A phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of single-dose fosaprepitant for prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: results of an Indian population subanalysis

CONTEXT

Currently, there is limited data on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Indian patients.

AIMS

This post hoc study assessed the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant compared with aprepitant for prevention of CINV in the Indian population. A subgroup analysis was performed from data collected in a phase 3 study of intravenous (IV) fosaprepitant or oral aprepitant, plus the 5-HT 3 antagonist ondansetron and the corticosteroid dexamethasone, in cisplatin-naοve patients with solid malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin (≥70 mg/m 2 ) were administered a single IV dose of fosaprepitant dimeglumine (150 mg) on day 1 or a 3-day dosing regimen of oral aprepitant (day 1:125 mg, days 2 and 3:80 mg) with standard doses of ondansetron and dexamethasone. Patients recorded nausea and/or vomiting episodes and their use of rescue medication and were monitored for adverse events (AEs) and tolerability.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Differences in response rates between fosaprepitant and aprepitant were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.

RESULTS

In the Indian subpopulation (n = 372), efficacy was similar for patients in both the fosaprepitant or aprepitant groups; complete response in the overall, acute, and delayed phases and no vomiting in all phases were approximately 4 percentage points higher in the fosaprepitant group compared with the aprepitant group. Fosaprepitant was generally well-tolerated; common AEs were similar to oral aprepitant.

CONCLUSIONS

IV fosaprepitant is as safe and effective as oral aprepitant in the Indian subpopulation and offers an alternative to the oral formulation.

Differential time course of action of 5-HT3 and NK1 antagonists when used with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC)

9629

Background: Cisplatin-based HEC displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, MEC has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to investigate the time course of action of the 5-HT3antagonist ondansetron (OND) and the NK1 antagonist aprepitant (APR) in trials with HEC and MEC. Methods: Phase III HEC and MEC trials of APR were included. In 2 HEC studies, patients (pts) scheduled to receive cisplatin- based chemotherapy were randomized to an active-control group (OND + dexamethasone [DEX] Day 1, DEX bid Days 2–4) or an APR group (APR + OND + DEX Day 1; APR + DEX qd Days 2–3; and DEX Day 4). In a third HEC study, control pts also received OND on Days 2- 3. For the MEC study, breast cancer pts receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy were randomized to an active- control group (OND + DEX pre chemotherapy and OND 8 hours (h) later; OND bid Days 2–3) or an APR group (APR + OND + DEX pre chemotherapy and OND 8 h later; APR qd Days 2–3). In a post-hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on emesis at different time intervals using a modified intent-to-treat approach. No multiplicity adjustment was planned, so nominal p-values are reported. Results: 1,527 pts and 856 pts were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials respectively. For HEC, APR reduced risk of emesis beginning 15–18 h after cisplatin and extending to 48 h by 45–77% compared to control and by 45–67% compared to the OND control. For MEC, APR markedly reduced emesis from 6–9 h by 61% compared to control (p=0.0012). Conclusions: Time of onset (15 h vs. 6 h) and time course (15–48 h vs. 6–9 h) for the enhanced control of emesis with the addition of APR differs between HEC and MEC respectively. With HEC these results suggest that 5-HT3 dependent mechanisms are most important in the first 12 h after HEC with NK1-dependent mechanisms having a key role later. With MEC both 5-HT3 and NK1 mechanisms appear to be important early and the greatest impact of the NK1 antagonist occurs in the first 9 h. These results provide a rationale for maximizing NK1-antagonist exposure early on with MEC as a means to improve emesis control.

[Table: see text]

Can prognostic factors identify women receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy (MEC) who do not require an NK1 receptor antagonist?

e20502

Background: Age, alcohol use, and history of sickness associated with pregnancy or motion have been identified as risk factors for chemotherapy-induced emesis. This post hoc analysis addressed two questions: 1) Can prognostic factors identify a low risk group for whom ondansetron (OND) plus dexamethasone [D] alone provide a high level of protection (≥80% no emesis)? 2) Does the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant improve antiemetic outcome regardless of emetic risk? Methods: The analysis was based upon outcomes in patients with breast cancer enrolled in a Phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized to Day 1 OND 8 mg and D 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 hours later and OND 8 mg bid Days 2–3 vs. Day 1 aprepitant 125 mg PO, OND 8 mg, and D 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later and aprepitant 80 mg PO qd Days 2–3. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on emesis of the regimen with aprepitant, and previously reported risk factors, including age (<55 and ≥55 years), ethanol use (0–4 or ≥5 drinks/week), history of pregnancy-related morning sickness, and history of motion sickness, using a modified intent-to-treat approach. Results: 856 patients were assessed for efficacy. Treatment with aprepitant (p<0.0001), older age (p=0.006), ethanol use (p=0.0048), and no history of morning sickness (p=0.0007) were all significantly associated with reduced likelihood of emesis; motion sickness was not a risk factor. The Table below shows the probability of no emesis associated with the presence of 0, 1, 2, or all of these factors in the aprepitant and active control arms. Conclusions: 1) The low-risk group identified by this analysis is of questionable utility because it comprised less than 3% of patients. 2) We could not confirm that motion sickness was a significant risk factor. 3) Aprepitant improved the control of emesis irrespective of the number of risk factors for emesis.

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Single-dose aprepitant vs ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

The neurokinin(1) antagonist aprepitant is effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We compared aprepitant with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

Nine hundred and twenty-two patients receiving general anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery were assigned to receive a single preoperative dose of oral aprepitant 40 mg, oral aprepitant 125 mg, or i.v. ondansetron 4 mg in a randomized, double-blind trial. Vomiting episodes, use of rescue therapy, and nausea severity (verbal rating scale) were documented for 48 h after surgery. Primary efficacy endpoints were complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) 0-24 h after surgery and no vomiting 0-24 h after surgery. The secondary endpoint was no vomiting 0-48 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Aprepitant at both doses was non-inferior to ondansetron for complete response 0-24 h after surgery (64% for aprepitant 40 mg, 63% for aprepitant 125 mg, and 55% for ondansetron, lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI > 0.65), superior to ondansetron for no vomiting 0-24 h after surgery (84% for aprepitant 40 mg, 86% for aprepitant 125 mg, and 71% for ondansetron; P < 0.001), and superior for no vomiting 0-48 h after surgery (82% for aprepitant, 40 mg, 85% for aprepitant, 125 mg, and 66% for ondansetron; P < 0.001). The distribution of peak nausea scores was lower in both aprepitant groups vs ondansetron (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant was non-inferior to ondansetron in achieving complete response for 24 h after surgery. Aprepitant was significantly more effective than ondansetron for preventing vomiting at 24 and 48 h after surgery, and in reducing nausea severity in the first 48 h after surgery. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated.

Combined data from two phase III trials of the NK1 antagonist aprepitant plus a 5HT 3 antagonist and a corticosteroid for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: effect of gender on treatment response

GOALS OF WORK

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with standard antiemetics has been more difficult to achieve in female patients. Data from two phase III trials of the NK1 antagonist aprepitant were assessed for potential effect of gender on treatment response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

1,044 patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomly assigned to control regimen [ondansetron (O) 32 mg i.v. and dexamethasone (D) 20 mg p.o. on day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on days 2-4] or aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg p.o. plus O 32 mg and D 12 mg on day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg once daily on days 2-3; and D 8 mg on day 4). The primary endpoint was overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy over days 1-5). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Between-treatment comparisons for each gender were made using logistic regression.

MAIN RESULTS

Women comprised 42 and 43% of the aprepitant and control groups, respectively. In the control group, 41% of women had overall complete response compared with 53% of men. In the aprepitant group, 66% of women had overall complete response compared with 69% of men.

CONCLUSION

The addition of aprepitant may negate the adverse prognostic effect of female gender on the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

The oral NK(1) antagonist, aprepitant, given with standard antiemetics provides protection against nausea and vomiting over multiple cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a combined analysis of two randomised, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trials

In early clinical trials, the NK(1) receptor antagonist, aprepitant (EMEND(R)) was shown to improve the protection provided by the best available therapy (hereafter referred to as 'standard therapy': a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone) against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over multiple cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. To further study the sustainment of antiemetic efficacy of aprepitant plus standard therapy over more than one cycle of chemotherapy, we examined combined data from the multiple cycles extensions of two phase III clinical trials of oral aprepitant plus standard therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Data were pooled from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with identical design and treatment regimens. Cancer patients receiving a first cycle of cisplatin-based (>or=70 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy were randomised to one of two treatment groups as follows: the standard therapy group received ondansetron 32 mg intravenously (i.v.) and dexamethasone 20 mg on day 1 and dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) on days 2-4. The aprepitant group received aprepitant 125 mg, ondansetron 32 mg i.v., and dexamethasone 12 mg on day 1, aprepitant 80 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2-3, and dexamethasone 8 mg on day 4. Patients had the option to receive the same blinded treatment for up to five additional cycles. The analysis used a combined exploratory endpoint of no emesis and no significant nausea (i.e. nausea which interfered with a patient's normal activities) over the 5 days following cisplatin, for up to six cycles of chemotherapy. A cumulative probabilities approach incorporating a model for transitional probabilities was used to analyse the data. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. Baseline characteristics, reasons for discontinuation, and drop-out rates were similar between groups. In every cycle, the estimated probabilities (rates) of no emesis and no significant nausea were significantly higher (P<0.006) in the aprepitant group: in the first cycle, rates were 61% in the aprepitant group (N=516) and 46% in the standard therapy group (N=522), and thereafter, rates for the aprepitant regimen remained higher throughout (59% (N=89) versus 40% (N=78) for the standard therapy, by cycle 6). Repeated dosing with aprepitant over multiple cycles was generally well tolerated. Compared with patients who received standard therapy alone (a 5-HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone), those who received aprepitant in addition to standard therapy had consistently better antiemetic protection that was well maintained over multiple cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Addition of the Oral NK1 Antagonist Aprepitant to Standard Antiemetics Provides Protection Against Nausea and Vomiting During Multiple Cycles of Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy

Purpose: This analysis evaluated whether the antiemetic efficacy of the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant (EMEND™, Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ) plus standard antiemetics could be sustained for up to six cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Patients and Methods: Patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 were blindly assigned to receive one of the following three regimens: (1) aprepitant 375 mg 1 hour before cisplatin on day 1 and aprepitant 250 mg on days 2 to 5 (n = 35); (2) aprepitant 125 mg before cisplatin and aprepitant 80 mg on days 2 to 5 (n = 81); or (3) placebo before cisplatin on days 2 to 5 (n = 86). All groups received ondansetron 32 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before cisplatin, and dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2 to 5. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) over 5 days following cisplatin in up to six cycles. A cumulative probability analysis using a model for transitional probabilities was used to analyze the data. The aprepitant 375/250-mg regimen was discontinued early in light of new pharmacokinetic data.

Results: In the first cycle, 64% of patients in the aprepitant group and 49% in the standard therapy group had a complete response. Thereafter, complete response rates for the aprepitant group were still 59% by cycle 6, but decreased to 34% by cycle 6 for the standard therapy group. Reasons for discontinuation were similar across treatment groups.

Conclusion: Compared with patients who received standard therapy, those who received only the aprepitant regimen had better and more sustained protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over multiple cycles.

Functional relevance of antiemetic control. Experience using the FLIE questionnaire in a randomised study of the NK-1 antagonist aprepitant

Little information exists on the functional impact of effective antiemetic protection. In the present study, the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), was used to assess patient-reported impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after administration of a new NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant). Cisplatin-treated patients in a double-blind randomised trial received either aprepitant+dexamethasone+ondansetron on day 1 and aprepitant+dexamethasone on days 2-5 or standard antiemetic therapy (dexamethasone and ondansetron on day 1 and dexamethasone on days 2-5). Emetic events, nausea ratings and rescue medications were recorded in a 5-day diary and the FLIE was completed on day 6. Compared with standard therapy, significantly more patients treated with the high dose aprepitant regimen achieved a Complete Response (71 vs 44%, P<0.001) and also reported no impact on daily life as indicated by the FLIE total score (84 vs 66%, P<0.01). Use of the FLIE demonstrated that improved control of emesis was highly effective in reducing the impact of CINV on patients' daily lives.

Differential involvement of neurotransmitters through the time course of cisplatin-induced emesis as revealed by therapy with specific receptor antagonists

Advances in antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced emesis have resulted in improved protection against symptoms occurring within 24 h of chemotherapy. However, the vomiting which tends to occur beyond 24 h after chemotherapy (delayed-phase vomiting) is still relatively poorly controlled by the currently available drugs, suggesting that more than one mechanism may mediate these symptoms. The standard antiemetic regimen currently recommended for prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis includes a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist and a corticosteroid. The neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) antagonist aprepitant represents a new class of antiemetic currently in clinical development. Using data obtained in 2 Phase II clinical trials of aprepitant in patients receiving chemotherapy based on the highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin, we compared the time course of antiemetic effect of aprepitant, a 5-HT(3) antagonist, or a combination of both. Over the entire observation period (up to 7 days post-cisplatin), patients who received the NK(1) antagonist had a superior prevention of emesis. However, in the first 24 h after cisplatin, emesis occurred in fewer patients who received the 5-HT(3) antagonist than in patients who did not receive this class of drug. Furthermore, the majority of treatment failures in patients who received the NK(1) antagonist occurred within the first 8-12 h of chemotherapy, whereas the treatment failures in patients who received a 5-HT(3) antagonist were more evenly distributed over time. Patients who received both drugs had superior control of symptoms compared with patients who received one or the other. The difference in the time course of emesis blockade observed with two different classes of receptor antagonists provides substantial evidence for involvement of separate pathophysiological mechanisms in chemotherapy-induced vomiting. Serotonin mediates the early vomiting process that occurs within 8-12 h following cisplatin-based chemotherapy, after which time substance P acting at NK(1) receptors becomes the dominant mediator of vomiting

Comparison of L-758,298, a prodrug for the selective neurokinin-1 antagonist, L-754,030, with ondansetron for the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis

Substance P is localised in brainstem regions associated with emesis. Based on studies in the ferret, it was postulated that a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist would have antiemetic activity as monotherapy in humans receiving chemotherapy. L-758,298 is a water-soluble, intravenous (i.v.) prodrug for L-754,030, a potent and selective NK1 receptor antagonist. This double-blind, randomised, active-agent (ondansetron)-controlled study enrolled 53 cisplatin-naïve patients and evaluated the prevention of both acute (0-24 h) and delayed (days 2-7) emesis after cisplatin treatment (50-100 mg/m(2)). All patients received i.v. L-758,298 (60 or 100 mg) (n=30) or ondansetron (32 mg) (n=23) before cisplatin and efficacy was evaluated up to day 7 post-cisplatin. Nausea was assessed by means of a four-point ordinal scale at intervals over the 7 day period. In the acute period, the proportion of patients without emesis in the L-758,298 and ondansetron groups was 37 and 52%, respectively (no significant difference between the groups). Comparing the distribution of average nausea scores over the entire first 24 h revealed no significant difference between the groups. In the delayed period, the proportion of patients without emesis in the L-758,298 and ondansetron treatment groups was 72 and 30%, respectively (P=0.005). The distribution of average nausea scores in the delayed period was lower in the L-758,298 group compared with the ondansetron group (P=0.15 for the entire delayed period and P=0.043 for day 2 only). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298. A single dose of L-758,298 substantially suppressed the delayed nausea and vomiting characteristic of high dose cisplatin and also appeared to reduce acute emesis post-cisplatin. The data also support the proposition that the underlying mechanism(s) of acute and delayed emesis are different.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis by the oral neurokinin-1 antagonist, MK-869, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone or with dexamethasone alone

PURPOSE

The NK1-receptor antagonist MK-869 (L-754,030) has demonstrated antiemetic activity in humans receiving chemotherapy. Objectives of the present trial included the first assessment of oral MK-869 plus dexamethasone compared with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone for prevention of acute and delayed emesis after high-dose cisplatin. Furthermore, the study sought to confirm that addition of MK-869 to a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone was more effective than just the 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone for prevention of acute and delayed emesis.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial in 351 cisplatin-naïve patients evaluated prevention of acute (0 to 24 hours) and delayed emesis (primary efficacy parameter; days 2 to 5) after cisplatin (> or =70 mg/m(2)). Patients were randomized to four groups (I to IV) (n = number randomized; number evaluable): granisetron (10 microg/kg intravenously) pre-cisplatin followed by placebo on days 2 to 5 (group I) (n = 90; 90); granisetron and MK-869 (400 mg PO [by mouth]) pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group II) (n = 86; 84); MK-869 (400 mg PO) the evening before and pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group III) (n = 89; 88); or MK-869 (400 mg PO) pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group IV) (n = 86; 84). All patients also received dexamethasone (20 mg PO) before cisplatin. Additional medication was available to treat emesis or nausea at any time.

RESULTS

In the acute period, 57%, 80%, 46%, and 43% of patients were without emesis in groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P <.01 for group II v group I). In the delayed period, the proportion of patients without emesis in groups I, II, III, and IV was 29%, 63%, 51%, and 57%, respectively (P <.01 for groups II, III, and IV v group I). The distribution of nausea scores in the delayed period was lower when comparing group II with group I (P <.05 for days 1 to 5 and days 2 to 5). One serious adverse event (dizziness) was rated as possibly related to MK-869.

CONCLUSION

Once daily oral administration of MK-869 was effective in reducing delayed emesis and nausea after high-dose cisplatin. However, the combination of the 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone was numerically superior to MK-869 plus dexamethasone in reducing acute emesis. Confirming and extending previous findings, the triple combination of a 5HT(3) antagonist, MK-869, and dexamethasone provided the best control of acute emesis.

Safety of losartan in hypertensive patients with thiazide-induced hyperuricemia

BACKGROUND

Losartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, has been shown to decrease serum uric acid and to increase urinary excretion of uric acid.

METHODS

To determine if this effect can increase the risk of acute urate nephropathy, 63 hypertensive patients with thiazide-induced asymptomatic hyperuricemia (serum uric acid 7.0 to 12.0 mg/dl) were randomized double-blind to losartan 50 mg every day (q.d.), losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 50 mg q.d., HCTZ 50 mg q.d., or placebo for three weeks. To potentiate the risk of crystal formation, patients received a 2 g/kg protein diet one day prior to each clinic visit on days 0 (baseline), 1, 7, and 21.

RESULTS

Adverse events typically associated with acute urate nephropathy, for example, flank pain, hematuria, or increased blood urea nitrogen/creatinine, were not reported. Uric acid excretion and urine pH increased four and six hours after losartan on day 1 compared with day 0. Dihydrogen urate, the primary risk factor for crystal formation, decreased at four and six hours on day 1 compared with day 0 associated with the concurrent rise in urine pH. Day 7 and 21 changes, compared with day 0, in uric acid excretion rate, urine pH, and dihydrogen urate with losartan were comparable to day 1 results but were not statistically significant. Serum uric acid was significantly reduced after 21 days of therapy with losartan.

CONCLUSION

Losartan decreased serum uric acid and increased uric acid excretion without increasing urinary dihydrogen urate, the primary risk factor for acute urate nephropathy, during 21 days of dosing in hypertensive patients with thiazide-induced hyperuricemia.

Simultaneous investigation of indinavir nonlinear pharmacokinetics and bioavailability in healthy volunteers using stable isotope labeling technique: study design and model-independent data analysis

Indinavir follows nonlinear pharmacokinetics upon oral administration at clinical doses. A study employing the stable isotope administration technique in a three-treatment design was conducted to identify the source of the nonlinearity and to determine the dose-dependency of systemic bioavailability. In treatment A, 400 mg of unlabeled indinavir (D0) was coadministered orally with 16 mg of a hexadeutero analogue of indinavir (D6) intravenously. In treatment B, 800 mg of D0 po was coadministered with 16 mg of D6 intravenously. In treatment C, 16 mg of iv D6 was infused concurrently with 16 mg iv of D0. Plasma concentrations of D0 and D6 were determined by an LC/MS/MS assay method. Concentrations of indinavir in plasma increased greater than dose-proportionally over the 400- to 800-mg dose range. No meaningful kinetic isotope effects were found in treatment C. Plasma concentrations of D6 were dependent on the coadministered D0-indinavir dose and were lowest in treatment C, higher in treatment A, and highest in treatment B. The bioavailability of indinavir was high (60-65%) and comparable between the 400- and 800-mg doses. There was a significant contribution of nonlinear kinetics in the systemic circulation to the observed disproportional increase in plasma concentrations following oral dosing. The high bioavailability at clinically relevant doses suggests a high degree of saturation of first-pass metabolism. These results further demonstrate that the concomitant administration technique in combination with the LC/MS/MS method can provide a realistic and reliable means of elucidating important pharmacokinetic properties of drug candidates during product development.

Pharmacokinetics of Rizatriptan Tablets During and Between Migraine Attacks

Gastric stasis during migraine attacks results in delayed absorption of several orally administered antimigraine agents. This study, as part of a larger trial, was conducted to examine the pharmacokinetics of rizatriptan tablets during and between migraine attacks. Participating patients met IHS criteria for migraine with or without aura, and suffered between one and eight migraines per month for the previous 6 months. In part 1 of the study, 21 patients were randomized to receive a single 5-mg tablet of rizatriptan or placebo in the migraine-free state. In part 2, the same patients were treated during migraine with rizatriptan 5-mg tablets (n=18) or placebo (n=3). Blood samples were obtained before dosing and 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours after dosing. The plasma concentration profile (ie, AUC((0-infinity)), C(max), T(max)) of rizatriptan 5-mg tablets administered during and between migraine attacks were comparable. The median T(max) for rizatriptan between and during attacks was 1 hour, indicating rapid absorption even during a migraine attack. Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated and 67% of the patients experienced headache relief 2 hours postdose.

Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist. L-754,030 Antiemetic Trials Group

BACKGROUND

The localization of substance P in brain-stem regions associated with vomiting, and the results of studies in ferrets, led us to postulate that a neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist would be an antiemetic in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy.

METHODS

In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 159 patients who had not previously received cisplatin, we evaluated the prevention of acute emesis (occurring within 24 hours) and delayed emesis (on days 2 to 5) after a single dose of cisplatin therapy (70 mg or more per square meter of body-surface area). Before receiving cisplatin, all the patients received granisetron (10 microg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments in addition to granisetron and dexamethasone: 400 mg of an oral trisubstituted morpholine acetal (also known as L-754,030) before cisplatin and 300 mg on days 2 to 5 (group 1), 400 mg of L-754,030 before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 2), or placebo before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 3). Additional medication was available at any time to treat occurrences of vomiting or nausea.

RESULTS

In the acute-emesis phase, 93 percent of the patients in groups 1 and 2 combined and 67 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001). In the delayed-emesis phase, 82 percent of the patients in group 1, 78 percent of those in group 2, and 33 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001 for the comparison between group 1 or 2 and group 3). The median nausea score in the delayed-emesis phase was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 3 (P=0.003). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-754,030.

CONCLUSIONS

The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, combining L-754,030 with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.