Treatment for Refractory Pruritus Using Oral Aprepitant

Chronic pruritus: from pathophysiology to drug design

Pruritus, the most common symptom in dermatology, is an innate response capable of protecting skin against irritants. Nonetheless, when it lasts more than six weeks it is assumed to be a chronic pathology having a negative impact on people's lives. Chronic pruritus (CP) can occur in common and rare skin diseases, having a high prevalence in global population. The existing therapies are unable to counteract CP or are associated with adverse effects, so the development of effective treatments is a pressing issue. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying CP are not yet completely dissected but, based on current knowledge, involve a wide range of receptors, namely neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R), Janus kinase (JAK), and transient receptor potential (TRP) ion channels, especially transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) and transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 (TRPA1). This review will address the relevance of these molecular targets for the treatment of CP and molecules capable of modulating these receptors that have already been studied clinically or have the potential to possibly alleviate this pathology. According to scientific and clinical literature, there is an increase in the expression of these molecular targets in the lesioned skin of patients experiencing CP when compared with non-lesioned skin, highlighting their importance for the development of potential efficacious drugs through the design of antagonists/inhibitors.

Neurokinin 1 Receptor Antagonists for Pruritus

Pruritus, commonly known as itch, is a very common symptom in numerous dermatological disorders and systemic diseases. It can manifest as acute, or when lasting longer than 6 weeks, it is considered chronic and can lead to significant distress and reduced quality-of-life of those suffering. Current therapeutics are limited and are lacking in efficacy, and the development of more effective treatments is needed. The neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) antagonists are a novel class of drugs that possess several properties such as antidepressant, anxiolytic and antiemetic activities. Recently, several studies have described the antipruritic activity of NK1R antagonists for treating chronic pruritus. In this review we outline the pathogenesis of chronic pruritus, the mechanism by which the neuropeptide substance P (SP) and its receptor NK1R may be targeted to inhibit pruritic activity, and the efficacy and tolerability of NK1R antagonists, which have been, or are currently being investigated for treating conditions where chronic pruritus is a major symptom. Increasing evidence from ongoing and completed studies demonstrates the importance of SP and NK1R signalling in mediating pruritic activity. Several NK1R antagonists have shown significant antipruritic activity and thus targeting the SP-NK1R pathway may provide a therapeutic option for treating chronic pruritus of certain origin/s in the foreseeable future.

Neurokinin-1 antagonist orvepitant for EGFRI-induced pruritus in patients with cancer: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of orvepitant (10 or 30 mg given once daily, orally for 4 weeks), a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, compared with placebo in reducing the intensity of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI)-induced intense pruritus.

DESIGN

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

15 hospitals in Italy and five hospitals in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

44 patients aged ≥18 years receiving an EGFRI for a histologically confirmed malignant solid tumour and experiencing moderate or intense pruritus after EGFRI treatment.

INTERVENTION

30 or 10 mg orvepitant or placebo tablets once daily for 4 weeks (randomised 1:1:1).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean patient-recorded numerical rating scale (NRS) score (over the last three recordings) at week 4. Secondary outcome measures were NRS score, verbal rating scale score, Skindex-16 and Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire at each study visit (baseline, weeks 1, 4, 8); rescue medication use; EGFRI dose reduction; and study withdrawal because of intense uncontrolled pruritus.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated early because of recruitment challenges; only 44 of the planned 90 patients were randomised. All patients were analysed for efficacy and safety. Mean NRS score change from baseline to week 4 was -2.78 (SD: 2.64) points in the 30 mg group, -3.04 (SD: 3.06) points in the 10 mg group and -3.21 (SD: 1.77) points in the placebo group; the difference between orvepitant and placebo was not statistically significant. No safety signal was detected. Adverse events related to orvepitant (asthenia, dizziness, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis) were all of mild or moderate severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Orvepitant was safe and well tolerated. No difference in NRS score between the orvepitant and placebo groups was observed at the week 4 primary endpoint. A number of explanations for this outcome are possible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT2013-002763-25.

Interventions for chronic pruritus of unknown origin

BACKGROUND

Pruritus is a sensation that leads to the desire to scratch; its origin is unknown in 8% to 15% of affected patients. The prevalence of chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) in individuals with generalised pruritus ranges from 3.6% to 44.5%, with highest prevalence among the elderly. When the origin of pruritus is known, its management may be straightforward if an effective treatment for the causal disease is available. Treatment of CPUO is particularly difficult due to its unknown pathophysiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for CPUO in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following up to July 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for additional references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed interventions for CPUO, as defined in category VI ('Other pruritus of undetermined origin, or chronic pruritus of unknown origin') of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI) classification, in children and adults. Eligible interventions were non-pharmacological or topical or systemic pharmacological interventions, and eligible comparators were another active treatment, placebo, sham procedures, or no treatment or equivalent (e.g. waiting list).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'Patient- or parent-reported pruritus intensity' and 'Adverse events'. Our secondary outcomes were 'Health-related quality of life', 'Sleep disturbances', 'Depression', and 'Patient satisfaction'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We found there was an absence of evidence for the main interventions of interest: emollient creams, cooling lotions, topical corticosteroids, topical antidepressants, systemic antihistamines, systemic antidepressants, systemic anticonvulsants, and phototherapy. We included one study with 257 randomised (253 analysed) participants, aged 18 to 65 years; 60.6% were female. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of three different doses of oral serlopitant (5 mg, 1 mg, and 0.25 mg, once daily for six weeks) compared to placebo for severe chronic pruritus; 25 US centres participated (clinical research centres and universities). All outcomes were measured at the end of treatment (six weeks from baseline), except adverse events, which were monitored throughout. A pharmaceutical company funded this study. Fifty-five per cent of participants suffered from CPUO, and approximately 45% presented a dermatological diagnosis (atopic dermatitis/eczema 37.3%, psoriasis 6.7%, acne 3.6%, among other diagnoses). We unsuccessfully attempted to retrieve outcome data from study authors for the subgroup of participants with CPUO. Participants had pruritus for six weeks or longer. Total study duration was 10 weeks. Participants who received serlopitant 5 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS; a reduction in VAS score indicates improvement) compared to placebo (126 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 3.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 5 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.50); health-related quality of life (as measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); a higher score indicates greater impairment; 127 participants; mean difference (MD) -4.20, 95% CI -11.68 to 3.28); and sleep disturbances (people with insomnia measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Symptom Questionnaire-Insomnia (PSSQ-I), a dichotomous measure; 128 participants; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.01). Participants who received serlopitant 1 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (126 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.54; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 1 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (128 participants; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.47); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 128 participants; MD -6.90, 95% CI -14.38 to 0.58); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 128 participants; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.84). Participants who received serlopitant 0.25 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (127 participants; RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.77; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 0.25 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.24); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 127 participants; MD -5.70, 95% CI -13.18 to 1.78); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 127 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.17). The most commonly reported adverse events were somnolence, diarrhoea, headache, and nasopharyngitis, among others. Our included study did not measure depression or patient satisfaction. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for all outcomes due to indirectness (only 55% of study participants had CPUO) and imprecision. We downgraded outcomes other than patient-reported pruritus intensity a further level due to concerns regarding risk of bias in selection of the reported result and some concerns with risk of bias due to missing outcome data (sleep disturbances only). We deemed risk of bias to be generally low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found lack of evidence to address our review question: for most of our interventions of interest, we found no eligible studies. The neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist serlopitant was the only intervention that we could assess. One study provided low-certainty evidence suggesting that serlopitant may reduce pruritus intensity when compared with placebo. We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant on other outcomes, as certainty of the evidence is very low. More studies with larger sample sizes, focused on patients with CPUO, are needed. Healthcare professionals, patients, and other stakeholders may have to rely on indirect evidence related to other forms of chronic pruritus when deciding between the main interventions currently used for this condition.

Drugs on the Horizon for Chronic Pruritus

Chronic pruritus is a common condition that has a detrimental impact on quality of life. As the molecular pathogenesis of itch is elucidated, novel therapies that disrupt itch pathways are being investigated. Emerging treatments include drugs targeting the neural system, drugs targeting the immune system, antihistamines, bile acid transport inhibitors, and topical drugs that work through a variety of mechanisms such as phosphodiesterase-4 inhibition or targeting of nerve ion channels. Many of these therapies show promising results in the treatment of chronic itch of various etiologies, such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, uremic pruritus, and cholestatic pruritus.

Aprepitant for the Treatment of Chronic Refractory Pruritus

Chronic pruritus is a difficult condition to treat and is associated with several comorbidities, including insomnia, depression, and decreased quality of life. Treatment for chronic itch includes corticosteroids, antihistamines, and systemic therapies such as naltrexone, gabapentin, UV light therapy, and immunomodulatory treatments, including azathioprine, methotrexate, and cellcept. However, some patients still remain refractory to conventional therapy. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting (CINV, PONV). Recently, aprepitant has demonstrated effectiveness in several case series and open label trials in relieving pruritus for patients refractory to other treatments. Patients with pruritus associated with Sézary syndrome, mycosis fungoides, lung adenocarcinoma, breast carcinoma, sarcomas, metastatic solid tumors, chronic kidney disease, hyperuricemia, iron deficiency, brachioradial pruritus, and Hodgkin's lymphoma have experienced considerable symptom relief with short-term use of aprepitant (up to two weeks). Due to differences in reporting and evaluation of drug effects, the mechanism of aprepitant's role is difficult to understand based on the current literature. Herein, we evaluate aprepitant's antipruritic effects and discuss its mechanism of action and adverse effects. We propose that aprepitant is an alternative for patients suffering from pruritus who do not obtain enough symptom relief from conventional therapy.

Evidence for physiological and pathological roles for sensory nerves in the microvasculature and skin

This review highlights the progress from the initial finding of neurogenic inflammation up to the most recent development in the field of sensory nerves research, focusing on their roles in the microvasculature and the skin. Recent discovery of Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) channels highlight their important roles in detecting a range of environmental stimuli, including chemical and temperature. This provides us novel mechanisms for driving neurogenic inflammation upstream of neuropeptide release in addition to promising potential therapeutic targets in various diseases, including pain, itching and skin inflammation.