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

Low dose of dexamethasone combined with netupitant and palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients induced by anthracycline drugs

BACKGROUND

To study the effects of various courses of dexamethasone (DEX) combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RA) and NK-1 RA in suppressing high-grade nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy regimens (AC or EC) in breast cancer (BC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed with 252 BC patients who received AC between January, 2019 and June, 2022 in our hospital. Patients were randomly separated into control Group (N = 130) who received DEX 12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg per dose on day 2-4 and observation group (N = 122) treated with DEX 5 mg per dose on days 1-4. The response was monitored. Primary study endpoint was complete resolution (CR) of patients nausea or vomiting; secondary study endpoints included acute CR and delayed CR; and complete control (CC), acute CC, delayed CC, and safety.

RESULTS

All patients underwent six rounds of chemotherapy, and no difference was found in the clinical data. CR of acute/delayed phase was (94.3%/88.5%, P > 0.05), (89.3%/90.8%, P > 0.05); total CR was (80.3%/81.5%, P > 0.05); CC was (56.6%/59.2%, P > 0.05), (64.8%/67.7%, P > 0.05); total CR was (48.4%/53.1%, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The preventive antiemetic effects of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron combined with DEX 5 mg per dose on days 1-4, can be similar to DEX 12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg per dose on days 2-4, low-dose hormone with better safety, which is beneficial.

Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Topical Capsaicin for Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

We examined the efficacy of topical capsaicin in reducing delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

METHODS

Adults on highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens applied 2 g of capsaicin ointment (0.075%) or matching placebo four times a day to the abdomen for 5 days in addition to standard antiemetic regimen in this blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients were monitored for nausea and vomiting in the immediate (day 1), delayed (days 2-5), and extended phases (days 2-15). Self-reported incidence and daily episodes of CINV were compared between the groups. Onset, severity, need for rescue antiemetics, cumulative vomiting episodes, and safety were also compared.

RESULTS

In total, 160 patients were enrolled. The final modified intention-to-treat population included 75 patients each in the capsaicin and placebo groups. Fewer patients experienced nausea (36.0% [n = 27] v 53.3% [n = 40]; P = .033) and vomiting (28.0% [n = 21] v 42.7% [n = 32]; P = .060) in the capsaicin arm during the delayed phase. During the extended phase, there was a significantly lower incidence of nausea (44% v 64.0%; P = .014) in the capsaicin arm. No difference in nausea (26.7% v 25.3%) or vomiting (22.7% v 18.7%) was evident in the immediate phase. The average daily episodes of nausea and vomiting were significantly fewer in the capsaicin arm during the delayed and extended phases. With capsaicin, no grade 3 nausea (9.3% v 0.0%; P = .007) was observed, and the time to first nausea and vomiting was significantly prolonged. There were no differences between the groups with respect to rescue antiemetics, unscheduled hospital visits, and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Topical capsaicin reduced the incidence of nausea and the average number of vomiting episodes during delayed and extended phases without increasing adverse effects.

Regional differences of tachykinin effects on smooth muscle and pacemaker potentials of the stomach, duodenum, ileum and colon of an emetic model, the house musk shrews

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The contractile effects of tachykinins on the gastrointestinal tract are well-known, but how they modulate slow-waves, particularly in species capable of emesis, remains largely unknown. We aimed to elucidate the effects of tachykinins on myoelectric and contractile activity of isolated gastrointestinal tissues of the Suncus murinus.

METHODS

The effects of substance P (SP), neurokinin (NK)A, NKB and selective NK₁ (CP122,721, CP99,994), NK₂ (SR48,968, GR159,897) and NK₃ (SB218,795, SB222,200) receptor antagonists on isolated stomach, duodenum, ileum and colon segments were studied. Mechanical contractile activity was recorded using isometric force displacement transducers. Electrical pacemaker activity was recorded using a microelectrode array.

RESULTS

Compared with NKA, SP induced larger contractions in stomach tissue and smaller contractions in intestinal segments, where oscillation magnitudes increased in intestinal segments, but not the stomach. CP122,721 and GR159,897 inhibited electrical field stimulation-induced contractions of the stomach, ileum and colon. NKB and NK₃ had minor effects on contractile activity. The inhibitory potencies of SP and NKA on the peristaltic frequency of the colon and ileum, respectively, were correlated with those on electrical pacemaker frequency. SP, NKA and NKB inhibited pacemaker activity of the duodenum and ileum, but increased that of the stomach and colon. SP elicited a dose-dependent contradictive pacemaker frequency response in the colon.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed distinct effects of tachykinins on the mechanical and electrical properties of the stomach and colon vs. the proximal intestine, providing a unique aspect on neuromuscular correlation in terms of the effects of tachykinin on peristaltic and pacemaker activity in gastrointestinal-related symptoms.

Interventions for the prevention of acute phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult and pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To identify effective and safe interventions to prevent acute phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult and pediatric patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials evaluating interventions to prevent acute CINV. Outcomes assessed were complete chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control, complete chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) control, complete CINV control, and discontinuation of antiemetics due to adverse effects.

RESULTS

The search identified 65,172 citations; 744 were evaluated at full-text, and 295 (25 pediatric) met eligibility criteria. In patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), complete CIV (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.44) and CIN (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.62) control improved when olanzapine was added. The addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) to a corticosteroid plus a serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) also improved complete CIV (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.08-1.14) and CIN (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.08) control. Compared to granisetron/ondansetron, palonosetron provided improved complete CIV control when the 5HT3RA was given alone or when combined with dexamethasone. In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), dexamethasone plus a 5HT3RA improved complete CIV control compared to a 5HT3RA alone (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21-1.39). Only a single meta-analysis evaluating the safety outcome was possible.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients receiving HEC, various antiemetic regimens improved CIV and CIN control. For patients receiving MEC, administration of a 5HT3RA plus dexamethasone improved CIV control. Analysis of antiemetic safety was constrained by lack of data.

Complementary and alternative medicine modalities used to treat adverse effects of anti-cancer treatment among children and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Dealing with the symptom burden of cancer diagnosis and treatment has led parents to seek different self-management strategies including Alternative and Complementary Medicine (CAM). The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis about the use and effect of CAM modalities to treat adverse effects of conventional cancer treatment among children and young adults.

Methods

Six scientific research databases were used to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1990 to September 2020. Included studies investigated the use of CAM to treat cancer treatment related adverse effects in children and young adults compared to controls.

Results

Twenty RCTs comprising 1,069 participants were included in this review. The included studies investigated acupuncture, mind–body therapies, supplements, and vitamins for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), oral mucositis, and anxiety among children and young adults who underwent conventional cancer treatment. Seven studies (315 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall effect of CAM (including acupuncture and hypnosis only) on chemotherapy-induced nausea and/or vomiting and controls was statistically significant with a standard mean difference of -0.54, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.31] I² = 0% (p < 0.00001). There was a significant difference between acupuncture and controls (n = 5) for intensity and/or episodes of CINV with an SMD -0.59, 95% CI [-0.85, -0.33] (p < 0.00001). No significant difference was found between hypnosis and controls (n = 2) for severity or episodes of CINV with an SMD -0.41, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.27] I² = 41% (p = 0.19).

Conclusion

Current evidence from this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows that CAM, including acupuncture and hypnosis only, is effective in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children and young adults. More rigorous trials and long-term effects should be investigated if acupuncture and hypnosis are to be recommended for clinical use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12906-022-03537-w.

A retrospective study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: incidence and prescribing practice

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting (CINV) is a common and significant problem in oncology patients and rated as one of cancer chemotherapy's most distressing side effects. The objectives of this study are to describe the incidence of CINV in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-treated patients and the prescribing pattern of CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional single-center study randomly collected data on demographics, CINV episodes, and prescribing patterns for adult oncology patients receiving intravenous highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) between January and December 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 419 randomly selected records of HEC/MEC recipients with 2388 total chemotherapy cycles were included. The mean age was 53.6 ± 12.6 years old. The majority was female (66%), Malay (54.4%), diagnosed with cancer stage IV (47.7%), and with no comorbidities (47%). All patients were prescribed with IV granisetron and dexamethasone before chemotherapy for acute prevention, whereas dexamethasone and metoclopramide were prescribed for delayed prevention. Aprepitant was not routinely prescribed for the prevention of CINV. CINV incidence was 57% in the studied population and 20% in the total cycle. This study found a significant association between CINV incidence with performance status and cisplatin-based chemotherapy (OR = 3.071, CI = 1.515-6.223, p = 0.002; OR = 4.587, CI = 1.739-12.099, p = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CINV incidence was rather high per patient but relatively low per cycle. Most patients were prescribed with dual regimen antiemetic prophylaxis.

IMPACT

This study provides evidence that there was suboptimal use of recommended agents for CINV, and there is a clear need for further improvements in CINV management.

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.

Limbic Neuropeptidergic Modulators of Emotion and Their Therapeutic Potential for Anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is characterized by hypervigilance, increased reactivity to unpredictable versus predictable threat signals, deficits in fear extinction, and an inability to discriminate between threat and safety. First-line pharmacotherapies for psychiatric disorders have limited therapeutic efficacy in PTSD. However, recent studies have advanced our understanding of the roles of several limbic neuropeptides in the regulation of defensive behaviors and in the neural processes that are disrupted in PTSD. For example, preclinical studies have shown that blockers of tachykinin pathways, such as the Tac2 pathway, attenuate fear memory consolidation in mice and thus might have unique potential as early post-trauma interventions to prevent PTSD development. Targeting this pathway might also be beneficial in regulating other symptoms of PTSD, including trauma-induced aggressive behavior. In addition, preclinical and clinical studies have shown the important role of angiotensin receptors in fear extinction and the promise of using angiotensin II receptor blockade to reduce PTSD symptom severity. Additional preclinical studies have demonstrated that the oxytocin receptors foster accurate fear discrimination by facilitating fear responses to predictable versus unpredictable threats. Complementary human imaging studies demonstrate unique neural targets of intranasal oxytocin and compare its efficacy with well-established anxiolytic treatments. Finally, promising data from human subjects have demonstrated that a selective vasopressin 1A receptor antagonist reduces anxiety induced by unpredictable threats. This review highlights these novel promising targets for the treatment of unique core elements of PTSD pathophysiology.

Aprepitant Sensitizes Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cells to the Cytotoxic Effects of Cytosine Arabinoside in vitro and in vivo

Purpose

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a complex malignancy characterized by the clonal expansion of immature myeloid precursors. The standard treatment for newly diagnosed AML is chemotherapy consisting of cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) and anthracyclines with disappointing clinical outcomes and severe adverse effects, such as symptomatic bradycardia, neurotoxicity. Thus, it is promising to treat AML through combination drug therapy to reduce the adverse effects of chemotherapeutics. In our recent published PNAS paper, we reported that NK-1R antagonists, both Aprepitant and SR140333, induce apoptosis of myeloid leukemia cells by inducing oxidative stress through mitochondrial calcium overload. We, therefore, tested the hypothesis of the combination Ara-C with NK-1R antagonist could enhance the efficacy of Ara-C.

Methods

MTT assay was employed to detect the cell proliferation. Flow cytometry was applied to detect the cell cycle and necrosis. PI uptake and LDH release assay were used to detect the disintegration of the plasma membrane. Xenograft model was constructed to explore the effect of combination Ara-C with Aprepitant in vivo.

Results

Our results showed that Aprepitant sensitizes HL60 cells to the cytotoxic effects of Ara-C more than 5-fold by enhancing G0/G1 cell cycle arrest and necrosis in vitro. Furthermore, Nec-1, a specific inhibitor of necroptosis, could recover the cell proliferative viability significantly. Attractively, once every 2-days regimen of Ara-C (5 mg/kg) and Aprepitant (10 mg/kg) via in situ injection dramatically reduced the tumor volume from 2175.0 ± 341.9 mm³ in the vehicle group to 828.4 ± 232.4 mm³ in the combination group without obvious toxicity in human myeloid leukemia xenograft mice.

Conclusion

Taken together, reduced dose of Ara-C combination with moderate Aprepitant provides more effective therapeutical methods for AML treatment in vitro and in vivo with the elimination of the toxicity of Ara-C, which may pay new avenue for the usage of the routine chemotherapy drug Ara-C with low dose to enhance efficacy and reduce toxicity in clinical practice.

Randomized open-label phase II trial of 5-day aprepitant plus ondansetron compared to ondansetron alone in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea-vomiting (CINV) in glioma patients receiving adjuvant temozolomide

PURPOSE

CINV remains a distressing side effect experienced by glioma patients receiving multi-day temozolomide therapy, in spite of guideline-based antiemetic therapy with selective serotonin-receptor-antagonists. Antiemetic research with aprepitant has routinely excluded glioma patients. In this randomized open-label phase II study, use of a nonstandard 5-day regimen of aprepitant for glioma patients was investigated.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-six glioma patients receiving their first cycle of adjuvant temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2/day × 5 days every 28 days) were randomized to Arm-A (ondansetron 8 mg days 1-5 with aprepitant day 1: 125 mg, days 2-5: 80 mg) or Arm-B (ondansetron). Randomization was stratified by tumor grade and number of prior chemotherapy regimens. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving complete control (CC), defined as no emetic episode or antiemetic rescue medication over the 7-day study period. Secondary endpoints included CINV efficacy in the acute phase (≤ 24 h) and delayed phase (days 2-7), as well as safety and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

Patients were 61% male, 97% white, 48% with KPS > 90%, 60% non-smokers, mean age 54, 92% with low alcohol use, and 46% with a CINV history. The CC was 58.6% (Arm-A) and 54.5% (Arm-B). Acute-complete response (CR) rates, defined as CC on day 1 in Arm-A and -B, were 97.1% and 87.9%, respectively (p = 0.056). Treatment-related toxicities were mild or moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant plus ondansetron may increase acute-CR, may have benefit regarding CINV's effect on QoL, and is safe for 5-day temozolomide compared to ondansetron. This study provides no evidence that aprepitant increases CC rate over ondansetron alone.

Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scientific evidence proves its detrimental impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL), treatment compliance, and overall healthcare cost. Despite the CINV-management landscape witnessing a radical shift with the introduction of novel, receptor-targeting antiemetic agents, this side effect remains a chink in the armor of a treating oncologist. Though global guidelines acknowledge patient-specific risk factors and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenic potential in CINV control, a "one-fit-for-all" approach cannot be followed across all geographies. Hence, in a pioneering attempt, India-based oncologists conveyed easily implementable, region-specific, consensus-based statements on CINV prevention and management. These statements resulted from integrating the analysis of scientific evidence and guidelines on CINV by the experts, with their clinical experience. The statements will strengthen decision-making abilities of Indian oncologists/clinicians and help in achieving consistency in CINV prevention and management in the country. Furthermore, this document shall lay the foundation for developing robust Indian guidelines for CINV prevention and control.

Co-occurring Gastrointestinal Symptoms Are Associated With Taste Changes in Oncology Patients Receiving Chemotherapy

CONTEXT

Over 80% of patients with cancer report taste changes. Despite the high prevalence of this symptom and its negative effects on health, few studies have assessed its association with other gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

Determine the occurrence, frequency, severity, and distress of patient-reported "change in the way food tastes" (CFT) and identify phenotypic and GI symptoms characteristics associated with its occurrence.

METHODS

Patients receiving chemotherapy for breast, GI, gynecological, or lung cancer completed demographic and symptom questionnaires prior to their second or third cycle of chemotherapy. CFT was assessed using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Differences in demographic, clinical, and GI symptom characteristics were evaluated using parametric and nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

Of the 1329 patients, 49.4% reported experiencing CFT in the week prior to their second or third cycle of chemotherapy. In the univariate analysis, patients who reported CFT had fewer years of education; were more likely to be black or Hispanic, mixed race, or other; and had a lower annual household income. A higher percentage of patients with CFT reported the occurrence of 13 GI symptoms (e.g., constipation, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, feeling bloated). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, compared with patients with breast cancer, patients with lung cancer (odds ratio = 0.55; P = 0.004) had a decrease in the odds of being in the CFT group. Patients who received a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist and two other antiemetics were at an increased odds of being in the CFT group (odds ratio = 2.51; P = 0.001). Eight of the 13 GI symptoms evaluated were associated with an increased odds of being in the CFT group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides new evidence on the frequency, severity, and distress of CFT in oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy. These findings suggest that CFT is an important problem that warrants ongoing assessments and nutritional interventions.

Neurokinin-1 receptor is an effective target for treating leukemia by inducing oxidative stress through mitochondrial calcium overload

Substance P (SP) regulates multiple biological processes through its high-affinity neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R). While the SP/NK-1R signaling axis is involved in the pathogenesis of solid cancer, the role of this signaling pathway in hematological malignancy remains unknown. Here, we demonstrate that NK-1R expression is markedly elevated in the white blood cells from acute myeloid leukemia patients and a panel of human leukemia cell lines. Blocking NK-1R induces apoptosis in vitro and in vivo via increase of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species. This oxidative stress was triggered by rapid calcium flux from the endoplasmic reticulum into mitochondria and, consequently, impairment of mitochondrial function, a mechanism underlying the cytotoxicity of NK-1R antagonists. Besides anticancer activity, blocking NK-1R produces a potent antinociceptive effect in myeloid leukemia-induced bone pain by alleviating inflammation and inducing apoptosis. These findings thus raise the exciting possibility that the NK-1R antagonists, drugs currently used in the clinic for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, may provide a therapeutic option for treating human myeloid leukemia.

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.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with netupitant/palonosetron, the first fixed combination antiemetic: current and future perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV.

Effect of aprepitant administration on CINV caused by cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy and pharmacokinetics of docetaxel

PURPOSE

To compare efficacy and safety of postponing administration of aprepitant and routine triple-antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients who received docetaxel and cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy treatment, and to evaluate the effect of aprepitant on docetaxel pharmacokinetics in the Chinese population.

METHODS

A total of 24 cancer patients (including 5 females and 19 males, 22-74 years old) received two cycles of high-emetic DP (docetaxel 75 mg/m² on day 1 + cisplatin 25 mg/m² on days 1-3) regimen. A randomized, two-period and cross-over study was applied for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The patients in group A took aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3 (administered aprepitant 1 h before chemotherapy). In group B, the patients took aprepitant 125 mg on day 2, 80 mg on days 3-4, which was delayed 1 day than group A. Efficacy and safety in overall phase were evaluated within 5 days after initiation of chemotherapy. Simultaneously, the differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of docetaxel between two different antiemetic treatments are compared.

RESULTS

The CR rate of delayed-phase nausea was compared between the routine triple-antiemetic treatment (group A) and the aprepitant delayed 1-day administration treatment (group B), and the difference was statistically significant (16.7% vs 45.8% P < 0.05), despite there were similar for two groups in the CR rate of acute-phase nausea and vomiting, and delayed-phase vomiting. In two groups, the area under the docetaxel curve (AUC_0-t values) (mean ± SD) of docetaxel was 1134.21 ± 732.55 (ng h/mL) and 1080.94 ± 585.09 (ng h/mL), and the geometric means were 944.82 and 902.10 (ng h/mL), respectively. There was no significant difference in AUC values between the two antiemetic treatments (P > 0.05), as well as C_max, CL_z, T_1/2z, MRT and T_max.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed administration of aprepitant provided superior delayed-phase nausea protection for patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy in comparison with the routine triple-antiemetic treatment. In addition, in the routine triple-antiemetic treatment, aprepitant did not significantly affect the main pharmacokinetic parameters of docetaxel.

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.

Bioequivalence of HTX-019 (aprepitant IV) and fosaprepitant in healthy subjects: a Phase I, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover evaluation

Introduction

Fosaprepitant, an intravenous (IV) aprepitant prodrug for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, is associated with systemic and infusion-site reactions attributed in part to its surfactant, polysorbate 80. HTX-019 is an IV aprepitant formulation free of polysorbate 80 and other synthetic surfactants.

Materials and methods

This open-label, single-dose, randomized, two-way crossover bioequivalence study compared pharmacokinetics and safety of HTX-019 and fosaprepitant. Healthy subjects received single-dose HTX-019 (130 mg) or fosaprepitant (150 mg) IV over 30 min, with ≥7-day washout between doses. Blood samples were evaluated for pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence; safety evaluation included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious adverse events. Ninety-seven of one hundred enrolled subjects completed the study.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment sequences. For HTX-019, mean (percent coefficient of variation) area under the curve (AUC) from time 0 to time of last measurable plasma concentration (AUC_0−t), AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC_0−inf), and plasma concentration at 12 h (C_{12 h}) for HTX-019 were 43,729 h*ng/mL (32.7), 45,460 h*ng/mL (36.8), and 988.4 ng/mL (27.5), respectively; corresponding fosaprepitant values were 44,130 h*ng/mL (32.0), 46,163 h*ng/mL (36.6), and 1,022 ng/mL (28.5). Also, 90% CIs (94.186–101.354) were within bioequivalence bounds (80%–125%). Within 1 h following infusion start, one (1%) HTX-019 recipient reported one TEAE, while 20 (20%) fosaprepitant recipients reported 32 TEAEs. Dyspnea occurred in three fosaprepitant recipients (at <1 min in two subjects and at 18 min in one subject, considered study drug related) and one HTX-019 recipient (at 120 h, associated with a respiratory tract infection and considered not related to the study drug). No severe TEAEs, serious adverse events, or deaths occurred; all TEAEs resolved.

Conclusion

HTX-019 was bioequivalent to fosaprepitant and may provide a safer alternative to fosaprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis.