Comparison of L-758,298, a prodrug for the selective neurokinin-1 antagonist, L-754,030, with ondansetron for the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis

Preparation and Characterization of Aprepitant Solid Dispersion with HPMCAS-LF

This study focused on improving the physicochemical characteristics of aprepitant with poor water solubility by preparing solid dispersion (SD). To prepare the SD with HPMCAS-LF, the solvent evaporation method was applied. Based on dissolution analysis, the dissolution rate of SD increased by five times compared with aprepitant. In addition, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results suggested the presence of amorphous-form aprepitant inside SD. According to Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, intermolecular hydrogen bonds were detected between polymer and aprepitant. The Caco-2 cell experiment proved that SD did not lower the transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) values but improved the permeation amount of aprepitant. Additionally, the SD of aprepitant displayed excellent stability.

Fabrication of an aprepitant nanosuspension using hydroxypropyl chitosan to increase the bioavailability

Aprepitant has been classified into BCS class IV, which has low permeability and poor water solubility, resulting in low bioavailability. This study focused on improving its permeability and solubility in order to improve the oral bioavailability of aprepitant. Hydroxypropyl chitosan (HPCS) was used as a stabilizer for the nanosuspension and wet milling was utilized for improving aprepitant's bioavailability and solubility. The resulting nanosuspension size was 151 ± 14.5 nm and its zeta potential was 63.5 ± 0.34 Mv. The spectral characteristics (XRPD, DSC, TEM) of the nanosuspension suggested that aprepitant existed in the crystalline form and that nanosuspension had 2-fold higher solubility than aprepitant. Hydroxypropyl chitosan can significantly reduce the TEER of Caco-2 cells and the P_app of the suspension in Caco-2 cells increased by 2.2 times compared with aprepitant. The relative bioavailability of the nanosuspension was 147.7% compared with the commercial capsule.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Fosaprepitant Dimeglumine in Healthy Chinese Volunteers: Bioequivalence Study

Fosaprepitant dimeglumine (FD) is a precursor of aprepitant. FD can be metabolized into aprepitant. This randomized, single-center, open, 2-cycle, single-dose, crossover bioequivalence study compared the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of intravenously FD of test and reference products in healthy volunteers (HVs). HVs were assigned to the test group or reference group randomly and given FD intravenously. The plasma concentration of FD and aprepitant was measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. PK parameters were ascertained based on a noncompartmental model. Data for 29 HVs were obtained. The geometric mean and 90% confidence intervals of maximum plasma concentration (C_max ), area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to time of last measurable plasma concentration (AUC_0-t ), and area from the last datum point to time infinity (AUC_0-∞ ) of test and reference groups were 101.69% (95.06%, 108.77%), 103.52% (99.15%, 108.09%), and 105.58% (99.51%, 112.01%), respectively. These 3 parameters were within the acceptance range of 80.0% to 125.00%, and the test product was bioequivalent to the reference product. The coefficient of variation (CV) of C_max , AUC_0-t , and AUC_0-∞ was 15.14%, 9.67%, and 11.89%, respectively. Intravenously administered FD provided by 2 sponsors achieved bioequivalence. FD values from test and reference products were bioequivalent. All adverse events were mild and serious adverse events absent in HVs. This study indicated that FD may provide a safer alternative to aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Evaluation of Dissolution Enhancement of Aprepitant Drug in Ternary Pharmaceutical Solid Dispersions with Soluplus® and Poloxamer 188 Prepared by Melt Mixing

In the present study Aprepitant (APT) ternary solid dispersions (SDs) were developed and evaluated for the first time. Specifically, ternary SDs of APT with Poloxamer 188 and Soluplus® (SOL) were prepared via melt mixing and compared to binary APT/Poloxamer 188 and APT/SOL SDs. Initially, combined thermo-gravimetric and hot-stage polarized light microscopy studies indicated that all tested compounds were thermally stable up to 280 °C, while Poloxamer 188 acted as a plasticizer to SOL by significantly reducing the temperature required to fully solubilize the API during SD preparation. Differential scanning calorimetry combined with wide angle X-ray diffraction studies showed that crystalline API was dispersed in both binary and ternary SDs, while Fourier transformation-infrared spectroscopy studies revealed no molecular interactions among the components. Scanning electron microscopy combined with EDAX element analysis showed that the API was dispersed in nano-scale within the polymer matrices, while increasing APT content led to increasing API nano-crystals within the SDs. Finally, dissolution studies showed that the prepared formulations enhanced dissolution of Aprepitant and its mechanism analysis was further studied. A mathematical model was also investigated to evaluate the drug release mechanism.

Aprepitant Drug in Ternary Pharmaceutical Solid Dispersions with Soluplus® and Poloxamer 188 Prepared by Melt Mixing

In the present study Aprepitant (APT) ternary solid dispersions (SDs) were developed and evaluated for the first time. Specifically, ternary SDs of APT with Poloxamer 188 and Soluplus® (SOL) were prepared via melt mixing and compared to binary APT/Poloxamer 188 and APT/SOL SDs. Initially, combined thermo-gravimetric and hot-stage polarized light microscopy studies indicated that all tested compounds were thermally stable up to 280 °C, while Poloxamer 188 acted as a plasticizer to SOL by significantly reducing the temperature required to fully solubilize the API during SD preparation. Differential scanning calorimetry combined with wide angle X-ray diffraction studies showed that crystalline API was dispersed in both binary and ternary SDs, while Fourier transformation-infrared spectroscopy studies revealed no molecular interactions among the components. Scanning electron microscopy combined with EDAX element analysis showed that the API was dispersed in nano-scale within the polymer matrices, while increasing APT content led to increasing API nano-crystals within the SDs. Finally, dissolution studies showed that the prepared formulations enhanced dissolution of Aprepitant and its mechanism analysis was further studied. A mathematical model was also investigated to evaluate the drug release mechanism

Efficacy, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetic Impact of Aprepitant in Sarcoma Patients Receiving Ifosfamide and Doxorubicin Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Aprepitant, a selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), is an inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) enzyme, which is involved in the clearance of several chemotherapeutic agents. Here we evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of a combination of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in sarcoma patients receiving ifosfamide and doxorubicin chemotherapy, and examined the potential of aprepitant to affect the pharmacokinetics of ifosfamide, which is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4.

METHODS

A total of 108 sarcoma patients were randomly assigned to either the aprepitant group (antiemetic regimen: aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone) or the control group (antiemetic regimen: palonosetron and dexamethasone). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected, and the primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy during 120 h after initiation of chemotherapy. Tolerability was evaluated on the basis of reported adverse events and laboratory assessments. Blood samples for ifosfamide pharmacokinetic analysis were collected in ten patients.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients achieving CR was significantly higher in the aprepitant group compared with that in the control group in the acute, delay, and overall phase (78.4% vs. 59.3%, 74.5% vs. 48.1%, and 68.6% vs. 37.0%, p < 0.05, respectively). No significant differences of adverse events or hematological toxicity were detected between the two groups. Concomitant administration of aprepitant did not cause any statistically significant changes in ifosfamide pharmacokinetics. Values for aprepitant group vs. control group were as follows: geometric mean of C_max was 119 vs. 120 ng/mL, AUC_0-last was 648 vs. 635 ng h/mL, AUC_0-inf was 681 vs. 668 ng h/mL, plasma clearance was 4.40 vs. 4.49 (L/h/m²), respectively; harmonic means of t_1/2 was 2.11 vs. 2.25 h.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that aprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone was safe and effectively controlled CINV in sarcoma patients receiving ifosfamide and doxorubicin chemotherapy. Aprepitant may have a low potential to affect the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic agents metabolized by CYP3A4.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Chemotherapy-Induced Delayed Emesis: What is the Role of 5-HT3Antagonists?

Objective:

To review the current literature assessing the efficacy of different antiemetics, with a focus on comparison between serotonin (5-HT3) antagonists and other antiemetics, in the treatment of delayed emesis induced by either cisplatin or non-cisplatin cytotoxic agents.

Data Sources:

A MEDLINE search (1966–July 2002) was performed using delayed emesis, vomiting, nausea, chemotherapy, cisplatin, moderately emetogenic, selective serotonin subtype-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, metoclopramide, domperidone, corticosteroids, dexamethasone, prognostic factors, risk factors, and neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists as key words or subject headings. Only English-language articles were identified and included. Additional references were retrieved from selected articles.

Data Synthesis:

Various antiemetic consensus guidelines have recommended the use of different pharmacologic treatment, including the use of 5-HT3antagonists, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis. In some instances, it has been suggested that combinations containing a 5-HT3antagonist may be superior to others. Current data have been synthesized in an attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of 5-HT3antagonists in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis.

Conclusions:

Dexamethasone has consistently shown its antiemetic efficacy for delayed emesis induced by cisplatin and non-cisplatin agents, whereas the role of 5-HT3antagonists alone remains controversial. Metoclopramide has been shown to be as efficacious as 5-HT3antagonists when combined with dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed emesis. As a result, 5-HT3antagonists should be reserved as second-line agents to metoclopramide in addition to dexamethasone. NK1 receptor antagonists have shown some early promising results. However, many questions need to be addressed before their extensive use in clinical practice.

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

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

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

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

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

Cannabinoid 2 (CB2) receptor agonism reduces lithium chloride-induced vomiting in Suncus murinus and nausea-induced conditioned gaping in rats

We aimed to investigate the potential anti-emetic and anti-nausea properties of targeting the cannabinoid 2 (CB2) receptor. We investigated the effect of the selective CB2 agonist, HU-308, on lithium chloride- (LiCl) induced vomiting in Suncus murinus (S. murinus) and conditioned gaping (nausea-induced behaviour) in rats. Additionally, we determined whether these effects could be prevented by pretreatment with AM630 (a selective CB2 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist). In S. murinus, HU-308 (2.5, 5mg/kg, i.p.) reduced, but did not completely block, LiCl-induced vomiting; an effect that was prevented with AM630. In rats, HU-308 (5mg/kg, i.p.) suppressed, but did not completely block, LiCl-induced conditioned gaping to a flavour; an effect that was prevented by AM630. These findings are the first to demonstrate the ability of a selective CB2 receptor agonist to reduce nausea in animal models, indicating that targeting the CB2 receptor may be an effective strategy, devoid of psychoactive effects, for managing toxin-induced nausea and vomiting.

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

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

Characterization and Pharmacokinetic Study of Aprepitant Solid Dispersions with Soluplus®

Solid dispersions are a useful approach to improve the dissolution rate and bioavailability of poorly water-soluble active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). The aim of this study was to improve the physicochemical properties and bioavailability of a poorly water-soluble aprepitant by preparation of solid dispersions. The solid dispersions were characterized by dissolution, FTIR, XRPD, DSC, SEM and pharmacokinetic studies in rats. The dissolution rate of the aprepitant was significantly increased by solid dispersions, and XRD, DSC, and SEM analysis indicated that the aprepitant existed in an amorphous form within the solid dispersions. The result of dissolution study showed that the dissolution rate of SDs was nearly five-fold faster than aprepitant. FTIR spectrometry suggested the presence of intermolecular hydrogen bonds between the aprepitant and polymer. Pharmacokinetic studies in rats indicated that the degree drug absorption was comparable with that of Emend^®. Aprepitant exists in an amorphous state in solid dispersions and the solid dispersions can markedly improve the dissolution and oral bioavailability of the aprepitant. The AUC_0–t of the SDs was 2.4-fold that of the aprepitant. In addition, the method and its associated techniques are very easy to carry out.

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.

Preparation and pharmacokinetic study of aprepitant-sulfobutyl ether-β-cyclodextrin complex

Aprepitant (APR), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, is an approved treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and for post-operative nausea and vomiting. However, it has poor water solubility. This study was performed to optimize the capsule formulation of an inclusion complex of APR with sulfobutyl ether-β-cyclodextrin (SBE-β-CD), and to evaluate its water solubility, dissolution rate, and bioavailability. The complex was prepared through the saturated-aqueous solution method and then characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, x-ray powder diffraction, and differential scanning calorimetry. Subsequently, a pharmacokinetic study was performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Emend, which features an innovative formulation that incorporates drug nanoparticles with high bioavailability, was used as a reference for comparison with the optimized formulation. As a result, the dissolution rates and extent of release of the test formulation in various media were enhanced relative to those of Emend. The bioavailability of the drug complex was comparable to that of Emend. In summary, the SBE-β-CD complexation could provide a practical and cost-effective option for enhancing the solubility and bioavailability of APR according to our research.

Aprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy and postoperative recovery

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can negatively impact patient quality of life, functional performance and activities of daily living. Although the development of serotonin receptor antagonists has greatly improved the control of acute emesis, delayed CINV remains a significant clinical issue. Aprepitant (Emend(®)) is the first commercially available drug from a new class of agents, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. Elucidation of its mechanism of action has produced a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting. Oral aprepitant, in combination with a selective serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and corticosteroids, is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in adults. Aprepitant alone or in combination only with dexamethasone does not optimally control acute emesis compared with triple combination therapy. By contrast, aprepitant as monotherapy is indicated for the prevention of PONV. Aprepitant represents an emerging class of agents and its addition to standard therapy provides an advanced benefit in the prevention and treatment of CINV and PONV. Investigations of aprepitant for other indications are ongoing.

Tolerability of Fosaprepitant and Bioequivalency to Aprepitant in Healthy Subjects

Fosaprepitant is an intravenous formulation of aprepitant, an oral NK1 antagonist used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This randomized study was designed to evaluate fosaprepitant in polysorbate 80 vehicle for tolerability and bioequivalency to aprepitant. Tolerability was assessed by physical and laboratory examinations and adverse events. Plasma collected for 72 hours was assayed for aprepitant and fosaprepitant. Analysis of variance models were applied to natural log-transformed aprepitant area under the curve (AUC) data. Fosaprepitant up to 150 mg (1 mg/mL) was generally well tolerated. Fosaprepitant 115 mg was AUC bioequivalent to aprepitant 125 mg; the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio of aprepitant AUC for fosaprepitant 115 mg/aprepitant 125 mg fell within prespecified equivalence bounds of 0.80 to 1.25.

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.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) antagonists to antiemetic regimens has substantially reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We sought to systematically review the overall impact of NK1R antagonists on CINV prevention.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, and meeting proceedings for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NK1R antagonists plus standard antiemetic therapy for CINV prevention. Complete response (CR) to therapy was defined as the absence of emesis and the absence of rescue therapy. The endpoints were defined as CR in the overall phase (during the first 120 hours of chemotherapy), CR in the acute phase (first 24 hours), and the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after chemotherapy, nausea, and toxicity. Subgroup analyses evaluated the type of NK1R antagonist used, the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy regimen, and prolonged use of 5-HT3 (serotonin) receptor antagonists, a class of standard antiemetic agents. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical tests for heterogeneity were one-sided; statistical tests for effect estimates and publication bias were two-sided.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials (8740 patients) were included in this analysis. NK1R antagonists increased the CR rate in the overall phase from 54% to 72% (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.57, P < .001). CR and nausea were improved in all phases and subgroups. The expected side effects from NK1R antagonists did not statistically significantly differ from previous reports; however, this analysis suggests that the incidence of severe infection increased from 2% to 6% in the NK1R antagonist group (three RCTs with a total of 1480 patients; OR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.69 to 5.67, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

NK1R antagonists increased CINV control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases. They are effective for both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Their use might be associated with increased infection rates; however, additional appraisal of specific data from RCTs is needed.

Effects of Antioxidant Herbs on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in a Rat-Pica Model

Nausea and vomiting are significant adverse effects of chemotherapeutic agents like cisplatin, and cause significant patient morbidity. Cisplatin treatment results in oxidant gut injury, which is postulated to be the primary cause of nausea and vomiting. We evaluated the effects of two antioxidant herbs, Scutellaria baicalensis and American ginseng berry, on cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting using a rat model. Rats react to emetic or nausea-producing stimuli, such as cisplatin, with altered feeding habits, manifested by increased kaolin consumption (pica). We measured pica in rats to quantify cisplatin-induced nausea. We observed that pretreatment of rats with S. baicalensis or ginseng berry extracts resulted in a significant reduction in cisplatin-induced pica. The in vitro free radical scavenging ability of the herbal extract observed in the study, further confirmed the antioxidant action of the herb. We conclude that herbal antioxidants may have a role in attenuating cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

Inhibiting substance p pathway for prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis: preclinical data, clinical trials of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic agents that have activity in controlling cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis. Preclinical data in animal models show that the NK-1 receptor antagonists have broad antiemetic activity. The NK-1 receptor antagonists have activity in controlling emesis induced by peripherally acting and centrally acting emetogens, suggesting a mechanism of action at multiple sites. The effects at central and peripheral sites to control acute and delayed emesis cannot be determined at this time based on available studies. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5- HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, the NK-1 receptor antagonists improve control of acute emesis. The NK-1 receptor antagonists improve delayed emesis compared with placebo, and when used in combination with dexamethasone, compared with dexamethasone alone. Acute and delayed nausea may also be improved by the NK-1 receptor antagonists when they are used in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone prechemotherapy or with daily dosing for 5 days after chemotherapy. The current data suggest that the mechanism of action of the NK-1 receptor antagonists appears to be different from that of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Future studies may consider using NK-1 receptor antagonists with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as well as bone marrow transplantation.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: focus on fosaprepitant

Fosaprepitant is a prodrug of aprepitant, a neurokinin₁ (NK₁) receptor antagonist used in prophylactic antiemetic regimens used prior to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Fosaprepitant is being developed to provide a parenterally administered alternative to the orally administered aprepitant. Fosaprepitant is rapidly converted to aprepitant and an intravenous dose of 115 mg is bioequivalent to 125 mg orally, with similar plasma concentrations at 24 hours. In phase I and II trials fosaprepitant shows efficacy, but the large randomized efficacy studies have utilized aprepitant. When it is added to dexamethasone and a 5HT₃ receptor antagonist on day 1 prior to chemotherapy aprepitant improves the control of acute post chemotherapy emesis and when continued on days 2 and 3 with dexamethasone it demonstrated even greater improvement in the control of delayed emesis. This has been shown with both cisplatin-containing regimens and those based upon cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline. Fosaprepitant is well tolerated with mild to moderate venous irritation being the only additional toxicity to those seen with oral aprepitant, and that is a function of dose, concentration, and infusion rate. Headaches are the other toxicity most commonly reported. Fosaprepitant can be used as a parenteral alternative to aprepitant in regimens to control chemotherapy-induced emesis.

Development of aprepitant, the first neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy can be a life-prolonging treatment for many cancer patients, but it is often associated with profound nausea and vomiting that is so distressing that patients may delay or decline treatment to avoid these side effects. EMEND (aprepitant) is the first and only neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist available on the market for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Aprepitant acts centrally at NK-1 receptors in vomiting centers within the central nervous system to block their activation by substance P released as an unwanted consequence of chemotherapy. By controlling nausea and vomiting, EMEND helps improve patients' daily living and their ability to complete multiple cycles of chemotherapy. The development of aprepitant included a novel nanoparticle formulation to optimize oral absorption and innovative chemistry to discover a prodrug form suitable for intravenous administration to improve compliance and convenience for healthcare professionals and cancer patients.

Fosaprepitant and aprepitant: an update of the evidence for their place in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

The selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant is effective in the treatment of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Fosaprepitant has been developed as an intravenous prodrug of aprepitant.

AIMS

To update the evidence underlying the use of fosaprepitant to prevent CINV.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Aprepitant in combination with a serotonin antagonist and a corticosteroid controls acute and delayed symptoms of CINV in patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Bioequivalence of fosaprepitant with aprepitant has recently been demonstrated, which has led to its inclusion in clinical guidelines for treatment of acute CINV with highly, and some regimens of moderately, emetogenic chemotherapy. Early studies of the clinical efficacy of fosaprepitant have shown improvement over treatment with ondansetron. Both aprepitant and fosaprepitant are well tolerated with most adverse events observed of mild or moderate intensity. Conflicting economic evidence has shown that whilst aprepitant provides an increased quality of life in patients treated for CINV, there are differing views over its absolute cost in relation to standard therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of aprepitant, however, appears to lie within acceptable bounds.

PLACE IN THERAPY

Fosaprepitant and aprepitant are recommended in guidelines for preventing CINV due to moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Fosaprepitant is bioequivalent to aprepitant, and could offer potential benefits for patients who may be unable to tolerate oral administration of antiemetics during an episode of nausea or vomiting.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of fosaprepitant dimeglumine

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common complication in the treatment of patients with cancer. The introduction of the first in class neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant provided additive control on CINV in combination to existing antiemetics. Due to formulation issues, aprepitant is only available for oral administration. Fosaprepitant, a prodrug of aprepitant, was introduced to the market in 2008 as an intravenous bioequivalent to aprepitant.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review examines the chemical development of fosaprepitant, its pharmacokinetic properties, approved uses and potential applications.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will get up-to-date information on the pharmacology and clinical uses of fosaprepitant. Clinical studies have demonstrated pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of aprepitant 125 mg to fosaprepitant 115 mg, as well as comparable efficacy in prevention of acute and delayed emesis following the first day of chemotherapy regimens.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Fosaprepitant is an intravenous prodrug of aprepitant that offers a new alternative to patients with CINV. Currently, fosaprepitant can substitute oral aprepitant in day 1 of a 3-day regimen. Current studies show that a single-day fosaprepitant regimen is also bioequivalent to the 3-day aprepitant regimen; this could significantly simplify the care for CINV patients in the future.

Consensus recommendations for the prevention of vomiting and nausea following high-emetic-risk chemotherapy

In this update of our 2005 document, we used an evidence-based approach whenever possible to formulate recommendations, emphasizing the results of controlled trials concerning the best use of antiemetic agents for the prevention of emesis and nausea following anticancer chemotherapies of high emetic risk. A three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant beginning before chemotherapy and continuing for up to 4 days remains the standard of care. We address issues of dose, schedule, and route of administration of five selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. We conclude that, for each of these five drugs, there is a plateau in therapeutic efficacy above which further dose escalation does not improve outcome. In trials designed to prove the equivalence of palonosetron to ondansetron and granisetron, palonosetron proved superior in emesis prevention, while adverse effects were comparable. Furthermore, for all classes of antiemetic agents, a single dose is as effective as multiple doses or a continuous infusion. The oral route is as efficacious as the intravenous route of administration.

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.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: antiemetic trials that impacted clinical practice

Objective. To review the scientific evidence related to serotonin and substance P and the clinical impact targeting these two neurotransmitters have had managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Data Source. A PubMed search (January 1968 to December 2008), restricted to English-language publications, was conducted using the key words antiemetics, cancer chemotherapy, cisplatin, serotonin, substance P, NK1, and 5-HT3. Abstracts emanating from the meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer during the period May 2000 to June 2008 were also reviewed.

Data Synthesis. Two important outcomes emanated from well-conducted antiemetic clinical trials (Table 1): first, evidence that serotonin and substance P are major mediators of acute and delayed symptoms and second, improved, though not complete, control of CINV.

Conclusion. Serotonin-type 3 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are the most effective agents currently available. In most cases, these agents are used in conjunction with glucocorticoids. The use of these three types of agents is incorporated into current clinical practice guidelines. Further understanding of the biological and biochemical basis of nausea and vomiting may enhance management of this potentially debilitating adverse effect.

[Chemotherapy induced emesis: pathophysiology and prevention]

Nausea and emesis are one of the most feared secondary effect of chemotherapy. The development of antiemetic therapies has increased after the introduction of cisplatin, a cytotoxin with the highest emetic potential. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been classified into acute, delayed and anticipatory based on the time of onset. According to the percentage of nausea and emesis without any antiemetic treatment, chemotherapy is divised into highly, moderate, low and very low emetic potential. The discovery of emetics stimuli neurotransmitters and their receptors has led to the introduction of new molecules which associated with steroids have prevented nausea and vomiting chemotherapy-induced for 70 to 80% of the patients receiving chemotherapy with high emetic potential. Numerous studies have evaluated the various antiemetics and recommendations were issued by learned societies in US and Europe. This text discusses the physiopathology of nausea and vomiting, the development of anti-emetics and the new discovered antiemetics. Finally, a synthesis of the recommandations from the guidelines developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is presented.

Casopitant improves the quality of life in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is critical in preventing poor health outcomes and increasing patient quality of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the addition of casopitant to dual-combination therapy of dexamethasone and ondansetron on quality of life in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, add-on trial (N = 810), patients were randomized to intravenous (IV) ondansetron/dexamethasone alone (control) or in combination with either a single 150-mg oral dose of casopitant or 3-day IV/oral casopitant. Quality of life was assessed as impact of nausea and vomiting on daily life using the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire at baseline prior to receiving chemotherapy and after completion of the first cycle of HEC.

RESULTS

Patients in the single oral dose and 3-day IV/oral casopitant groups scored higher mean total FLIE scores (115.7 and 114.0, respectively; p ≤ 0.0332) than patients in the control group (107.5), indicating that casopitant patients experienced less impact from nausea and vomiting on daily life. The overall absolute difference in the proportion of patients reporting CINV with no impact on daily life between the single oral casopitant group and the control group was 13%; the difference between the 3-day IV/oral casopitant group and the control group was 14%.

CONCLUSION

The addition of casopitant to ondansetron and dexamethasone in patients receiving HEC was significantly more effective in reducing the impact of nausea and vomiting on all daily life activities as assessed by the FLIE compared with ondansetron/dexamethasone dual therapy.

Antiemetic control: toward a new standard of care for emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone have significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed CINV remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists. Casopitant is another NK-1 receptor antagonist that is under review by the FDA after recent completion of Phase III clinical trials. The introduction of these new agents has generated revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron, aprepitant and casopitant with other antiemetic agents (olanzapine, gabapentin, cannabinoids) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

[Treatment of tumor therapy-induced nausea and vomiting]

Even today, nausea and vomiting are two of the most distressing adverse effects associated with tumor therapy. The authors give an overview of the mechanism and the trigger factors (emetogenic potential of the chemotherapies, the patient risk factors, and the used antiemetic drugs) of nausea and vomiting. A short summary will describe the antiemetic drugs focusing on metoclopramide, steroid and the currently widely used setron therapy which is effective only during the acute phase of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). In the treatment of CINV the latest improvement was the introduction of the neurokinin (NK1) receptor antagonist class. Currently the only available agent is aprepitant which is indicated to treat CINV in case of highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapies. The pivotal phase III trials defined that aprepitant is the first drug that is able to protect against the delayed phase of CINV plus can improve the antiemetic therapy during the acute phase. Currently aprepitant is reimbursed in Hungary only after the failure of setron therapy in case of high dose (\>50 mg/m2) cisplatin protocols. The authors give a recommendation how to treat CINV based on the latest international antiemetic guidelines.The mechanism and the trigger factors of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) are different from CINV. For treatment of RINV metoclopramide (due to reimbursement regulation) and ondansetron can be used. In case of radio-chemotherapy the antiemetic treatment should follow the CINV guidelines.

Fosaprepitant dimeglumine (MK-0517 or L-785,298), an intravenous neurokinin-1 antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

This paper reviews the existing literature on fosaprepitant, an intravenous neurokinin-1 anatgonist for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development of fosaprepitant and to situate the intravenous form of aprepitant in the current market of available antiemetics.

METHODS

Literature was screened and selected in order to compare the intravenous form of the already commonly used NK-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant.

RESULTS

Aprepitant is the first and still the only marketed neurokinin-1 (NK-1) antagonist. Interestingly, the first studies were performed with fosaprepitant dimeglumine (MK-0517 or L-785,298), the water-soluble prodrug of aprepitant. Fosaprepitant is converted into aprepitant within 30 min after intravenous administration. Based on equivalence studies, 115 mg fosaprepitant seems to be the substitute for 125 mg orally administrated aprepitant. Tolerability of the prodrug is no different from the active drug. The number of efficacy studies with fosaprepitant is very limited and most data are derived from existing aprepitant results. Fosaprepitant has recently been approved by FDA and EMEA as an intravenous substitute for oral aprepitant on day 1 of the standard 3-day CINV prevention regimen, which also includes dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 antagonist.

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

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting includes both Acute (0-24 h) and Delayed (24-120 h) components with different physiologic mechanisms. A combination of a serotonin antagonist, a corticosteroid, and an NK-1 antagonist has proven effective against this problem. However, standard antiemetic regimens require administration over 3-4 days after chemotherapy. The present study evaluated a more convenient single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen for patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors receiving cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin were eligible. Patients could not have pre-existing etiologies for vomiting. Prior to chemotherapy, patients received a single dose of aprepitant 285 mg p.o., dexamethasone 20 mg p.o., and palonosetron 0.25 mg i.v. A daily patient diary recording episodes of emesis and severity of nausea was then kept for 5 days. Any further antiemetics were considered rescue medication.

RESULTS

Forty-one eligible and evaluable patients (40 women, one man) with breast cancer were entered on study. Most were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Complete Response (no vomiting, no rescue medication) was seen in 51% of patients, including 76% with Complete Response for the Acute period and 66% for the Delayed period. No emesis was reported for 100% of patients in the Acute period and 95% in the Delayed period. No Nausea was seen in 32% of patients. No untoward toxicities were seen.

CONCLUSION

A single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen is feasible and effective for protection against both Acute and Delayed vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Formal comparison to a standard multi-day antiemetic regimen is warranted.

Fosaprepitant (MK-0517): a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing and common adverse event associated with cancer treatment. Updated anti-emetic guidelines were published in 2007 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and in 2006 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which have included the use of the new and more effective anti-emetic agents (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT(3)] receptor antagonists and neurokinin-1 [NK-1] receptor antagonists). Aprepitant is a selective NK-1 receptor antagonist approved as part of combination therapy with a corticosteroid and a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV. Fosaprepitant (also known as MK-0517 and L-758,298) is a water-soluble phosphoryl prodrug for aprepitant, which, when administered intravenously, is converted to aprepitant within 30 min after intravenous administration via the action of ubiquitous phosphatases. Because fosaprepitant is rapidly converted to the active form (aprepitant), it is expected to provide the same aprepitant exposure in terms of AUC, and a correspondingly similar anti-emetic effect. Clinical studies have suggested that fosaprepitant could be appropriate as an intravenous alternative to the aprepitant oral capsule. In a study in healthy subjects, fosaprepitant was well tolerated up to 150 mg (1 mg/ml), and fosaprepitant 115 mg was bioequivalent in its AUC to aprepitant 125 mg. Fosaprepitant 115 mg has been submitted for FDA approval as an alternative on day 1 of a 3-day oral aprepitant regimen, with oral aprepitant administered on days 2 and 3. Fosaprepitant may be a useful parenteral alternative to oral aprepitant. Further study is needed to clarify the use of fosaprepitant for the prevention of CINV, and to clarify optimal dosing regimens that may be appropriate substitutes for oral aprepitant.

Antiemetics: an update and the MASCC guidelines applied in clinical practice

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most severe problems for patients treated with chemotherapy. Until the late 1970s, nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy was an almost neglected research area. With the introduction of cisplatin, the cytotoxin with the highest emetic potential, research was stimulated and has now resulted in the development of two new classes of antiemetics, the serotonin and neurokinin antagonists. A large number of trials have fine-tuned antiemetic therapy and made evidence-based recommendations possible for the majority of patients receiving chemotherapy. This Review discusses the pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting, the development of antiemetics, highlights some of the newest antiemetics, and finally summarizes recommendations from the evidence-based guidelines developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.

Anti-emetic therapy in cancer chemotherapy: current status

Nausea and vomiting are ranked as the most severe side effects to chemotherapy by cancer patients. Twenty years ago, treatment of nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy only had moderate effect and often unpleasant side effects. The drugs used included dopamine(2)-receptor antagonists and corticosteroids alone or combined. This review summarizes the development of anti-emetic therapy, but will focus on the importance of two new classes of anti-emetics: the serotonin(3)- and the neurokinin(1)-receptor antagonists. Furthermore, evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting will be given. The serotonin(3)-receptor antagonists, the first group of drugs developed specifically as anti-emetics, have significantly improved the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced emesis especially in combination with a corticosteroid. The improvement in the prophylaxis of nausea with this combination is however modest. A new group of anti-emetics, the neurokinin(1)-receptor antagonists, has now been developed, and the first drug, aprepitant, was marketed in 2003. Aprepitant increases the effect of a serotonin(3)-receptor antagonist plus a corticosteroid against acute emesis induced by highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and aprepitant is also active in the protection against delayed emesis. The importance of drug-drug interactions with anti-emetics and other drugs, especially cytotoxins, through their competition for cytochrome P450 enzymes, have been studied. At present, there is no evidence that such interactions are of major clinical importance. Evidence-based clinical guidelines are now available and regularly updated, but unfortunately clinical implementation is slow. Recommendations for some types of chemotherapy-induced emesis such as delayed emesis, is based on a low level of evidence. Furthermore, the majority of clinical trials include highly selected groups of patients not permitting definite conclusions for other and more heterogeneous patient groups. Development of new anti-emetics with other mechanisms of action is awaited with interest.