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

Prospective clinical evidence from over 1,000 pan-cancer patients: a complement to fosaprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and/or vomiting (CINV) is an intractable adverse effect of anticancer drugs. Although prophylactic use of fosaprepitant may be effective in reducing CINV, there is a lack of studies evaluating the application of fosaprepitant in real world.

AIMS AND METHODS

This study prospectively observed the effectiveness and safety for the prophylaxis of CINV in a real-world clinical setting. A single dose fosaprepitant 150 mg was intravenously administered to enrolled patients 30 min prior to the chemotherapy drug. Initial data were recorded and patients were followed for 120 h (5 days). The primary endpoint is the complete response (CR) rate and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). The second endpoint is the use of rescue therapy. We also performed stratified analyses to investigate the impact of different factors on fosaprepitant for the prevention of CINV in the acute phase.

RESULTS

Between March 2021 to August 2021, 1001 patients were enrolled in this study. CR was 77.32%, 93.61%, and 76.72% for vomiting control in 0-24 h, 24-120 h, and 0-120 h respectively, and 97.4%, 99.1%, and 96.9% for nausea control. No SAEs were recorded. 23.48% or 3.1% of patients needed rescue therapy for vomiting or nausea control respectively, most of which occurred in the acute phase. CR rate decreased with increasing emetogenicity of chemotherapeutic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose fosaprepitant has shown good performance in real-world clinical practice. This study is the first to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant for the prevention of CINV in a real-world clinical setting and may be a good complement to the clinical data.

Extravasation associated with cancer drug therapy: multidisciplinary guideline of the Japanese Society of Cancer Nursing, Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, and Japanese Society of Pharmaceutical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Extravasation (EV), or the leakage of anticancer drugs into perivascular and subcutaneous tissues during intravenous administration, can cause serious conditions that may require surgical intervention. Therefore, updated guidelines for EV based on systematic review are needed. Additionally, classifications for anticancer drugs that cause EV are not standardized across the current guidelines, and some novel drugs have not been classified. Therefore, this study aimed to formulate guidelines using evidence-based information for shared decision making on prevention, early detection, treatment, and care for EV in Japan and provide additional classification for tissue injury based on systematic review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The members of the Japanese Society of Cancer Nursing (JSCN), Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO), and Japanese Society of Pharmaceutical Oncology (JASPO) were surveyed about significant clinical challenges related to EV, and 17 clinical questions (CQs) were formulated. PubMed and ICHUSHI Web were searched using the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes terms listed in each CQ as key words. For the classification of new drugs, articles published through February 2021 were selected using the search terms 'extravasation', 'injection-site reaction', 'adverse events', and the names of individual drugs as key words.

RESULTS

Recommendations based on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were made with regard to the selection of central venous (CV) devices (CQ2, CQ3a, CQ3b, and CQ3c), regular replacement of peripheral venous catheters (CQ5), and use of fosaprepitant (CQ7). These CQs are novel and were not mentioned in previous guidelines. Warm compression monotherapy (CQ10b) and local injection of steroids (CQ12) are discouraged for the management of EV. Ten new drugs were classified for EV tissue injury.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides updated guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EV, which can be used to help health care providers and patients and their families practice better EV management.

Comparing Injection Site Reactions of Aprepitant and Fosaprepitant in Gynecologic Cancer Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND/AIM

The frequency rate of injection site reactions (ISR) due to fosaprepitant meglumine (Fos APR) has been shown to vary depending on the types of combined anticancer drug. This study aimed to elucidate the impact of Fos APR on ISR in patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin, with and without bevacizumab therapy (TC±Bev).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study focused on patients with gynecologic cancer (n=93) who received TC±Bev administration at Fujita Health University Hospital from March 2016 to February 2020, and monitored up to six cycles. The patients were randomly assigned to the Fos APR group (n=47) and the Aprepitant (APR) group (n=46). Using Visual Infusion Phlebitis (VIP) scores, ISR was evaluated by comparing the VIP scores of all cycles using a linear mixed model. The risk factors that contribute to the occurrence of vascular pain throughout all cycles were also examined.

RESULTS

The VIP scores of all cycles showed a near significant intergroup difference (p=0.071). Factors that affected the development of vascular pain included Fos APR and age (p=0.027 and 0.049, respectively). Regarding age, patients aged <65 years had a higher risk. Four patients underwent a switch from the originally assigned neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist; in all of these cases, Fos APR was changed to APR for vascular pain.

CONCLUSION

Fos APR may increase the risk for ISR associated with TC±Bev therapy for gynecological cancer.

Bibliometric and visual analysis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2004-2023)

Background

Patients undergoing chemotherapy often encounter troubling and common side effects, notably Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This side effect not only impairs the patient's quality of life but could also result in the interruption or discontinuation of the chemotherapy treatment. Consequently, research into CINV has consistently remained a focal point in the realm of clinical medicine. In this research domain, bibliometric analysis has not been conducted. The purpose of this study is to deliver a thorough summary of the knowledge framework and key areas of interest in the field of Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, using bibliometric methods. This approach aims to furnish novel concepts and pathways for investigators working in this area.

Methods

Publications focusing on Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, spanning from 2004 to 2023, were identified using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the R package "bibliometrix" were employed for this bibliometric analysis.

Results

This research covers 734 publications from 61 countries, with the United States and China being the primary contributors. There has been a significant rise in the volume of papers published in the most recent decade compared to the one before it, spanning over the past twenty years. However, the annual publication rate in the last ten years has not shown a significant upward trend. The University of Toronto, Merck & Co., Sun Yat-sen University, and Helsinn Healthcare SA emerged as the principal research institutions in this field. Supportive Care in Cancer stands out as the most frequently published and cited journal in this domain. These works are contributed by 3,917 authors, with Rudolph M Navari, Matti Aapro, Shimokawa Mototsugu, and Lee Schwartzberg being among those who have published the most. Paul J. Hesketh is notably the most co-cited author. The primary focus of this research field lies in exploring the mechanisms of CINV and the therapeutic strategies for managing it. Key emerging research hotspots are represented by terms such as "Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting," "nausea," "vomiting," "chemotherapy," and "antiemetics."

Conclusion

This represents the inaugural bibliometric study to thoroughly outline the research trends and advancements in the field of CINV. It highlights the latest research frontiers and trending directions, offering valuable insights for scholars engaged in studying CINV.

The combined anti-tumor effects of 5-fluorouracil and neurokinin receptor inhibitor, aprepitant, against colorectal cancer: In vitro and in vivo study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the world's largest health concerns with growing global incidence and mortality. The potential value of the neurokinin-1 receptor as a therapeutic target has been reported in several tumor types, including CRC. Here we examined the potential anti-tumor effects of a clinically approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, alone and its combination with 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) as a first choice CRC chemotherapeutic drug, in both in vitro and in vivo models of CRC.

METHODS

MTT assay was employed for assessing cell proliferation. mRNA expression levels were determined by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Flow cytometric analysis of apoptosis was performed using an Annexin-V/propidium iodide assay kit. We finally conducted an in vivo experiment in a mouse model of CRC to confirm the in vitro antiproliferative activity of aprepitant and 5-FU.

RESULTS

We found that aprepitant and 5-FU significantly reduced CRC cell viability. The combination of drugs exhibited potent synergistic growth inhibitory effects on CRC cells. Moreover, aprepitant and 5-FU induced apoptosis and altered the levels of apoptotic genes (up-regulation of Bax, and p53 along with downregulation of Bcl-2). Importantly, the aprepitant and 5-FU combination showed a more pronounced impact on apoptosis and associated genes than either of the agents alone. Furthermore, aprepitant reduced tumor growth in vivo and led to significantly longer survival time, and this effect was more prominent when using the aprepitant and 5-FU combination.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, combinatory treatment with aprepitant and 5-FU potentially exerts synergistic growth inhibition and apoptosis induction in CRC, deserving further consideration as a novel strategy for CRC patients.

An assessment of the effects of neurokinin1 receptor antagonism against nausea and vomiting: Relative efficacy, sites of action and lessons for future drug development

A broad-spectrum anti-vomiting effect of neurokinin1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RA), shown in pre-clinical animal studies, has been supported by a more limited range of clinical studies in different indications. However, this review suggests that compared with vomiting, the self-reported sensation of nausea is less affected or possibly unaffected (depending on the stimulus) by NK1 receptor antagonism, a common finding for anti-emetics. The stimulus-independent effects of NK1 RAs against vomiting are explicable by actions within the central pattern generator (ventral brainstem) and the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS; dorsal brainstem), with additional effects on vagal afferent activity for certain stimuli (e.g., highly emetogenic chemotherapy). The central pattern generator and NTS neurones are multifunctional so the notable lack of obvious effects of NK1 RAs on other reflexes mediated by the same neurones suggests that their anti-vomiting action is dependent on the activation state of the pathway leading to vomiting. Nausea requires activation of cerebral pathways by projection of information from the NTS. Although NK1 receptors are present in cerebral nuclei implicated in nausea, and imaging studies show very high receptor occupancy at clinically used doses, the variable or limited ability of NK1 RAs to inhibit nausea emphasizes: (i) our inadequate understanding of the mechanisms of nausea; and (ii) that classification of a drug as an anti-emetic may give a false impression of efficacy against nausea vs. vomiting. We discuss the potential mechanisms for the differential efficacy of NK1 RA and the implications for future development of drugs that can effectively treat nausea, an area of unmet clinical need.

Topical formulations of Aprepitant are safe and effective in relieving pain and inflammation, and drive neural regeneration

PURPOSE

To test long-term ocular toxicity and analgesic/anti-inflammatory efficacy of two novel ocular formulations of neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist Aprepitant.

METHODS

for toxicity studies, two Aprepitant formulations (X and Y) were tested on C57BL/6 N mice. Gold standards were 0.4% Oxybuprocaine, 0.1% Diclofenac, or saline. For efficacy studies, C57BL/6 N mice underwent corneal alkali burn, and then received Aprepitant formulation X, Dexamethasone or saline. Eye-drops were applied 3 times/day for 90 days (toxicity) and 14 days (efficacy). Stromal opacity, corneal epithelial damage, nociception and sensitivity were assessed in vivo. The eye-wiping test and corneal sensitivity were assessed to evaluate analgesic efficacy and nerve function. At the end of the experiments mice were euthanized, and corneas were dissected for immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR analyses.

RESULTS

In normal mice, formulation X was not toxic when topically administered for 90 days. Formulation Y was associated with increased leukocyte infiltration in the cornea (p < 0.001). X1 and X2 formulations significantly reduced corneal pain, as Diclofenac and Oxybuprocaine, but did not reduce corneal sensitivity. Formulation Y, instead, was not analgesic at any time point. In the alkali burn model, X1 and X2 formulation enhanced epithelial damage recovery, and reduced inflammation both at day 7 and 14. Moreover, formulation X showed a stronger analgesic effect when compared to the saline and Dexamethasone groups (p < 0.01). Finally, formulation X1 and X2 restored corneal sensitivity by promoting corneal nerve regeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant X formulation is a promising candidate for the treatment of pain associated with inflammation of the ocular surface.

Fosaprepitant Weekly vs Every 3 Weeks for the Prevention of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Unlike substantial evidence in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), research in the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is currently lacking.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant weekly vs every 3 weeks for the prevention of nausea and emesis caused by CCRT among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single cancer center from November 24, 2020, to July 26, 2021, among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who had achieved CINV control after 2 to 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy. Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population. Data were analyzed on November 4, 2022.

Interventions

Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive fosaprepitant either weekly or every 3 weeks.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of patients with sustained complete response (defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy) during CCRT. Secondary end points were sustained no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, mean time to first emetic episode, quality of life, and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

A total of 100 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.6 [10.9] years; 83 [83.0%] male) who had achieved CINV control after induction chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant weekly (50 patients) or every 3 weeks (50 patients). There was no significantly significant difference in cumulative risk of emesis or rescue therapy in the group that received weekly fosaprepitant compared with those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks (subhazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.43-1.02]; P = .06). The proportion of patients with sustained no emesis (38% vs 14%; P = .003) or no significant nausea (92% vs 72%; P = .002) was significantly higher in the group that received fosaprepitant weekly vs those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks. Treatments were well tolerated. Patients in the weekly group had improved scores for multiple quality-of-life measures. There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between groups (91.8% vs 93.7%; P = .99). In the mean brainstem dose subgroups, a possible treatment interaction effect was observed in sustained complete response (mean brainstem dose ≥36 Gy: hazard ratio [HR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.15-0.69]; mean brainstem dose <36 Gy: HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.55-1.63]) and sustained no emesis (mean brainstem dose ≥36 Gy: HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.08-0.53]; mean brainstem dose <36 Gy: HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.41-1.28]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this pilot randomized clinical trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the complete response primary end point, but patients receiving weekly fosaprepitant were less likely to experience emesis compared with those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks, especially in the subgroup with a mean brainstem dose of 36 Gy or more. Weekly fosaprepitant was well tolerated and improved quality of life of patients without compromising survival.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04636632.

Prolonged usage of fosaprepitant for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Even though chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be well controlled in the acute phase, the incidence of delayed CINV remains high. In this study, we intend to investigate whether prolonged use of NK-1 receptor antagonist (RA) in addition to 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone (DEX) was more effective in preventing delayed CINV.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant 150 mg given on days 1,3 (prolonged group) versus on day 1 (regular group) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All patients also treated with palonosetron on day 1 and DEX on days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting. The second endpoint was AEs. All the above endpoints were defined according to CTCAE 5.0.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned to prolonged group and seventy-nine to regular group. Prolonged group demonstrated superiority in controlling delayed CINV to regular group, with statistically significant lower incidence of nausea (6.17% vs 12.66%, P = 0.0056), and slightly lower incidence of grade 1 vomiting (1.62% vs 3.80%, P = 0.0953) in the delayed phase. In addition, prolonged use of fosaprepitant was safe. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding constipation, diarrhea, hiccough, fatigue, palpitation and headache in delayed phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged use of fosaprepitant can effectively and safely prevent delayed CINV in patients receiving HEC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Adjunctive granisetron therapy in patients with sepsis or septic shock (GRANTISS): A single-center, single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background: In preclinical experiments, we demonstrated that the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist granisetron results in reduced inflammation and improved survival in septic mice. This randomized controlled trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of granisetron in patients with sepsis. Methods: Adult patients with sepsis and procalcitonin ≥ 2 ng/ml were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous granisetron (3 mg every 8 h) or normal saline at the same volume and frequency for 4 days or until intensive care unit discharge. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the duration of supportive therapies for organ function, changes in sequential organ failure assessment scores over 96 h, procalcitonin reduction rate over 96 h, the incidence of new organ dysfunction, and changes in laboratory variable over 96 h. Adverse events were monitored as the safety outcome. Results: The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 150 septic patients. The 28-day all-cause mortalities in the granisetron and placebo groups were 34.7% and 35.6%, respectively (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.49-1.89). No differences were observed in secondary outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of patients without abdominal or digestive tract infections, the 28-day mortality in the granisetron group was 10.9% lower than mortality in the placebo group. Adverse events were not statistically different between the groups. Conclusion: Granisetron did not improve 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis. However, a further clinical trial targeted to septic patients without abdominal/digestive tract infections perhaps is worthy of consideration.

Cell-To-Cell Communication in the Resistance Vasculature

The arterial vasculature can be divided into large conduit arteries, intermediate contractile arteries, resistance arteries, arterioles, and capillaries. Resistance arteries and arterioles primarily function to control systemic blood pressure. The resistance arteries are composed of a layer of endothelial cells oriented parallel to the direction of blood flow, which are separated by a matrix layer termed the internal elastic lamina from several layers of smooth muscle cells oriented perpendicular to the direction of blood flow. Cells within the vessel walls communicate in a homocellular and heterocellular fashion to govern luminal diameter, arterial resistance, and blood pressure. At rest, potassium currents govern the basal state of endothelial and smooth muscle cells. Multiple stimuli can elicit rises in intracellular calcium levels in either endothelial cells or smooth muscle cells, sourced from intracellular stores such as the endoplasmic reticulum or the extracellular space. In general, activation of endothelial cells results in the production of a vasodilatory signal, usually in the form of nitric oxide or endothelial-derived hyperpolarization. Conversely, activation of smooth muscle cells results in a vasoconstriction response through smooth muscle cell contraction. © 2022 American Physiological Society. Compr Physiol 12: 1-35, 2022.

Multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine improves the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a retrospective study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite a standard triple antiemetic regimen of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone is recommended, how to control the protracted CINV in ASCT setting remains an intractable problem. Here, we retrospectively analyze CINV data of 100 patients who received either SEAM (semustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or MEL140-200 (high-dose melphalan) before ASCT, evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine (FTO), and compare the results to those of patients who received a standard regimen of aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (ATD). The overall rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, is 70% in the FTO group compared to 36% in the ATD group. Although CR rates are comparable in the acute phase between the two groups, significantly more patients treated by FTO achieve CR in the delayed phase than those treated by ATD (74% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Moreover, FTO treatment significantly reduced the percentage of patients who are unable to eat, as well as the requirement for rescue medications. Both regimens are well tolerated and most adverse events (AEs) were generally mild and transient. In conclusion, the antiemetic strategy containing multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant is safe and effective for preventing CINV in lymphoma and MM patients, particularly in the delayed phase.

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.

A phase 3 safety study of fosnetupitant as an antiemetic in patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide: CONSOLE-BC

BACKGROUND

Fosnetupitant (FosNTP), an intravenous neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, demonstrated a favorable safety profile with a potentially low risk of injection site reactions (ISRs) and promising antiemetic efficacy in patients receiving cisplatin‐based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in a previous phase 2 study. We conducted a randomized, double‐blind safety study to evaluate the safety profile of FosNTP, including ISRs, in patients receiving doxorubicin‐cyclophosphamide or epirubicin‐cyclophosphamide (AC/EC) chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to receive AC/EC were randomized 1:1 to receive 235 mg of FosNTP or 150 mg of fosaprepitant (FosAPR), both in combination with 0.75 mg of intravenous palonosetron and 9.9 mg of dexamethasone on day 1. The stratification factors were age category (<55 vs ≥55 years) and study site. The primary end point was the incidence of treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) with FosNTP.

RESULTS

Overall, 102 patients were randomized to FosNTP (n = 52) or FosAPR (n = 50), and all were treated with the study drug and evaluated for safety. The primary end point, the incidence of TRAEs, was similar with FosNTP (21.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.1%‐34.7%) and FosAPR (22.0%; 95% CI, 11.5%‐36.0%), with any‐cause ISRs observed in 5.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively, and treatment‐related ISRs observed in 0% and 10.0%, respectively. The overall (0‐120 hour) complete response (defined as no emetic event and no rescue medication) rate, standardized by age category in the full analysis set, was 45.9% (23 of 51 patients) with FosNTP and 51.3% (25 of 49 patients) with FosAPR.

CONCLUSIONS

FosNTP demonstrated a favorable safety profile with a very low risk of ISRs in the AC/EC setting.

Fosnetupitant shows a favorable safety profile in patients receiving doxorubicin‐cyclophosphamide or epirubicin‐cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. As an intravenous neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist with a low risk of causing injection site reactions, fosnetupitant may be used for protecting patients with cancer from experiencing chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study of Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: CONSOLE

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fosnetupitant (FosNTP) versus fosaprepitant (FosAPR) for preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This phase III study was the first head-to-head comparison between two different neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to FosNTP 235 mg or FosAPR 150 mg in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone. The primary end point was overall (0-120 hours) complete response (CR; no emetic event and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, to show the noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR (noninferiority margin, -10% for the difference in the overall CR rate).

RESULTS

Overall, 795 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 785 received the study drug (FosNTP [N = 392] v FosAPR [N = 393]) and were evaluated for efficacy and safety. The overall CR rate was 75.2% versus 71.0%, respectively (Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%), demonstrating noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR. The CR rates in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and beyond delayed (120-168 hours) phases, and at 0-168 hours were 93.9% versus 92.6%, 76.8% versus 72.8%, 86.5% versus 81.4%, and 73.2% versus 66.9%, respectively. The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events with FosNTP versus FosAPR were 22.2% versus 25.4%, whereas adverse events or treatment-related adverse events relevant to injection site reactions were 11.0% versus 20.6% (P < .001) and 0.3% versus 3.6% (P < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

FosNTP demonstrated noninferiority to FosAPR, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for injection site reactions. Thus, FosNTP is valuable in the prophylaxis of acute, delayed, and beyond delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

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.

Modulating Ocular Surface Pain Through Neurokinin-1 Receptor Blockade

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to test the role of substance P (SP) and its receptor neurokinin 1 (NK1R) on ocular surface pain.

Methods

Eight-week-old C57BL6/N (wild type [WT]) and B6.Cg-Tac1tm1Bbm/J (TAC1-KO) male mice were used. 5 M NaCl was topically applied on the cornea, followed by topical fosaprepitant 2, 10, and 50 mg/mL; 4 mg/mL oxybuprocaine chloride, or 0.1% diclofenac. Th eye wiping test was used to quantify ocular surface pain. SP content was quantified in the tear fluid and trigeminal ganglia (TG), and TAC1 mRNA was assessed in the cornea. Corneas were immunostained for β3-tubulin and NK1R, or CD45, to quantify leukocyte infiltration.

Results

TAC1-KO mice displayed a significant reduction of ocular pain (P < 0.001). Similarly, a single dose of 10 or 50 mg/mL fosaprepitant applied topically to WT mice reduced ocular pain as compared to vehicle (P < 0.001). Fosaprepitant 2 mg/mL, instead, induced corneal analgesia only when it was administered for 10 days, 6 times/day (P < 0.05). Diclofenac or oxybuprocaine reduced corneal nociception when compared to vehicle or fosaprepitant (P < 0.05). Fosaprepitant or oxybuprocaine groups showed lower SP content in tear secretions and TG (P < 0.05), and reduction in TAC1 mRNA (P < 0.05), and leukocyte infiltration (P < 0.05) in the cornea. Colocalization of NK1R and β3-tubulin was detected in mouse corneas.

Conclusions

Topical administration of the NK1R antagonist fosaprepitant effectively reduces ocular surface nociception by decreasing SP release in the tear fluid and TG, and corneal leukocyte infiltration. Fosaprepitant repurposing shows promise for the treatment of ocular pain.

First Report of Oncological Outcome and Prognostic Analysis in a First-Line Setting of Short Hydration Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Chemotherapy for Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of a modified-short hydration gemcitabine and cisplatin (m-shGC) regimen for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and to assess the efficacy of a geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) with regard to prognosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2016 to July 2020, 68 patients with mUC underwent first-line m-shGC therapy with 70 mg/m2 cisplatin and 1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine (days 1, 8, and 15), with 2,050 mL fluid replaced on the first day of each 28-day cycle. Prior to the start of treatment, the serum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and levels of albumin and C-reactive protein (CRP) in serum, as well as body heights and weights were measured. Patients were grouped according to GNRI <92 (low) or ≥92 (high). The analysis of data was done retrospectively.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was found to be 12.9 (range 1.7-50.2) months and the objective response rate (ORR) was 54.4% after m-shGC treatment. The ORR was significantly different when high and low-GNRI groups were compared (ORR: 28.0 vs. 69.8% in low- vs. high-GNRI groups). Median overall survival (OS) was calculated as 8.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4-21.3) and 34.5 (95% CI: 20.5-NA) months for low- and high-GNRI groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Unlike for NLR and CRP, univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that low GNRI and visceral metastases were significant prognostic factors for short OS.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line m-shGC showed a survival benefit for mUC, with GNRI a useful prognostic biomarker.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃ ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT₃ RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK₁ RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK₁ RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK₁ ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK₁ RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK₁ RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Pharmacokinetics of Dexamethasone when Administered with Fosaprepitant for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Differences in Dose-Dependent Antiemetic Effects

BACKGROUND

Fosaprepitant, an NK1 receptor antagonist, inhibits and induces cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) as its substrate. Contrarily dexamethasone is metabolized by CYP3A4. Therefore, in combination therapy wherein both agents interact with each other, it is recommended that the dexamethasone dose be reduced in the first two days. Thus far, there are only a few studies on the optimum dose of dexamethasone after day 3. Thus, we aimed to determine the pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone on day3 when administered together with fosaprepitant and investigate the dose-dependent differences in its antiemetic effect in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Twelve patients with esophageal, stomach, or lung cancer received primary highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We intravenously administered 9.9 mg and 6.6 mg of dexamethasone on days 1 and 2, respectively, and 6.6 mg or 13.2 mg on day 3 together with the administration of 150 mg fosaprepitant and 0.75 mg palonosetron. We assessed the pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone on day 3 by dose and examined the dose-dependent antiemetic effect.

RESULTS

No differences were observed in the time-to-maximum concentration and blood half-life of dexamethasone between patient groups that received dexamethasone at doses of 6.6 mg and 13.2 mg. In contrast, the area under the blood concentration-time curve and the maximum concentration of dexamethasone correlated with its dose. Moreover, the blood dexamethasone concentration on day 3 increased by twofold after the administration of a higher dose than after a lower dose. The severity of nausea in the delayed phase significantly decreased in a dose-dependent manner.

CONCLUSION

Administration of a higher dexamethasone dose on day 3 improved the antiemetic effect of the combined regimen in patients with cancer who underwent HEC.<br />.

Head and Neck Cancer Treatments from Chemotherapy to Magnetic Systems: Perspectives and Challenges

BACKGROUND

Cancer is one of the diseases causing society's fears as a stigma of death and pain. Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC) is a group of malignant neoplasms of different locations in this region of the human body. It is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Brazil, because these malignant neoplasias, in most cases, are diagnosed in late phases. Surgical excision, chemotherapy and radiotherapy encompass the forefront of antineoplastic therapy; however, the numerous side effects associated with these therapeutic modalities are well known. Some treatments present enough potential to help or replace conventional treatments, such as Magnetic Hyperthermia and Photodynamic Therapy. Such approaches require the development of new materials at the nanoscale, able to carry out the loading of their active components while presenting characteristics of biocompatibility mandatory for biomedical applications.

OBJECTIVE

This work aims to make a bibliographical review of HNSCC treatments. Recent techniques proven effective in other types of cancer were highlighted and raised discussion and reflections on current methods and possibilities of enhancing the treatment of HNSCC.

METHOD

The study was based on a bibliometric research between the years 2008 and 2019 using the following keywords: Cancer, Head and Neck Cancer, Chemotherapy, Radiotherapy, Photodynamic Therapy, and Hyperthermia.

RESULTS

A total of 5.151.725 articles were found, 3.712.670 about cancer, 175.470 on Head and Neck Cancer, 398.736 on Radiotherapy, 760.497 on Chemotherapy, 53.830 on Hyperthermia, and 50.522 on Photodynamic Therapy.

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows that there is still much room for expanding research, especially for alternative therapies since most of the studies still focus on conventional treatments and on the quest to overcome their side effects. The scientific community needs to keep looking for more effective therapies generating fewer side effects for the patient. Currently, the so-called alternative therapies are being used in combination with the conventional ones, but the association of these new therapies shows great potential, in other types of cancer, to improve the treatment efficacy.

Efficacy of intravenous NEPA, a fixed NK1/5-HT3 receptor antagonist combination, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during cisplatin- and anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy: A review of phase 3 studies

This paper presents an overview of the efficacy of intravenous (IV) NEPA (fixed combination of the NK₁RA, fosnetupitant, and 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron) relative to oral NEPA and also to historical data for other NK₁RA regimens. Data is compiled from 5 pivotal NEPA studies in adult chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors undergoing either cisplatin- or anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Additionally, data was reviewed from 10 pivotal Phase 3 studies utilizing other NK₁RA regimens approved for clinical use. The overall (0-120 h) complete response (no emesis, no rescue use), no emesis, and no significant nausea rates for IV NEPA were similar to that of oral NEPA and were consistently numerically higher than historical NK₁RA regimens. As a single-dose prophylactic antiemetic combination given with dexamethasone, IV NEPA is a highly effective and convenient guideline-compliant antiemetic agent which may offer a safety benefit over other IV NK₁RA regimens due to its lack of associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions.

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

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

Best Practice Approach to Successful Conversion of Fosaprepitant to Aprepitant IV in a Large Multisite Community Oncology Infusion Center: A Retrospective Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the impact on cost, time, resource use, and clinic workflow of converting the route of drug administration from a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion to aprepitant IV, and more specifically to IV push, within a multicenter community oncology practice.

Methods

This was a retrospective, multicenter time, motion, and resource/cost evaluation study. Conversion to aprepitant IV was determined by calculating number of doses of aprepitant IV versus fosaprepitant administered in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Operational advantages (i.e., supply costs, time saved) of switching from fosaprepitant IV infusion to aprepitant administered as a 2-min IV push were assessed.

Results

A total of 12,908 doses of aprepitant IV 130 mg were administered at 13 Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers clinics over an 18-month period. Conversion from fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV reached 90% after 9 months of aprepitant IV initiation. Supply costs per administration were reduced ($2.51 to $0.52) when aprepitant was prepared as an IV push versus an NK-1 RA infusion. The overall time savings per administration of aprepitant was reduced by 90% (from 36.5 to 3.5 min, 33 min saved) as an IV push rather than an infusion. Most of the time saved per administration (30 min) pertained to the infusion nurse, and 3 min was saved by the pharmacy technician.

Conclusion

Successful conversion to aprepitant, and specifically to a 2-min IV push, provides time, cost, and resource savings, improves operational efficiency, and avoids the negative impact of potential future IV fluid shortages.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a major impact on quality of life for patients receiving chemotherapy. Intravenous (IV) aprepitant is an approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) that has been effective and safe when administered as part of a guideline-recommended regimen in patients receiving chemotherapy. In addition to being approved as a 30-min infusion, aprepitant IV is the only NK-1 RA approved for administration as a 2-min injection. These factors contributed to Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers (RMCC), which is a physician-owned community oncology practice, evaluating the impact on cost, time, and resource use of converting from a 30-min infusion of fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV, and more specifically a 2-min injection. Within 9 months of implementing aprepitant IV at RMCC, the percent utilization compared to fosaprepitant reached over 90%, signifying a successful conversion within the practice. Furthermore, a 2-min injection of aprepitant IV resulted in several operational advantages compared to a 30-min infusion. When accounting for all 13 clinics within RMCC, total monthly time savings to the practice would be over 28,000 min, or approximately 60 workdays per month of saved time. This new workflow is more efficient and allows for pharmacy technicians to complete other necessary tasks in the pharmacy such as cleaning, organizing, managing inventory, drug ordering, and charge/documentation corrections. Time saved by the nurses could be used for enhanced patient care, thoroughly reviewing chemotherapy or other orders, and assisting other nurses.

The Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist Aprepitant, a New Drug for the Treatment of Hematological Malignancies: Focus on Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous hematological malignancy. To treat the disease successfully, new therapeutic strategies are urgently needed. One of these strategies can be the use of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonists (e.g., aprepitant), because the substance P (SP)/NK-1R system is involved in cancer progression, including AML. AML patients show an up-regulation of the NK-1R mRNA expression; human AML cell lines show immunoreactivity for both SP and the NK-1R (it is overexpressed: the truncated isoform is more expressed than the full-length form) and, via this receptor, SP and NK-1R antagonists (aprepitant, in a concentration-dependent manner) respectively exert a proliferative action or an antileukemic effect (apoptotic mechanisms are triggered by promoting oxidative stress via mitochondrial Ca⁺⁺ overload). Aprepitant inhibits the formation of AML cell colonies and, in combination with chemotherapeutic drugs, is more effective in inducing cytotoxic effects and AML cell growth blockade. NK-1R antagonists also exert an antinociceptive effect in myeloid leukemia-induced bone pain. The antitumor effect of aprepitant is diminished when the NF-κB pathway is overactivated and the damage induced by aprepitant in cancer cells is higher than that exerted in non-cancer cells. Thus, the SP/NK-1R system is involved in AML, and aprepitant is a promising antitumor strategy against this hematological malignancy. In this review, the involvement of this system in solid and non-solid tumors (in particular in AML) is updated and the use of aprepitant as an anti-leukemic strategy for the treatment of AML is also mentioned (a dose of aprepitant (>20 mg/kg/day) for a period of time according to the response to treatment is suggested). Aprepitant is currently used in clinical practice as an anti-nausea medication.

Neurokinin receptor antagonism: a patent review (2014-present)

INTRODUCTION

The tachykinin family of peptides (substance P, neurokinin A) via the neurokinin-1 (NK-1), NK-2, and NK-3 receptors is involved in many physiological/physiopathological actions. Antagonists of these receptors may be used to treat many human pathologies.

AREAS COVERED

This review offers an overview (from 2014 to present) of the actions exerted by NK receptor (NK-R) antagonists on emesis, pruritus, cardiomyopathy, respiratory tract diseases, bacterial infection, cancer, ocular pain, corneal neovascularization, excess of body fat/weight, conditioned fear, social isolation stress, hot flush, melanogenesis, follicle development, fish reproduction, and sex-hormone-dependent diseases.

EXPERT OPINION

From 2014, no invention has been published using NK-2R antagonists. Although the tachykinin/NK receptor system is involved in a great number of mechanisms, to date, the use of only five NK-1R antagonists have been approved in humans but no NK-2R or NK-3R antagonist. NK receptor antagonists are safe in human trials and are potential therapeutic agents, but this potential is currently minimized. In humans, more studies on molecules acting as NK receptor antagonists and exerting a potential therapeutic action must be carried out. The antipruritic or antitumor action of NK-1R antagonists must be explored in greater depth: the highest safe dose and the time of administration (for a long period of time) of these antagonists must be well established.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a severe and distressing complication during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The antiemetic fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Data on fosaprepitant in children and adolescents undergoing alloHSCT are missing.

Methods

In this non-interventional observation study, 120 children and adolescents with a median age of 11.8 years undergoing alloHSCT after a moderately or highly emetogenic conditioning (MEC or HEC) were analyzed. They received an antiemetic prophylaxis with granisetron (2 × 40 µg/kg d⁻¹) with or without fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; single dose, max. 1 × 150 mg/kg BW), and were analyzed in the control (CG; n = 60) or fosaprepitant group (FG; n = 60). The efficacy and safety of the two antiemetic prophylaxis regimens were analyzed and compared with respect to the acute (0–24 h) and the delayed (> 24–120 h) CINV phase and > 120–240 h after MEC or HEC administration.

Results

During MEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (58.6 vs. 25.0%; p = 0.0156) and during > 24–120 h (93.1% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.0020), compared with the FG. Likewise, significantly more vomiting events (269 vs. 136; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. During HEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (32.3 vs. 9.4%; p = 0.0319) compared with the FG. Significantly more vomiting events (241 vs. 99; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron was well tolerated, safe, and effective in pediatric patients undergoing alloHSCT. However, larger prospective trials are necessary to evaluate these findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03143-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aprepitant Intravenous Emulsion Based on Ion Pairing/Phospholipid Complex for Improving Physical and Chemical Stability During Thermal Sterilization

An aprepitant (APT) cholesteryl hemisuccinate (CHEMS) ion pair complex emulsion (AIPE) with high lecithin content was prepared to improve sterilization stability through the film dispersion homogenization method; therefore, it could be a promising delivery system of APT. Medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) was selected as the oil phase to improve the solubility and stability of APT in oil phase. DSC, XRD, FT-IR, and ¹H-NMR spectroscopies confirmed that the APT-CHEMS ion pair (AIP) was formed between CHEMS and APT. The formation of AIP significantly increased the hydrophobicity of APT, allowing it to be completely embedded in the oil phase core to improve chemical stability and decrease hydrolysis of APT in the water phase. Also, CHEMS had a strong affinity with lecithin and could stabilize lipid membranes, forming a stronger and thicker interface membrane to increase the physical stability of AIPE. As a result, AIPE could withstand autoclaving at 120°C for 8 min without any change of particle size or content. Furthermore, AIPE with a potential of - 53.4 mV remained stable through spatial repulsion during sterilization. The encapsulation efficiency of AIPE was over 90% and the particle size was 106.8 ± 65.62 nm(0.286). Pharmacokinetic study in rats was comparable with that of CINVANTI which yielded a relative bioavailability of 114.31% indicating that the AIPE had similar pharmacokinetic processes in vivo with the analog of CINVANTI®. The AUC0-t of the AIPE was 4.31-fold that of the APT solution.

Evaluation of fosaprepitant-associated hypersensitivity reactions at a National Cancer Center

INTRODUCTION

At our institution, an increased incidence of hypersensitivity reactions was reported following standardization of fosaprepitant as the preferred agent for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic therapies. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the incidence of systemic hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to fosaprepitant infusions compared to available literature.

METHODS

This evaluation is a retrospective review of electronic health records of adult patients who received their first dose of fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis beginning January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 at the University of Colorado Cancer Center outpatient infusion center. Subjects were identified using medication administration reports. Individual chart reviews were performed for all patients who received fosaprepitant during the specified timeframe and had a reaction reported on the same date.

RESULTS

A total of 868 patients received fosaprepitant in the outpatient infusion center during the study time period. Four patients (0.461%) had a systemic HSR attributed to fosaprepitant. Two of the reactions were reported as HSRs in the adverse reaction reporting system and two were found in provider notes during chart review. Due to the small sample size, risk factors for HSRs to fosaprepitant were not able to be determined.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of HSRs to fosaprepitant at our institution was found to be consistent with the <1% incidence currently noted in literature. Based on these findings, opportunities have been identified for education on fosaprepitant-associated HSRs, proper documentation and patient-specific precautions.

Efficacy, safety and feasibility of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy - results of a non-interventional observation study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) belong among the most burdensome side effects in hemato-oncology. Mostly, a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone is used as antiemetic prophylaxis in pediatric patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. However, dexamethasone is prohibited in different pediatric chemotherapy protocols. Currently, data on the use of ondansetron with the new antiemetic agent fosaprepitant without dexamethasone is not available for pediatric patients.

METHODS

In this non-interventional observation study, 79 pediatric patients with a median age of 8.0 years (range 0.5-17.9 years) who received a CINV prophylaxis regimen with either fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; maximum 150 mg) and ondansetron (as 24-h continuous infusion) (n = 40; fosaprepitant group/FG) or ondansetron only (n = 39; control group/CG) during moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were analyzed. The groups were analyzed and compared for frequency of vomiting, administered doses of on-demand antiemetic dimenhydrinate and adverse events during the acute (0-24 h after chemotherapy administration) and delayed (> 24 h-120 h) CINV phases.

RESULTS

A total of 112 and 116 chemotherapy blocks were analyzed in the fosaprepitant and the control group, respectively. The emetogenic potential of the administered chemotherapy did not significantly differ (p = 0.8812) between the two cohorts. In the acute CINV phase, the percentage of patients experiencing vomiting (n = 26 patients) and the vomiting events were significantly higher (p = 0.0005 and p < 0.0001, respectively) in the CG (n = 26 patients (66.7%); 88 events) compared with the FG (n = 10 patients (25.0%); 37 events). In the delayed CINV phase, the percentage of patients experiencing vomiting and the vomiting events were also significantly higher (p = 0.0017 and p < 0.0001, respectively) in the CG (n = 31 patients (79.5%); 164 events) compared with the FG (n = 17 patients (42.5%); 103 events). Additionally, significantly more dimenhydrinate doses were administered in the CG compared with the FG patients (n = 322/n = 198; p < 0.0001). The occurrence of adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Fosaprepitant (4.0 mg/kg) in addition to ondansetron, without application of dexamethasone, was well tolerated, safe, effective and superior to ondansetron only as CINV prophylaxis in pediatric patients during moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study of fosnetupitant in combination with palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Background

The current randomized, double‐blind, phase 2 study assessed the efficacy and safety profile of a single intravenous administration of fosnetupitant, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist prodrug, for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting in Japanese patients receiving cisplatin‐based chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin (at a dose of ≥70 mg/m²)‐based regimens were randomly assigned to receive fosnetupitant at a dose of 81 mg or 235 mg or placebo in combination with palonosetron at a dose of 0.75 mg and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0‐120 hours). The overall CR rate was compared between each dose of fosnetupitant and the placebo group adjusting for the stratification factors of sex and age class (age <55 years vs age ≥55 years). Safety was assessed, with special attention given to events that potentially were suggestive of infusion site reactions.

Results

A total of 594 patients were randomized. Of these, 194 patients, 195 patients, and 195 patients, respectively, in the placebo and fosnetupitant 81‐mg and 235‐mg dose groups were evaluable for efficacy. The overall CR rate was 54.7% for the placebo group, 63.8% for the fosnetupitant 81‐mg dose group (adjusted difference, 9.1%; 95% CI, ‐0.4% to 18.6% [P = .061]), and 76.8% for the fosnetupitant 235‐mg dose group (adjusted difference, 22.0%; 97.5% CI, 11.7% to 32.3% [P < .001]). Safety profiles were comparable between the 3 groups. The incidence of infusion site reactions related to fosnetupitant was ≤1% in each dose group.

Conclusions

Fosnetupitant at a dose of 235 mg provided superior prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting among patients receiving cisplatin‐based chemotherapy compared with the control group, and with a satisfactory safety profile.

Fosnetupitant at a dose of 235 mg combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone was demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of emesis during the first 0 to 120 hours after the administration of cisplatin. The results of the current study suggest that fosnetupitant at a dose of 235 mg also may improve the percentage of patients with no nausea in the delayed phase (24 ‐ 120 hours after cisplatin administration), which is an unmet medical need of patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy.

Safety profile of HTX-019 administered as an intravenous push in cancer patients: a retrospective review

Objectives: HTX-019 (Cinvanti®) is a novel injectable emulsion formulation of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (RA) aprepitant, approved (as 30-min infusion and 2-min injection) for preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This retrospective analysis evaluated the safety of HTX-019 administered by 2-min injection in patients with cancer.Methods: At a single center, HTX-019 was evaluated as a 2-min injection within a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen for CINV prophylaxis in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed 0-60 minutes following initiation of HTX-019 administration, focusing on infusion-site adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions.Results: Among 600 patients (78 MEC, 522 HEC), the most common diagnoses were lung (172) and breast (129) cancer. Patients received a 2-min injection of HTX-019, followed by a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA intravenously (IV) (palonosetron or ondansetron), dexamethasone IV, and chemotherapy regimen (most common was cisplatin-containing) via a central (76%) and peripheral line (24%). No TEAEs occurred within 60 min after start of HTX-019 administration.Conclusion: HTX-019 administered by 2-min injection has a tolerable safety profile in patients with cancer, representing a viable method of HTX-019 administration for CINV prevention.

Efficacy, Safety And Feasibility Of Antiemetic Prophylaxis With Fosaprepitant, Granisetron And Dexamethasone In Pediatric Patients With Hemato-Oncological Malignancies

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are a major burden for patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. International guidelines recommend an antiemetic prophylaxis with corticosteroids, 5-HT₃R-antagonists and NK₁R-antagonists. The NK₁R-antagonist fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients. There is little pediatric experience with fosaprepitant.

Methods

This non-interventional observation study analyzed 303 chemotherapy courses administered to 83 pediatric patients with a median age of 9 years (2-17 years), who received antiemetic prophylaxis either with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone (fosaprepitant group/FG; n=41), or granisetron with or without dexamethasone (control group/CG; n=42), during moderately (CINV risk 30-90%) or highly (CINV risk>90%) emetogenic chemotherapy. The two groups' results were compared with respect to the safety and efficacy of the antiemetic prophylaxis during the acute (0-24hrs after chemotherapy), delayed (>24-120hrs after chemotherapy) and both CINV phases. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were compared between the two cohorts.

Results

Adverse events were not significantly different in the two groups (p>0.05). Significantly fewer vomiting events occurred during antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant in the acute (23 vs 142 events; p<0.0001) and the delayed (71 vs 255 events; p<0.0001) CINV phase. In the control group, the percentage of chemotherapy courses with vomiting was significantly higher during the acute (24%/FG vs 45%/CG; p<0.0001) and delayed CINV phase (28%/FG vs 47%/CG; p=0.0004). Dimenhydrinate (rescue medication) was administered significantly more often in the CG, compared to the FG (114/FG vs 320/CG doses; p<0.0001). Likewise, in the control group, dimenhydrinate was administered in significantly more (p<0.0001) chemotherapy courses during the acute and delayed CINV phases (79 of 150; 52.7%), compared to the fosaprepitant group (45 of 153; 29.4%).

Conclusion

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone was well tolerated, safe and effective in pediatric patients. However, larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate these findings.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists: review of their role for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults

Introduction: The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK₁RAs) to standard prophylaxis of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT₃RA) plus dexamethasone more effectively prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Areas covered: This review presents the evidence base for the use of oral and intravenous (IV) NK₁RAs, focusing on the pharmacologic and clinical properties as a class, and highlighting differences between agents. A PubMed literature search was conducted from 2000 to 2018. Expert opinion: Adherence to international antiemetic guidelines remains a clinical challenge. Strategies to simplify antiemetic regimens and facilitate their administration may improve compliance and treatment outcomes. The use of fixed-combination antiemetics offers clinical utility, in combining an NK₁RA with a 5-HT₃RA in a single oral dose. The use of long-lasting NK₁RAs and administering CINV prophylaxis closer to the time of chemotherapy may also assist with guideline and treatment compliance, diminishing the need for home-based administration, and potentially reducing resource utilization. The availability of IV and oral formulations of NK₁RAs and NK₁RA-5-HT₃RA fixed combinations offers further utility, particularly for those patients unsuited for oral administration. However, safety considerations with respect to injection site toxicity and hypersensitivity reactions of the new NK₁RA IV formulations deserve close attention.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PROCEDURE

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

IMPLICATIONS

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

Cost-minimization analysis of GSTP1c.313A>G genotyping for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: A Bayesian inference approach

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are concerning adverse events resulting from cancer treatment, and current guidelines recommend the use of neurokinin-1-selective antagonists, such as fosaprepitant, in highly emetogenic schemes. However, the implementation of this strategy may be limited by the cost of treatment. GSTP1 c.313A>G genotype was recently described as a predictor of vomiting related to high-dose cisplatin. We hypothesized that the inclusion of routine GSTP1 c.313A>G screening may be promising in financial terms, in contrast to the wide-spread use of fosaprepitant.

Methods

A cost-minimization analysis was planned to compare GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping versus overall fosaprepitant implementation for patients with head and neck cancer under chemoradiation therapy with high-dose cisplatin. A decision analytic tree was designed, and conditional probabilities were calculated under Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. The observed data included patients under treatment without fosaprepitant, while priors were derived from published studies.

Results

To introduce screening with real-time polymerase chain reaction, an initial investment of U$ 39,379.97 would be required, with an amortization cost of U$ 7,272.97 per year. The mean cost of standard therapy with fosaprepitant is U$ 243.24 per patient, and although the initial cost of routine genotyping is higher, there is a tendency of progressive minimization at a threshold of 155 patients (Credible interval–CI: 119 to 216), provided more than one sample is incorporated for simultaneous analysis. A resulting reduction of 35.83% (CI: 30.31 to 41.74%) in fosaprepitant expenditures is then expected with the implementation of GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping.

Conclusion

GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping may reduce the use of preventive support for chemotherapy induced nausea and lower the overall cost of treatment. Despite the results of this simulation, randomized, interventional studies are required to control for known and unknown confounders as well as unexpected expenses.

Safety Profile of HTX-019 Administered as an Intravenous Push in Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Review

INTRODUCTION

HTX-019 [CINVANTI® (aprepitant injectable emulsion)] is a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) approved as a 30-min infusion for preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. HTX-019 has been generally well tolerated when administered as a 30-min infusion or 2-min injection [intravenous (IV) push] in healthy subjects. This real-world analysis assesses safety of HTX-019 via IV push in patients with cancer and addresses a recent IV bag shortage.

METHODS

This retrospective review involved six sites in Alabama, USA. Analyzed patients were 18-94 years old with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ranging from 0 to 4. Seventy-six chemotherapy regimens were utilized (emetogenicity high, n = 35; moderate, n = 35; low, n = 6) and patients received HTX-019 130 mg only or switched from fosaprepitant 150 mg to HTX-019 130 mg within a three-drug antiemetic regimen with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. HTX-019 was administered via IV push. Electronic medical records of patients receiving HTX-019 were queried for nursing and medical documentation associated with infusion-site adverse events (ISAEs). The detailed notes were also reviewed for any discontinuation of HTX-019 or substitution of HTX-019 with another NK-1 RA.

RESULTS

The HTX-019 safety profile was analyzed on the basis of 2066 IV push administrations in 591 cancer patients (most common diagnoses: lung, n = 107; breast, n = 100; colon, n = 92). No clinically significant ISAEs or adverse events associated with HTX-019 were reported. Also, no patients discontinued HTX-019 treatment, and none switched from HTX-019 to another NK-1 RA.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to demonstrate that HTX-019 can be safely administered via IV push in patients with cancer receiving emetogenic chemotherapy while negating the need for fluid bags, which are scarce.

FUNDING

Heron Therapeutics, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. Plain language summary available for this article.

Hypersensitivity and infusion-site adverse events with intravenous fosaprepitant after anthracycline-containing chemotherapy: a retrospective study

Aim: Fosaprepitant, an intravenous neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, contains polysorbate 80, which is associated with infusion-site adverse events (ISAEs) and hypersensitivity systemic reactions (HSRs). This study investigated ISAEs/HSRs following fosaprepitant with anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective chart review noted ISAEs/HSRs following the anthracycline doxorubicin+cyclophosphamide and a three-drug fosaprepitant regimen, via peripheral line. Results: 35/127 patients (28%) developed ISAEs/HSRs with chemotherapy and antiemetic therapy: 32 developed 137 individual ISAEs, primarily erythema, pain and catheter-site swelling; 16 developed 50 individual HSRs, primarily edema/swelling, erythema or dermatitis (no anaphylaxis). Conclusion: Fosaprepitant is associated with a significant ISAE/HSR rate following anthracycline-containing chemotherapy via peripheral line. Polysorbate 80-free intravenous neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist may provide a safer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis option.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of the Use of Fosaprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

A neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist is recommended with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Data for fosaprepitant use in pediatric patients is lacking. A retrospective chart review was conducted using an electronic medical record to characterize the use of fosaprepitant in patients aged 10 months to 18 years at a single institution from August 2015 to January 2017. Thirty-nine patients received fosaprepitant 4 mg/kg (maximum, 150 mg) for prevention of CINV, and 35 were included in the analysis. Ten patients 5 years of age or older who received fosaprepitant after October 2016 were eligible for a follow-up phone call to assess control of delayed CINV. Complete control of emesis was observed in 89% of patients during the acute phase, 63% during the delayed phase, and 60% overall. Overall incidence of nausea as documented in the medical record was 43%. Among the 10 patients who completed follow-up phone calls, 30% experienced emesis and 50% experienced nausea after discharge. Fosaprepitant may be safe and effective in the prevention of CINV in pediatric patients as young as 10 months of age.

Phase III Randomized Trial of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone With or Without Aprepitant to Prevent Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Full-dose Single-day Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer receiving full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who received full dose single-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized (1:1) to aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone, or placebo plus palonosetron and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response of nausea and vomiting in the first cycle. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with nausea and vomiting who received rescue antiemetic medication, the response of cross-over patients, and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients were randomized. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding personal characteristics. The administration of aprepitant significantly improved the complete response for vomiting in the overall period (92.6% vs. 79.93%; P < .01), but not a nausea-free response (75.4% vs. 71.3%; P > .05) in the first cycle. The percentage of patients who received rescue antiemetic medication was decreased for the aprepitant group (14.8% vs. 37.1%; P < .001). Patients who did not use aprepitant and suffered with nausea and vomiting in cycle 1 were crossed over to the aprepitant group (N = 32), and the rate of nausea and vomiting in cycle 2 was decreased to 37.5% (P < .05) and 25% (P < .05), respectively. There were no drug-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone proved to be effective and well-tolerated in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

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

Purpose

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

Summary

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

Conclusion

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

Safety of HTX-019 (intravenous aprepitant) and fosaprepitant in healthy subjects

AIM

Evaluate safety of HTX-019, a novel polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free intravenous formulation of neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

Two open-label, randomized, two-way crossover studies evaluated treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in 200 healthy subjects. Subjects received HTX-019 130 mg (30-min infusion) and fosaprepitant 150 mg (20- or 30-min infusion), with ≥7-day washout between doses.

RESULTS

Less than or equal to 30 min after start of infusion, TEAEs occurred in 5 (3%) HTX-019 and 30 (15%) fosaprepitant recipients. No HTX-019 recipients had infusion-site adverse events, versus 15 (8%) fosaprepitant recipients. Treatment-related dyspnea occurred in one HTX-019 and six fosaprepitant recipients. No severe/serious TEAEs occurred; all TEAEs resolved.

CONCLUSION

HTX-019 may provide a safer aprepitant formulation than fosaprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention.