6 cells by activating GSDME-dependent pyroptosis. XBXD reduced GSDME-mediated IEC-6 cell pyroptotic death by regulating the ROS/JNK/Bax signaling pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that GSDME-mediated pyroptosis greatly contributes to the occurrence of CINV, and suppressing GSDME-mediated pyroptosis is the important antiemetic mechanism of XBXD.

Fosaprepitant: current options to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A review

Background. Chemotherapy (CT) is a mainstay of treatment for malignant tumors. CT-induced nausea and vomiting are observed in 3090% of patients within 0120 h after moderate and highly emetogenic CT administration. These adverse events can severely impact the quality of treatment, daily life, and adherence to treatment, thus reducing the effectiveness of therapy and survival. Materials and methods. The author provides the results of a systematic review of research papers, including clinical studies, on the efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist fosaprepitant to prevent CT-induced nausea and vomiting. Data from the PubMed database were reviewed. Results. The prevention and treatment of CT-associated nausea and vomiting are vital during special therapy, including symptomatic therapy. International organizations recommend using a triple combination with antagonists of neurokinin-1 and 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptors and dexamethasone. According to the data obtained, the efficacy of fosaprepitant has been proven in delayed and general phases in several large, well-planned studies; the drug reduces the incidence of adverse events by 2.74.4 times compared with aprepitant. Conclusion. Fosaprepitant is an antagonist of neurokinin-1 receptors; when administered intravenously, it rapidly converts into aprepitant. When used as part of a triple combination with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone in patients receiving moderate and highly emetogenic CT leads to a higher rate of complete response when controlling nausea and vomiting. In general, fosaprepitant is well tolerated.

Efficacy of the dexamethasone-sparing triplet regimen for preventing cisplatin-induced emesis: a combined analysis

Aim: To further evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of single-dose versus multiple-dose dexamethasone (DEX) against nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin. Materials & methods: Two similar non-inferiority studies were pooled. Patients were randomized to single-day DEX or multiple-day DEX plus palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase. Results: The combined analysis included 242 patients. The absolute risk difference between single day versus multi-day DEX for CR was -2% (95% CI, -14 to 9%). Conclusion: Administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in the setting of single-day cisplatin.

Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study

Background

The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

Methods

Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis.

Results

In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL.

Conclusion

Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Antiemetic prophylaxis for chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in locally advanced head and heck squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective phase II trial

Background

There is sparse research reporting effective interventions for preventing nausea and emesis caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC).

Methods

Treatment-naïve LA-HNSCC patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concomitant cisplatin 100 mg/m² (33 mg/m²/days [d]1–3) every 3 weeks for two cycles. All patients were given oral aprepitant 125 mg once on d1, then 80 mg once on d2–5; ondansetron 8 mg once on d1; and dexamethasone 12 mg once on d1, then 8 mg on d2–5. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR). Pursuant to δ = 0.2 and α = 0.05, the expected CR rate was 80%.

Results

A total of 43 patients with LA-HNSCC were enrolled. The median age was 53 years, and 86.0% were male. All patients received radiotherapy and 86.0% of patients completed both cycles as planned. The overall CR rate was 86.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1–94.7). The CR rates for cycles 1 and 2 were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9–96.1) and 89.2% (95% CI: 74.6–97.0). The complete protection rate in the overall phase was 72.1% (95% CI: 56.3–84.7). The emesis-free and nausea-free responses in the overall phase were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9–96.1) and 60.5% (95% CI: 44.4–75.0), respectively. The adverse events related to antiemetics were constipation (65.1%) and hiccups (16.3%), but both were grade 1–2. There was no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related toxicity with antiemetic usage.

Conclusion

The addition of aprepitant into ondansetron and dexamethasone provided effective protection from nausea and emesis in patients with LA-HNSCC receiving radiotherapy and concomitant high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

A real-world study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of three injectable neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist formulations for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients

Background

Three different injectable neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist formulations (CINVANTI® [C] vs. intravenous Emend® [E] vs. generic formulations of fosaprepitant [GFF]) were compared with respect to nausea and vomiting control, use of rescue therapy, and the development of infusion reactions over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis from 17 community oncology practices across the USA was conducted on patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The co-primary endpoints were the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) from days 1 to 5 over all cycles and the frequency of infusion-related reactions. Propensity score weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare complete CINV control, the use of rescue therapy, and the risk of infusion reactions between groups.

Results

The study enrolled 294 patients (C = 101, E = 101, GFF = 92) who received 1432 cycles of chemotherapy. Using CINVANTI® as the reference group, comparative effectiveness was suggested in CINV control over all chemotherapy cycles (odds ratio (OR): E vs. C = 1.00 [0.54 to 1.86] and GFF vs. C = 1.12 [0.54 to 2.32]). However, use of rescue therapy was significantly higher in the EMEND® group relative to CINVANTI® (OR = 2.69; 95%CI: 1.06 to 6.84). Infusion reactions were also numerically higher in the EMEND® group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR = 4.35; 95%CI: 0.83 to 22.8).

Conclusions

In this real-world analysis, patients receiving CINVANTI® had a reduced need for CINV rescue therapy and a numerically lower incidence of infusion reactions.

Quality of Life Effects of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prevention: Real-World Evidence in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Anthracycline-Cyclophosphamide-Based Chemotherapy

Introduction

In a prospective non-interventional study involving 2,173 patients, we showed that use of the oral fixed combination of netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy (Ctx)-induced nausea and vomiting has beneficial effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with various types of cancers receiving highly or moderately emetogenic Ctx. Here, we report on the effects on QoL, effectiveness, and tolerability of NEPA in patients with breast cancer exposed to anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based Ctx.

Methods

This is a post hoc subanalysis of a prospective non-interventional study in 1,197 patients with breast cancer receiving up to 3 cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide and NEPA. NEPA administration was per the summary of product characteristics.

Results

In cycle 1 of Ctx, a large proportion of patients (84%) reported "no impact on daily life" (NIDL) due to vomiting; 53% of patients reported NIDL due to nausea. The complete response rate was 86/88/81% in the acute/delayed/overall phase in cycle 1, and NEPA was well tolerated throughout the study.

Conclusion

The real-world beneficial effects of NEPA prophylaxis on QoL were confirmed for patients with breast cancer receiving AC. NEPA was effective with a good safety profile in this patient population in clinical practice.

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Real-world multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of netupitant plus palonosetron fixed-dose combination to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among Malaysian patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy

AIM

A large proportion of cancer patients are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but the choice of anti-emetics for CINV in Malaysia is limited.

METHODS

This was a real-world study of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) to inhibit CINV in adult patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for solid/hematological malignancies at eight Malaysian centers. Each HEC/MEC cycle received one dose of NEPA + dexamethasone for CINV prevention. Complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) (CR), no more than mild nausea (severity score ≤ 2.5), and complete control (CR) (no more than mild nausea) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy were measured. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

During March 2016-April 2018 (NMRR-17-3286-38282), NEPA + dexamethasone was administered to 54 patients (77.8% solid, 22.2% hematological malignancies). Note that 59.3% received HEC, while 40.7% received MEC regimen. During the overall phase of the first cycle, the majority had CR (77.8%), no more than mild nausea (74.1%), and complete control (61.1%). Seventeen patients received two consecutive cycles at any point of chemotherapy cycles. During the overall phases across two consecutive cycles, all patients achieved CR, and the majority reported no more than mild nausea and complete control. No grades 3-4 AEs were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA had sustained efficacy and tolerability at first administration and across two cycles of MEC/HEC for CINV prevention.

Evaluation of Adherence to Antiemetic Treatment Guidelines in Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Teaching Hospitals in Tehran

The present study evaluated adherence to antiemetic guidelines for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in four tertiary university teaching hospitals in Tehran. This prospective observational study enrolled 382 adult patients on chemotherapy at oncology centers affiliated to medical universities located in Tehran. Patients were followed up during their chemotherapy cycles. Risk factors related to CINV were evaluated, and information on antiemetic prescribing patterns was gathered using direct interview and patient medical records. Guideline adherence was found to be low; however, 81.3% of the patients experienced chemotherapy without CINV. Low frequency of adherence to the guidelines in prescription patterns does not mean that prescription patterns were very different. Indeed, some drugs were added to base guideline recommendation regiments, since in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy categories, some novel antiemetics recommended by international guidelines are not yet included in Iranian pharmacopeia. It was shown that two drug classes were added as a common practice, namely, H1/H2 antagonists and dopamine receptor antagonist (metoclopramide). Statistically significant differences were found between antiemetic prescribing patterns of physicians and chemotherapy regimen category (aspect of emetogenic potential) (p < 0.001). The most commonly prescribed regimen in the minimal-emetic-risk category and the low-emetic-risk category was reported to be the combination of corticosteroids, 5HT3, and H1/H2 antagonists, 33% and 66.1% respectively. Moreover, corticosteroids +5HT3 and H1/H2 antagonists + NK1 antagonist were found to be the most frequently prescribed regimen in the moderate-emetic-risk category (39.7%) and high-emetic-risk category (41.8%). Antiemetic prescribing patterns were not completely compatible with the guidelines in moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy categories. Differences were detected in two states of over- and undertreatment. The present study confirmed low level of adherence of antiemetic prescribing patterns with international guidelines. However, it could not be proved that high levels of adherence with the guidelines result in reduction of CINV incidence. Complete success in CINV control cannot be achieved only by adherence to the established guidelines as novel antiemetics recommended by the guidelines have not been included in the Iranian pharmacopeia as yet. The authors do recommend implementation of strategies for increasing guideline-compliant prescriptions with the aim of improving patients' outcomes. We also suggest that policymakers in healthcare system point more critically to overprescribing as an issue of concern.

Practice Patterns for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Antiemetic Guideline Adherence Based on Real-World Prescribing Data

BACKGROUND

Guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)- and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)-based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin.

METHODS

The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 45,324 chemotherapy-treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK1 RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin-, AC-, and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification.

CONCLUSION

Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC-/carboplatin-based treatments receiving guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control.

Single-dose netupitant/palonosetron versus 3-day aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pooled analysis

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p < 0.05) and 78.4 versus 75.0% during the acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. Conclusion: Oral NEPA administered on day 1 was more effective than a 3-day APR regimen in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin.

Data Quality of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Documentation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to characterize the completeness and concordance of the electronic health record (EHR) documentation of cancer symptoms among multidisciplinary health care professionals.

METHODS

We examined the EHRs of children, adolescents, and young adults who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy and characterized the completeness and concordance of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) documentation by clinician type and by the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) coding choice.

RESULTS

The EHRs of 127 patients, comprising 870 patient notes, were abstracted and reviewed. A CINV assessment was documented by prescribers in 75% of patients, and by nurses in 58% of patients. Of the 60 encounters where both prescribers and nurses documented, 72% agreed on the presence/absence of CINV.

CONCLUSION

Most patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy had a documented assessment of CINV; however, many had incomplete or discordant documentation of CINV from different providers by role, implying the importance of incorporating pragmatic knowledge of EHR documentation patterns among multidisciplinary health professionals for EHR phenotyping and clinical decision support systems directed toward cancer-related symptom management.

Electrical Stimulation of PC 6 to Control Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: A complementary treatment for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with promising results is electrostimulation of Pericardium 6 (PC 6; Neiguan). This review was conducted to evaluate the effects of electrostimulation therapy at PC 6 to control CINV in patients with cancer. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018087753). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was accomplished according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Studies written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish that met the eligibility criteria organized according to the PICO [Patient, Problem or Population; Intervention; Comparison, Control, or comparator; Outcome(s)] anagram were included. Descriptors used to search the databases were identified and selected according to the Medical Subject Headings of the National Library of Medicine. The primary outcomes evaluated were the frequency and severity of nausea, vomiting, and general emesis after the experimental protocol. The secondary outcomes evaluated were the numbers of antiemetic pills taken and the patients' quality of life. Results: Fourteen articles were included. There was a reduction in the mean number of episodes of acute nausea (mean difference [MD] = -2.08; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = -2.76, -1.39) and acute vomiting (MD = -0.91; 95% CI = -1.39, -0.42) or delayed (MD = -0.85; 95%CI = -1.47, -0.23) in patients given the treatment. The other analyses of nausea, vomiting and emesis showed no differences. Conclusions: Electrostimulation at PC6 has an effect on controlling general emesis, and acute nausea and vomiting in different phases of recovery from chemotherapy in patients with cancer.

Asymmetric Synthesis of Merck's Potent hNK1 Antagonist and Its Stereoisomers via Tandem Acylation/[3,3]-Rearrangement of 1,2-Oxazine N-Oxides

An asymmetric total synthesis of Merck's hNK₁ antagonist and three of its stereoisomers was accomplished in 10 steps. The synthesis involves a stereoselective assembly of 1,2-oxazine N-oxide by the [4 + 2]-cycloaddition, site-selective C-H oxygenation using a novel tandem acylation/[3,3]-rearrangement process and the reductive 1,2-oxazine ring contraction into a pyrrolidine ring as key stages. Using this strategy, the fused pyrrolidine subunit was constructed with exceptionally high regio- and stereoselectivities. The approach described here can be used to access enantiopure 3,4-disubstituted prolinols, which are frequently found in pharmaceutically relevant molecules and organocatalysts.

A novel effect of Aprepitant: Protection for cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity

Cisplatin is widely used chemotherapeutic drug and have some serious side effects as tissue toxicity and nausea and vomiting. Aprepitant is used in clinic as an anti-emetic drug for cisplatin treated patient to prevent nausea and vomiting. We aimed to investigate the protective effects of Aprepitant on cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity. In total 42 male rats were separated into six groups (n = 7). A single dose of cisplatin (10 mg/kg i.p.) was administered to induce toxicity on first day. Different doses of Aprepitant (5, 10 and 20 mg/kg, p.o.) were given to treatment groups during 3 days. After the experimental procedures serum enzymes (ALT, AST, ALP, BUN and Creatinin), kidney and liver oxidative parameters (SOD, GSH and MDA), inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α and NF-κB) and Cyp2e1 expressions analyzed. Histopathological investigations also performed for all groups. Cisplatin caused tissue toxicity in both kidney and liver. Serum enzymes, tissue cytokines and oxidative stress were increased after the Cis treatment. Aprepitant treatment normalized all parameters compared to cisplatin treated group. Cisplatin significantly increased the Cyp2e1 expression in the kidney while significantly decreased in the liver compared to Healthy group. Histopathologically, it was shown that cisplatin causes a lot of abnormal structures as inflammatory infiltration and necrosis on the liver and kidney. Similar the biochemical and molecular results, aprepitant showed positive effects on tissue pathological parameters. With its main anti-emetic effect, Aprepitant treatment may be an effective option for cancer patients if they have additional injury as nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity due to cisplatin.

Real-world evidence of NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron, in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention: effects on quality of life

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)–based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. ‘No impact on daily life’ due to vomiting was reported by 84%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) and dexamethasone for prevention of emesis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide: a multi-cycle, phase II study

Background

NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle.

Methods

In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2–4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined.

Results

Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65–0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4).

Conclusion

The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle.

Trial registration

This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019.

Impact of dexamethasone-sparing regimens on delayed nausea caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of randomised evidence

BACKGROUND

Nausea can be particularly prominent during the delayed period. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the available randomised evidence to assess the average effect of palonosetron plus one-day dexamethasone (DEX; also called the DEX-sparing strategy) compared with palonosetron plus 3-day DEX for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), focusing on delayed nausea.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Data on acute and delayed CINV were collected. Efficacy end points were complete response (CR; no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), complete protection (CP; CR plus no clinically significant nausea), and total control (TC; CR plus no nausea) during the delayed period (days 2-5 after chemotherapy initiation). All randomised studies comparing palonosetron plus single-dose DEX (with or without another active agent) on day 1 followed by either no further DEX or additional DEX doses (both alone or in combination with another active agent) qualified.

RESULTS

Of 864 citations screened, 8 studies with 1970 patients were included in the meta-analysis. During the delayed period, the combined odds ratio (OR) for all comparisons was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.12) for CR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.03) for CP, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77-1.11) for TC in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (AC). The absolute risk difference (RD) computations for all end points in the delayed period did not exceed the threshold of - 4% (range, - 1% to - 4%). The effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. The absolute RD computations in the acute period did not exceed the threshold of 1% (range, 0 to 1%). For one-day vs. 3-day DEX, numbers needed to be treated in order for one additional patient to not experience CR, CP and TC over the delayed period were 100, 25 and 50, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that DEX-sparing regimens do not cause any significant loss in protection against not only vomiting but also nausea induced by single-day MEC or AC during the delayed period. These data should lead clinicians to optimise use of prophylactic DEX in clinical practice.

Antagonism of NK-1R using aprepitant suppresses inflammatory response in rheumatoid arthritis fibroblast-like synoviocytes

Chronic inflammation in fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLSs) induced by pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α plays a key role in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) is one of the G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) mediating the intracellular signalling of substance P (SP). However, the possible implications of NK-1R in rheumatoid arthritis fibroblast-like synoviocytes (RA-FLSs) and the pathogenesis of RA have not yet been reported. In the current study, we report that NK-1R is expressed in FLSs. Importantly, NK-1R expression was found to be significantly increased in RA-FLSs compared to normal FLSs. Interestingly, we found that treatment with tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α increased the expression of NK-1R at both the gene and protein levels. Treatment with the NK-1R antagonist aprepitant reduced TNF-α-induced expression of NADPH oxidase 4 (NOX-4) and generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in FLSs. Our results also display that blockage of NF-1R using aprepitant inhibited TNF-α-induced expression and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1β (IL-1β), IL-6, and IL-8. Consistently, aprepitant prevented TNF-α-induced expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), including matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) and matrix metalloproteinase-13 (MMP-13). Mechanistically, our data demonstrate that treatment with aprepitant inhibited TNF-α-induced phosphorylation and degradation of inhibitor of NF-κB (IκBα). Notably, aprepitant attenuated TNF-α-induced nuclear translocation of nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) p65 and reduced luciferase activity of NF-κB in FLSs. The findings implicated a novel function of NK-1R in RA-FLSs. Blockage of NK-1R using its specific antagonist aprepitant might provide a new therapeutic strategy for RA.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with netupitant/palonosetron, the first fixed combination antiemetic: current and future perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV.

One shot NEPA plus dexamethasone to prevent multiple-day chemotherapy in sarcoma patients

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared and disturbing adverse events of cancer treatment associated with decreased adherence to effective chemotherapy regimens. For high-risk soft tissue sarcoma patients, receiving multiple-day chemotherapy (MD-CT), antiemetic guidelines recommend a combination of an NK₁ receptor antagonist (NK₁-RA), a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist (5HT₃-RA), and dexamethasone on each day of the antineoplastic treatment. NEPA is the first oral fixed-dose combination of a highly selective NK₁-RA, netupitant, and second-generation 5HT₃-RA, palonosetron. So far, no data has been published in literature about the efficacy of a single dose of NEPA in MD-CT.

Methods

We performed a prospective, non-comparative study to assess the efficacy of one shot of NEPA plus dexamethasone in sarcoma patients receiving MD-CT. The primary efficacy endpoint was a complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0–120 h) in cycle 1. The main secondary endpoints were CR during the overall phase of cycles 2 and 3.

Results

The primary endpoint was reached in 88.9% of patients. Cycles 2 and 3 overall CR rates were 88.9% and 82.4%, respectively. The antiemetic regimen was well tolerated.

Conclusions

This pilot study showed the benefit of one shot of NEPA to prevent CINV in sarcoma patients receiving MD-chemotherapy.

Timing flexibility of oral NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron combination, administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

PURPOSE

The administration timing of antiemetic and chemotherapeutic regimens is often determined by regulatory indications, based on registration studies. Oral NEPA, fixed combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT₃RA) palonosetron, is recommended to be administered approximately 60 min before chemotherapy. Reducing chair time for chemotherapy administration at oncology day therapy units would improve facility efficiency without compromising patient symptom management. The objective was to determine if oral NEPA can be administered closer to chemotherapy initiation without compromising patient symptom management.

