A proposal for rational drug class terminology: A gastrointestinal perspective

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.

Review article: An analysis of the pharmacological rationale for selecting drugs to inhibit vomiting or increase gastric emptying during treatment of gastroparesis

BACKGROUND

Drugs which can inhibit nausea/vomiting and/or increase gastric emptying are used to treat gastroparesis, mostly 'off-label'. Within each category, they act at different targets and modulate different physiological mechanisms.

AIMS

Address the questions: In gastroparesis, why should blocking one pathway causing vomiting, be more appropriate than another? Why might increasing gastric emptying via one mechanism be more appropriate than another?

METHODS

Drugs used clinically were identified via consensus opinions and reviews, excluding the poorly characterised. Their pharmacology was defined, mapped to mechanisms influencing vomiting and gastric emptying, and rationale developed for therapeutic use.

RESULTS

Vomiting: Rationale for 5-HT₃ , D₂ , H₁ or muscarinic antagonists, and mirtazapine, amitriptyline, nortriptyline, are poor. Arguments for inhibiting central consequences of vagal afferent transmission by NK₁ antagonism are complicated by doubts over effects on nausea. Gastric emptying: Confusion emerges because of side-effects of drugs increasing gastric emptying: Metoclopramide (5-HT₄ agonist, D₂ and 5-HT₃ antagonist; also blocks some emetic stimuli and causes tardive dyskinesia) and Erythromycin (high-efficacy motilin agonist, requiring low doses to minimise side-effects). Limited trials with selective 5-HT₄ agonists indicate variable efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Several drug classes inhibiting vomiting have no scientific rationale. NK₁ antagonism has rationale but complicated by limited efficacy against nausea. Studies must resolve variable efficacy of selective 5-HT₄ agonists and apparent superiority over motilin agonists. Overall, lack of robust activity indicates a need for novel approaches targeting nausea (e.g., modulating gastric pacemaker or vagal activity, use of receptor agonists or new targets such as GDF15) and objective assessments of nausea.

Anti-emetic effects of thalidomide: Evidence, mechanism of action, and future directions

The rationale for using thalidomide (THD) as a treatment for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy in the late 1950s appears to have been based on its sedative or hypnotic properties. In contrast to contemporaneous studies on the anti-emetic activity of phenothiazines, we were unable to identify publications reporting preclinical or clinical evaluation of THD as an anti-emetic. Our survey of the literature revealed a clinical study in 1965 showing THD reduced vomiting in cancer chemotherapy which was substantiated by similar studies from 2000, particularly showing efficacy in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. To identify the mechanism(s) potentially involved in thalidomide's anti-emetic activity we reviewed its pharmacology in the light of nausea and vomiting mechanisms and their pharmacology with a particular emphasis on chemotherapy and pregnancy. The process identified the following potential mechanisms: reduced secretion of Growth Differentiation Factor 15, suppression of inflammation/prostaglandin production, downregulation of cytotoxic drug induced upregulation of iNOS, and modulation of BK (KCa1.1) channels and GABAA/glutamate transmission at critical points in the emetic pathways (nucleus tractus solitarius, area postrema). We propose ways to investigate these hypothesized mechanisms and discuss the associated challenges (e.g., objective quantification of nausea) in addition to some of the more general aspects of developing novel drugs to treat nausea and vomiting.