The NK₁ receptor antagonist aprepitant does not alter the pharmacokinetics of high-dose melphalan chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma

Liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods for the therapeutic drug monitoring of cytotoxic anticancer drugs: An update

In the era of precision medicine, there is increasing evidence that conventional cytotoxic agents may be suitable candidates for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)- guided drug dosage adjustments and patient's tailored personalization of non-selective chemotherapies. To that end, many liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assays have been developed for the quantification of conventional cytotoxic anticancer chemotherapies, that have been comprehensively and critically reviewed. The use of stable isotopically labelled internal standards (IS) of cytotoxic drugs was strikingly uncommon, accounting for only 48 % of the methods found, although their use could possible to suitably circumvent patients' samples matrix effects variability. Furthermore, this approach would increase the reliability of cytotoxic drug quantification in highly multi-mediated cancer patients with complex fluctuating pathophysiological and clinical conditions. LC-MS/MS assays can accommodate multiplexed analyses of cytotoxic drugs with optimal selectivity and specificity as well as short analytical times and, when using stable-isotopically labelled IS for quantification, provide concentrations measurements with a high degree of certainty. However, there are still organisational, pharmacological, and medical constraints to tackle before TDM of cytotoxic drugs can be more largely adopted in the clinics for contributing to our ever-lasting quest to improve cancer treatment outcomes.

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

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.

A pilot study of 3D tissue-engineered bone marrow culture as a tool to predict patient response to therapy in multiple myeloma

Cancer patients undergo detrimental toxicities and ineffective treatments especially in the relapsed setting, due to failed treatment attempts. The development of a tool that predicts the clinical response of individual patients to therapy is greatly desired. We have developed a novel patient-derived 3D tissue engineered bone marrow (3DTEBM) technology that closely recapitulate the pathophysiological conditions in the bone marrow and allows ex vivo proliferation of tumor cells of hematologic malignancies. In this study, we used the 3DTEBM to predict the clinical response of individual multiple myeloma (MM) patients to different therapeutic regimens. We found that while no correlation was observed between in vitro efficacy in classic 2D culture systems of drugs used for MM with their clinical efficacious concentration, the efficacious concentration in the 3DTEBM were directly correlated. Furthermore, the 3DTEBM model retrospectively predicted the clinical response to different treatment regimens in 89% of the MM patient cohort. These results demonstrated that the 3DTEBM is a feasible platform which can predict MM clinical responses with high accuracy and within a clinically actionable time frame. Utilization of this technology to predict drug efficacy and the likelihood of treatment failure could significantly improve patient care and treatment in many ways, particularly in the relapsed and refractory setting. Future studies are needed to validate the 3DTEBM model as a tool for predicting clinical efficacy.

The Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist Aprepitant: An Intelligent Bullet against Cancer?

Neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonists exert antitumor action, are safe and do not cause serious side-effects. These antagonists (via the NK-1R) exert multiple actions against cancer: antiproliferative and anti-Warburg effects and apoptotic, anti-angiogenic and antimetastatic effects. These multiple effects have been shown for a broad spectrum of cancers. The drug aprepitant (an NK-1R antagonist) is currently used in clinical practice as an antiemetic. In in vivo and in vitro studies, aprepitant also showed the aforementioned multiple antitumor actions against many types of cancer. A successful combination therapy (aprepitant and radiotherapy) has recently been reported in a patient suffering from lung carcinoma: the tumor mass disappeared and side-effects were not observed. Aprepitant could be considered as an intelligent bullet against cancer. The administration of aprepitant in cancer patients to prevent recurrence and metastasis after surgical procedures, thrombosis and thromboembolism is discussed, as is the possible link, through the substance P (SP)/NK-1R system, between cancer and depression. Our main aim is to review the multiple antitumor actions exerted by aprepitant, and the use of this drug is suggested in cancer patients. Altogether, the data support the reprofiling of aprepitant for a new therapeutic use as an antitumor agent.

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.

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant drug interactions: a systematic review

AIMS

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant, commonly used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, alter cytochrome P450 activity. This systematic review evaluates clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with aprepitant and fosaprepitant and describes adverse events ascribed to drug interactions with aprepitant or fosaprepitant.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature to September 11, 2016, to identify articles evaluating drug interactions involving aprepitant/fosaprepitant. The clinical significance of each reported pharmacokinetic drug interaction was evaluated based on the United States Food and Drug Administration guidance document on conducting drug interaction studies. The probability of an adverse event reported in case reports being due to a drug interaction with aprepitant/fosaprepitant was determined using the Drug Interaction Probability Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 4377 publications were identified. Of these, 64 met inclusion eligibility criteria: 34 described pharmacokinetic drug interactions and 30 described adverse events ascribed to a drug interaction. Clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and bosutinib PO, cabazitaxel IV, cyclophosphamide IV, dexamethasone PO, methylprednisolone IV, midazolam PO/IV, oxycodone PO and tolbutamide PO were identified, as were adverse events resulting from an interaction between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and alcohol, anthracyclines, ifosfamide, oxycodone, quetiapine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential for a drug interaction with aprepitant and fosaprepitant should be considered when selecting antiemetic therapy.

Drug interactions with aprepitant or fosaprepitant: Review of literature and implications for clinical practice

Purpose Aprepitant and its parenteral formulation fosaprepitant are widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Aprepitant exerts modest inhibitory effect on CYP3A4 and modest inductive effect on CYP2C9 substrates such as some antineoplastics and multiple other medications. This article is aimed to provide pharmacists and other healthcare professionals with an updated summary of drug-drug interactions of aprepitant/fosaprepitant and implications for clinical practice. Method We reviewed publications reporting drug-drug interactions between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and other medications. Results Coadministration of aprepitant with antineoplastics or opiods may result in significant elevations in the serum levels of the agents metabolized via CYP3A4, with the best documentation for cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, erlotinib and oxycodone. These alterations did not translate into adverse outcomes and/or necessitate dosing adjustments. The levels of warfarin were significantly decreased by aprepitant requiring prolonged monitoring after discontinuation of aprepitant. Among direct oral anticoagulants, a theoretical interaction between aprepitant and rivaroxaban or apixaban exists. Interactions between aprepitant and quetiapine or diltiazem or sirolimus required dose reductions to avoid adverse outcomes. The intravenous route had a weaker inhibitory effect on CYP3A4 than the oral pathway. Conclusion The evidence on drug interactions of aprepitant with other medications is limited, and the impact on therapeutic outcomes remains to be determined. The intravenous regimen may be a preferred option. As utilization of aprepitant is expanding, practitioners and patients need to be educated about the potential for drug interactions and a need for careful monitoring of patients concurrently receiving aprepitant and CYP2C9 or CYP3A4 substrates, especially those with a narrow therapeutic window.

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant: a 10-year review of efficacy and safety

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with anticancer treatment that can have a significant adverse impact on patient health-related quality of life and that can potentially undermine the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Traditional regimens to prevent CINV generally involved a combination of a corticosteroid plus a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). In the past 10 years, antiemetic treatment has greatly advanced with the availability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) aprepitant and its prodrug fosaprepitant. NK1 RAs have a different mechanism of action in CINV than corticosteroids and 5HT3 RAs, thus their use can complement traditional antiemetic drugs and can enhance control of CINV. This review examined accumulated data regarding the safety and efficacy of aprepitant and fosaprepitant over the decade since the first regulatory approval. Data from key studies of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were explored, as were recommendations in currently available guidelines for their use. In addition, their use as antiemetic therapy in special patient populations was highlighted. Future perspectives on potential uses of aprepitant and fosaprepitant for indications other than CINV are presented.

A randomized controlled study evaluating the efficacy of aprepitant for highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapies in hematological malignancies

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a serious complication of treatments of hematological malignancies. Although aprepitant, an NK1 receptor antagonist, has been shown to control CINV in highly emetogenic therapies for solid tumors, the antiemetic effect of this agent in hematological chemotherapies is not well established. In this randomized controlled trial, we examined the additional effect of aprepitant in combination with conventional 5HT3 blocker-based prophylaxis for CINV in highly or moderately emetic chemotherapies for hematological malignancies (n = 41). The complete response rate, defined as no emetic episodes and no salvage treatments, was significantly higher in the aprepitant arm than the control arm (82 versus 47 %, p = 0.026), with no increase in severe adverse effects. However, the difference of nausea, measured with visual analog scale, and of oral intake impairment was moderate, which suggests insufficiency of blocking NK receptor for these events. Furthermore, sub-group analysis revealed that merit of aprepitant addition depends on treatment regimens. Our results indicate the overall advantage of applying aprepitant in the control of CINV in hematological malignancies and the need for further refinement of anti-CINV strategies, including stratification according to regimen.

Aprepitant, Granisetron, and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After High-Dose Melphalan in Autologous Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma: Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial

Purpose

The optimal regimen to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is unclear. To evaluate the effect of aprepitant in addition to a standard regimen, we conducted this randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

Patients and Methods

Patients with multiple myeloma were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive either aprepitant (125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg orally on days 2 to 4), granisetron (2 mg orally on days 1 to 4), and dexamethasone (4 mg orally on day 1 and 2 mg orally on days 2 to 3) or matching placebo, granisetron (2 mg orally on days 1 to 4), and dexamethasone (8 mg orally on day 1 and 4 mg orally on days 2 to 3). Melphalan 100 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1 to 2. ASCT was performed on day 4. The primary end point (complete response) was defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy within 120 hours of melphalan administration. Quality of life was assessed by modified Functional Living Index–Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on days −1 and 6.

Results

Overall, 362 patients were available for the efficacy analysis (181 in each treatment arm). Significantly more patients receiving aprepitant reached the primary end point (58% v 41%; odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23 to 3.00; P = .0042). Absence of major nausea (94% v 88%; OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.09 to 5.15; P = .026) and emesis (78% v 65%; OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.18; P = .0036) within 120 hours was increased by aprepitant. Mean total FLIE score (± standard deviation) was 114 ± 18 for aprepitant and 106 ± 26 for placebo (P < .001).

Conclusion

The addition of aprepitant resulted in significantly less CINV and had a positive effect on quality of life.

Efficacy and safety of aprepitant in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Study Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aprepitant added to standard antiemetic regimens used in high-dose chemotherapy for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Design

Retrospective medical record review.

Setting

Hematology ward of a university hospital in Japan.

Patients

Of 88 patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by allo-HSCT, 46 received aprepitant and granisetron as antiemetic therapy (between April 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011), and 42 received granisetron alone (between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2010).

Interventions

Patients in both groups received 3 mg of granisetron intravenously 30 minutes before the administration of anticancer drugs. In the aprepitant group, 125 mg of aprepitant was administered orally 60–90 minutes before the administration of the first moderately to highly emetogenic anticancer drug. On the following days, 80 mg of aprepitant was administered orally every morning. The mean administration duration of aprepitant was 3.3 days (range 3–6 days).

Measurements and Main Results

The primary objective was to evaluate the percentage of patients who achieved complete response (CR; no vomiting and none to mild nausea). The CR rate in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (48% vs 24%, p=0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that nonprophylactic use of aprepitant was associated with failure to achieve CR (odds ratio [OR] 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13–7.99, p=0.03). The frequency of abdominal pain was lower in the aprepitant group (9% vs 25%, p=0.03). Rates of other frequently observed adverse drug events were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in neutrophil engraftment (median 18 vs 17 days), platelet engraftment (median 32 vs 32 days), the incidence of acute graft-versus-host-disease (63% vs 55%, p=0.52), viral infection (74% vs 67%, p=0.49), or 1-year overall survival (63% vs 62%, p=0.90) between the two groups.

Conclusions

The addition of aprepitant to granisetron increases the antiemetic effect without influencing transplantation-related toxicities in allo-HSCT.

Safety of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists

INTRODUCTION

The substance P (SP)/neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor system is involved in many pathological processes. NK-1 receptor antagonists have many promising therapeutic indications. However, the only NK-1 receptor antagonist used in clinical practice is the drug aprepitant and its intravenously administered prodrug, fosaprepitant. In general, NK-1 receptor antagonists are safe and well tolerated.

AREAS COVERED

A search was carried out in Medline using the following terms: adverse events, aprepitant, casopitant, clinical trials, CP-122,721, ezlopitant, fosaprepitant, NK-1 receptor antagonists, randomized, safety, side effects, tolerability and vofopitant.

EXPERT OPINION

Most clinical trials have focused on the antiemetic action of aprepitant in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. However, the efficacy and safety of aprepitant have not been fully tested in other diseases in which the SP/NK-1 receptor system is involved (e.g., cancer, HIV, alcoholism); thus, clinical trials are required. The use of NK-1 receptor antagonists in oncology therapy is quite promising, but to date pharmacological therapy has not exploited the many possible therapies offered by such antagonists.