METHODS

NK₁ receptor occupancy (NK₁RO) time course in the brain was determined using positron emission tomography; netupitant and palonosetron plasma concentration-time profiles were described by pharmacokinetic (PK) models; and the rate, extent, and duration of RO by netupitant and palonosetron were predicted by pharmacodynamic modeling. Clinical efficacy data from a pivotal study in cisplatin and oral NEPA-receiving patients were reviewed in the context of symptom management.

RESULTS

Striatal 90% NK₁RO, assumed to correlate with NK₁RA antiemetic efficacy, was predicted at netupitant plasma concentration of 225 ng/mL, reached at 2.23 h following NEPA administration. Palonosetron 90% 5-HT₃RO was predicted at a 188-ng/L plasma concentration, reached at 1.05 h postdose. The mean time to first treatment failure for the 1.5% of NEPA-treated patients without complete response receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy was 8 h. Antiemetic efficacy was sustained over 5 days despite the expected decrease of NK₁RO and 5-HT₃RO.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that administering oral NEPA closer to initiation of cisplatin administration would provide similar antiemetic efficacy. Prospective clinical validation is required.

Risk Factors Associated With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea in the Week Before the Next Cycle and Impact of Nausea on Quality of Life Outcomes

CONTEXT

Despite current advances in antiemetic treatments, between 19% and 58% of oncology patients experience chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN).

OBJECTIVES

Aims of this post hoc exploratory analysis were to determine occurrence, severity, and distress of CIN and evaluate for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress; and quality of life (QOL) outcomes between oncology patients who did and did not report CIN in the week before chemotherapy (CTX). Demographic, clinical, symptom, and stress characteristics associated with CIN occurrence were determined.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1296) completed questionnaires that provided information on demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress, and QOL. Univariate analyses evaluated for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress, and QOL scores between the two patient groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate for factors associated with nausea group membership.

RESULTS

Of the 1296 patients, 47.5% reported CIN. In the CIN group, 15% rated CIN as severe and 23% reported high distress. Factors associated with CIN included less education; having childcare responsibilities; poorer functional status; higher levels of depression, sleep disturbance, evening fatigue, and intrusive thoughts; as well as receipt of CTX on a 14-day CTX cycle and receipt of an antiemetic regimen that contained serotonin receptor antagonist and steroid. Patients in the CIN group experienced clinically meaningful decrements in QOL.

CONCLUSION

This study identified new factors (e.g., poorer functional status, stress) associated with CIN occurrence. CIN negatively impacted patients' QOL. Pre-emptive and ongoing interventions may alleviate CIN occurrence in high-risk patients.

Rolapitant for the prevention of nausea in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Most patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting without antiemetic prophylaxis. While neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) effectively prevent emesis, their ability to prevent nausea has not been established. We evaluated the efficacy of the long-acting NK-1RA rolapitant in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea using post hoc analyses of data from 3 phase 3 trials. Patients were randomized to receive 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo approximately 1-2 hours before chemotherapy in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Nausea was assessed by visual analog scale during the acute (≤24 hours), delayed (>24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) phases. Post hoc analyses by treatment group (rolapitant vs control) were performed on pooled data within patient subgroups receiving cisplatin-based, carboplatin-based, or anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. In the cisplatin-based chemotherapy group, significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reported no nausea (NN) in the overall (52.3% vs 41.7% [P < .001]; absolute benefit [AB] = 10.6%), delayed (55.7% vs 44.3% [P < .001]; AB = 11.4%), and acute (70.5% vs 64.3% [P = .030]; AB = 6.2%) phases. Similar results were observed in the carboplatin-based chemotherapy group, with significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reporting NN in the overall (62.5% vs 51.2% [P = .023]; AB = 11.3%) and delayed (64.1% vs 53.6% [P = .034]; AB = 10.5%) phases. In the AC-based chemotherapy group, patients receiving rolapitant or control reported similar NN rates during the overall and delayed phases. Rolapitant effectively prevents nausea during the overall and delayed phases in patients receiving cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy.