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.

Review of the efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a range of tumor types

Chemotherapy regimens differ according to the tumor type being treated and are associated with varying degrees of emetogenic potential. Since the distribution of risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting differs across tumor types, it is important to understand the efficacy of antiemetic regimens in multiple patient populations. To characterize treatment response in patients with various malignancies (e.g., breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and lung) treated with either highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens, a pooled analysis of patient-level data from 4 large randomized trials was performed (N=2813). Patients receiving an antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone were compared with patients receiving an active-control antiemetic regimen containing ondansetron plus dexamethasone. In all tumor types analyzed, complete responses were observed in a higher proportion of HEC-treated patients receiving aprepitant compared with active-control patients (genitourinary [61.5% vs 40.6%, P<0.001], gastrointestinal [68.2% vs 44.7%, P=0.013], and lung cancers [73.5% vs 52.8%, P<0.001]). For MEC-treated patients, complete response rates were also higher for aprepitant patients than active-control patients for all tumor types, with a significant difference noted among patients with breast cancer (54.9% vs 43.9%, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients with no vomiting was higher in both HEC- and MEC-treated patients. While results of previous studies provide support for the use of antiemetic regimens that include aprepitant, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone, this analysis demonstrates the consistent efficacy of aprepitant as part of an antiemetic regimen across different tumor types and chemotherapy regimens.

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

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to further investigate the impact of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant on these patterns.

METHODS

Three phase III HEC (patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy) and one phase III MEC (breast cancer patients scheduled to receive anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)) trials of aprepitant were included. In all studies, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or the standard regimen (ondansetron plus dexamethasone). The exact dosing regimen for ondansetron and dexamethasone was different in each study. In a post hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on first emesis at different time intervals after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred twenty-seven patients and 856 patients were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials, respectively. For HEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-77% vs. standard regimen, beginning 15-18 h after cisplatin and extending to 60 h. For MEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-61% vs. active control, beginning 3 h after AC and for up to 12 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Time of onset and duration of enhanced control of emesis with the addition of aprepitant differed between HEC and MEC. This suggests that the pattern of NK1-sensitive mechanisms may vary for different chemotherapy regimens.

PCPT: Evidence that finasteride reduces risk of most frequently detected intermediate- and high-grade (Gleason score 6 and 7) cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of finasteride relative to placebo on prostate cancer (PCa) risk at each individual Gleason score in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial using a post hoc generalization of a prespecified, exploratory, biopsy sampling density-adjusted analysis.

METHODS

The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial enrolled 18 882 men aged >or=55 years with a prostate-specific antigen level of <3.0 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination findings, and randomized them to finasteride 5 mg daily or placebo. PCa data from evaluable biopsies obtained within 7 years plus <or=90 days of randomization were examined. Polytomous logistic regression analysis of PCa risk was performed across individual Gleason scores using no PCa as the reference group, with no adjustment for multiplicity. The analysis model included treatment, age, race, first-degree family history of PCa, baseline prostate-specific antigen level, and the postrandomization variables of prostate volume and the number of biopsy cores at biopsy as covariates.

RESULTS

Finasteride significantly reduced the PCa risk relative to placebo across multiple Gleason scores (4 through 7), including a 58% reduction in Gleason score 5 PCa risk (P < .0001), a 52% reduction in Gleason score 6 PCa risk (P < .0001), and a 22% reduction in Gleason score 7 PCa risk (P = .0368). Finasteride had no significant effect on the risk of Gleason score 2, 3, or 8-10 cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjusting for biopsy sampling density, finasteride significantly reduced the PCa risk relative to placebo across multiple Gleason scores in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, including the most frequently detected intermediate- and high-grade cancers (Gleason scores 6 and 7).

Aprepitant in adolescent patients for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and tolerability

BACKGROUND

The neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and corticosteroid is well-tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults but has not been formally assessed in adolescents.

PROCEDURE

Patients age 11-19 years old receiving emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to aprepitant triple therapy (aprepitant [A] 125 mg p.o., dexamethasone [D] 8 mg p.o., and ondansetron [O] 0.15 mg/kg i.v. t.i.d. day 1; A 80 mg, D 4 mg, and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 2; A 80 mg and D 4 mg day 3; and D 4 mg day 4) or a control regimen (D 16 mg and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 1; D 8 mg and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 2; and D 8 mg days 3 and 4). The primary endpoint was the difference in drug-related adverse events during and for 14 days following treatment. Efficacy and aprepitant pharmacokinetics were assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between aprepitant (N = 28) and control (N = 18) groups. Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the aprepitant group (25% vs. 11.1%). Complete response (CR) rates were 35.7% for aprepitant triple therapy versus 5.6% for the control group. Mean plasma aprepitant AUC(0-24 hr) and C(max) on day 1 and mean trough concentrations on days 2 and 3 were consistently lower compared to historical data obtained from healthy adults; however, the differences were not clinically significant.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant triple therapy was generally well tolerated; CR were greater with aprepitant, although not statistically significant. Pharmacokinetics suggest that the adult dosing regimen is appropriate for adolescents.

Preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: post hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized active-controlled trials of aprepitant

OBJECTIVE

Compared with the 5HT(3) antagonist ondansetron, the NK(1) antagonist aprepitant has been shown in two double-blind trials to provide greater protection against postoperative vomiting and comparable or greater control of nausea. Post hoc analyses of pooled data from these trials were performed to more fully characterize the efficacy profile of aprepitant in terms of nausea and use of rescue therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients (n = 1599) scheduled for major surgery under general anesthesia (primarily gynecological surgery) were assigned to receive a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg PO, 125 mg PO, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. in two randomized, double-blind, clinical trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Post-surgery vomiting episodes, use of rescue therapy, and nausea severity (verbal rating scale).

RESULTS

In the 24 hours after surgery, aprepitant 40 mg was more effective than ondansetron for all five endpoints evaluated: (1) no significant nausea (56.4% vs. 48.1%); (2) no nausea (39.6% vs. 33.1%); (3) no vomiting (86.7% vs. 72.4%); (4) no nausea and no vomiting (38.3% vs. 31.4%); and (5) no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue (37.9% vs. 31.2%) (p < 0.035 for the odds ratio for each comparison). Numerically more patients receiving aprepitant 125 mg also achieved these endpoints compared with ondansetron.

CONCLUSIONS

These post hoc analyses confirm the favorable efficacy profile of aprepitant for the prevention of post operative nausea and vomiting.

Detection bias due to the effect of finasteride on prostate volume: a modeling approach for analysis of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial

BACKGROUND

The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) demonstrated a 24.8% reduction in the 7-year prevalence of prostate cancer among patients treated with finasteride (5 mg daily) compared with that among patients treated with placebo; however, a 25.5% increase in the prevalence of high-Gleason grade tumors was observed, the clinical significance of which is unknown. One hypothesized explanation for this increase is that finasteride reduced prostate volume, leading to detection of more high-grade tumors due to increased sampling density. This possibility was investigated in an observational reanalysis of the PCPT data, with adjustment for sampling density.

METHODS

A logistic model for the association of high-grade (Gleason score 7-10) prostate cancer with baseline covariates and/or baseline covariates plus prostate volume and number of cores obtained at biopsy was developed using the placebo group (n = 4775) of the PCPT. This model was then applied to the finasteride group (n = 5123) to compare the predicted and observed numbers of high-grade tumors in that group. In a second approach, odds ratios (ORs) for prostate cancer in the finasteride versus placebo groups calculated from binary and polytomous logistic regression models that contained or excluded covariates for gland volume and number of needle cores were compared.

RESULTS

Median prostate volume was 25% lower in the finasteride group (median = 25.1 cm3) than in the placebo group (median = 33.5 cm3). The logistic model developed in the placebo group showed that the likelihood of detection of high-grade prostate cancer decreased as volume increased (for each 10 cm3 increase in prostate volume, OR = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.90). Based on this model, 239 high-grade prostate cancers were predicted in the finasteride group, whereas 243 were observed, a non-statistically significant difference. Among all participants, the odds ratios for high-grade cancer in the finasteride versus placebo groups decreased from 1.27 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.54) with adjustment for baseline covariates to 1.03 (95% CI = 0.84 to 1.26) following additional adjustment for gland volume and number of biopsy cores in binary outcome models and from 1.14 (95% CI = 0.94 to 1.38) to 0.88 (95% CI = 0.72 to 1.09) following these adjustments in the polytomous models.

CONCLUSIONS

Although analyses using postrandomization data require cautious interpretation, these results suggest that sampling density bias alone could explain the excess of high-grade cancers among the finasteride-assigned participants in the PCPT.

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.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of the NK1 antagonist, aprepitant, versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Antiemetics currently in use are not totally effective. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic that have shown promise for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This is the first study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 805 patients receiving general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery to a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg orally, aprepitant 125 mg orally, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Vomiting, nausea, and use of rescue therapy were assessed over 48 h after surgery. Treatments were compared using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Incidence rates for the primary end point (complete response [no vomiting and no use of rescue] over 0-24 h after surgery, tested for superiority of aprepitant) were not different across groups (45% with aprepitant 40 mg, 43% with aprepitant 125 mg, and 42% with ondansetron). The incidence of no vomiting (0-24 h) was higher with aprepitant 40 mg (90%) and aprepitant 125 mg (95%) versus ondansetron (74%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), although between-treatment use of rescue and nausea control was not different. Both aprepitant doses also had higher incidences of no vomiting over 0-48 h (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were seen among the side effect profiles of the treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant was superior to ondansetron for prevention of vomiting in the first 24 and 48 h, but no significant differences were observed between aprepitant and ondansetron for nausea control, use of rescue, or complete response.

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.

Antiemetic efficacy of the neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid in patients receiving anthracyclines or cyclophosphamide in addition to high-dose cisplatin: analysis of combined data from two Phase III randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The tendency of chemotherapeutic regimens to cause vomiting is dependent on the individual drugs in the regimen. The authors analyzed data combined from 2 Phase III trials to assess the effect of the neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) antagonist aprepitant combined with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus a corticosteroid in a subpopulation receiving > 1 emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent.

METHODS

In the current study, 1043 cisplatin-naive patients (42% were women) receiving cisplatin-based (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy were assigned randomly to a control regimen (ondansetron [O] 32 mg intravenously and dexamethasone [D] 20 mg orally on Day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg orally 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). Randomization was stratified for use of concomitant chemotherapy and female gender. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) on Days 1-5 (0-120 hours). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach, and logistic regression was used to make treatment comparisons among patients receiving the most frequently coadministered emetogenic concomitant chemotherapy (Hesketh level > or = 3).

RESULTS

Among the approximately 13% of patients (n = 81 for A; n = 80 for control) who received additional emetogenic chemotherapy (doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide), the aprepitant regimen provided a 33 percentage-point improvement in the complete response rate compared with the control regimen. Among the general population, the advantage with aprepitant was 20 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

The current analysis of > 1000 patients from 2 large randomized trials showed that in the subpopulation at increased risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to concomitant emetogenic chemotherapy, the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetics improved protection to an even greater extent than in the general study population.

The oral NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Pooled data from 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials

In this work, data from two phase III studies were pooled to further evaluate the NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for prevention of cisplatin induced nausea and vomiting. One thousand and forty three patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomised to receive either a control regimen (32 mg intravenous ondansetron [O] and 20 mg oral dexamethasone [D] on day 1; 8 mg D twice daily on days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (125 mg A plus 32 mg O and 12 mg D on day 1, 80 mg A and 8 mg D once daily on days 2-3, and 8 mg D on day 4). The primary endpoint was no emesis and no rescue therapy. Potential correlations between acute and delayed emesis were assessed, as were frequency of emetic episodes by time interval and effects on nausea and quality of life as measured by the functional living index emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. In the aprepitant group, there was statistically significantly less nausea over the study period as well as higher functioning on the FLIE questionnaire in both the nausea and vomiting domains. Patients without acute emesis were more likely to have no emesis in the delayed phase. Compared with control, the aprepitant regimen improved prevention of delayed emesis by 16% points in patients without acute emesis, and by 17% points in patients with acute emesis. Among patients who did not have complete response, the frequency of emesis at various intervals over 5 days was consistently lower in patients receiving aprepitant. Analyses of this combined Phase III population further characterized the clinical profile of the aprepitant regimen, showing that delayed emesis is correlated with, but not entirely dependent on, the presence of acute emesis, and that aprepitant has a favorable effect against nausea throughout 5 days postchemotherapy. In addition, even among patients who had emesis or needed rescue therapy, aprepitant was associated with a lower frequency of these events compared with the control regimen.

Aprepitant: an oral NK1 antagonist for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy

This paper reviews the clinical profile of aprepitant, the first neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist to be approved for use in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. When given to patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, aprepitant in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 (5HT(3)) receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid provides significantly improved protection from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over that which has been previously achievable with current antiemetics.

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.

The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin--the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group

PURPOSE

In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons).

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

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.

Addition of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Latin America

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant is a novel neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) antagonist that has been shown to improve control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) when added to a standard antiemetic regimen of a 5-hydroxytriptamine-3 antagonist plus a corticosteroid. The authors sought to evaluate further the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant plus standard therapy in a large clinical trial.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-groups, Phase III study. Patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive treatment with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatment regimens; the standard therapy group received intravenous ondansetron 32 mg and oral dexamethasone 20 mg on Day 1, and oral dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4. The aprepitant group received oral aprepitant 125 mg, intravenous ondansetron 32 mg, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on Day 1; oral aprepitant 80 mg and oral dexamethasone 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on Day 4. Patients recorded episodes of emesis, use of rescue therapy, and severity of nausea in a diary. A modified intent-to-treat approach was used to analyze the efficacy data. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) during the 5-day period postcisplatin. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models, and reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments were used to assess tolerability.

RESULTS

A total of 523 patients were evaluated for efficacy, and 568 patients were evaluated for safety. During the 5 days after chemotherapy, the percentages of patients who achieved a complete response were 62.7% in the aprepitant group (163 of 260 patients) versus 43.3% in the standard therapy group (114 of 263 patients; P < 0.001). For Day 1, the complete response rates were 82.8% for the aprepitant group and 68.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.001); for Days 2-5, the complete response rates were 67.7% in the aprepitant group and 46.8% in the standard therapy group (P < 0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 treatment groups (72.8% in the aprepitant group [206 of 283 patients] and 72.6% in the standard therapy group [207 of 285 patients]) as were rates of serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, and deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cancer who are receiving high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy, therapy consisting of aprepitant (125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-3) plus a standard regimen of ondansetron and dexamethasone provided superior antiemetic protection compared with standard therapy alone and was generally well tolerated.

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

Establishing the dose of the oral NK1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

The neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant (EMEND; Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, PA) has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when it is given with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. The current study sought to define the most appropriate dose regimen of oral aprepitant.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with cancer who were receiving initial cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) and standard antiemetic therapy (intravenous ondansetron plus oral dexamethasone). Patients were randomized to receive standard therapy plus either aprepitant 375 mg on Day 1 and 250 mg on Days 2-5, aprepitant 125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-5, or placebo. Due to an apparent interaction with dexamethasone suggested by pharmacokinetic data obtained while the study was ongoing, the aprepitant 375/250 mg dose was discontinued and replaced with aprepitant 40 mg on Day 1 and 25 mg on Days 2-5, and a new randomization schedule was generated. Patients recorded nausea and emesis in a diary. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy), which was analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach with data obtained after the dose adjustment. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments, and included all available data.

RESULTS

The percentages of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall study period were 71.0% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (n = 131 patients), 58.8% for the aprepitant 40/25-mg group (n = 119 patients), and 43.7% for the standard therapy group (n = 126 patients; P < 0.05 for either aprepitant regimen vs. standard therapy). Rates for Day 1 were 83.2% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group, 75.6% for aprepitant 40/25-mg group, and 71.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.05 for aprepitant 125/80 mg vs. standard therapy), and rates on Days 2-5 were 72.7% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group, 63.9% for the aprepitant 40/25-mg group, and 45.2% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.01 for either aprepitant group vs. standard therapy). The efficacy of the aprepitant 375/250-mg regimen was similar to that of the aprepitant 125/80-mg regimen. The overall incidence of adverse events was generally similar across treatment groups: 85% in the aprepitant 375/250-mg group (n = 34 patients), 76% in the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (n = 214 patients), 71% in the aprepitant 40/25-mg group (n = 120 patients), and 72% in the standard therapy group (n = 212 patients), with the exception of a higher incidence of infection in the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (13%) compared with the standard therapy group (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

When it was added to a standard regimen of intravenous ondansetron and oral dexamethasone in the current study, aprepitant reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and was generally well tolerated, although increases in infection were noted that were assumed to be due to elevated dexamethasone levels as a result of the pharmacokinetic interaction. The aprepitant 125/80-mg regimen had the most favorable benefit:risk profile.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis by the selective neurokinin-1 antagonists, L-758,298 and MK-869

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested that antiemetic therapy with a triple combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist MK-869, a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist, and dexamethasone provides enhanced control of cisplatin-induced emesis compared with standard therapy regimens. The authors compared the antiemetic activity of a dual combination of MK-869 and dexamethasone with that of a standard dual combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to characterize further the efficacy and tolerability profile of MK-869.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active agent-controlled study of 177 cisplatin-naïve patients with malignant disease. On Day 1, MK-869 was given intravenously as its water-soluble prodrug, L-758,298. Patients were randomized to one of three groups as follows. Group I received L-758,298 100 mg intravenously (i.v.), then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by 300 mg MK-869 (tablet) orally on Days 2-5; Group II received L-758,298 100 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5; and Group III received ondansetron 32 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5. Emesis was recorded over Days 1-5 in a diary. Nausea was assessed every 24 hours by visual analog scale. Additional medication was available for emesis or nausea at any time. The primary efficacy parameters of interest were the proportion of patients without emesis and the proportion without emesis or rescue therapy on Day 1 (acute phase) and on Days 2-5 (delayed phase).

RESULTS

No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298 or MK-869. On Day 1, the proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication were 44% of patients in Group I, 36% of patients in Group II, 40% of patients in Groups I and II combined, and 83% of patients in Group III (P < 0.001 for Group III vs. the combined Groups I and II). The proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication on Days 2-5 were 59% of patients in Group I, 46% of patients in Group II, and 38% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I vs. Group III). The proportions of patients who were without emesis on Day 1 were 49% of patients in Group I, 47% of patients in Group II, and 84% of patients in Group III (P < 0.01 for Group I or II vs. Group III). On Days 2-5, however, the proportions of patients who were without emesis on Days 2-5 were 65% of patients in Group I, 61% of patients in Group II, and 41% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I or II vs. Group III). Nausea scores in the acute phase were lower for Group III than for Group I, Group II, or Groups I and II combined (P < 0.05), although there was no significant difference among groups either for the delayed phase or overall for Days 1-5.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the L-758,298 and dexamethasone combination reduced acute (Day 1) emesis compared with historic rates, dual therapy with ondansetron and dexamethasone was superior in controlling acute emesis. Continued dosing with MK-869 may enhance control of other measures of delayed emesis, such as the use of rescue medication, although confirmation is required before a definitive conclusion may be drawn. MK-869 given as dual therapy with dexamethasone was superior to ondansetron with dexamethasone for the control of delayed emesis (Days 2-5) and control of the need for rescue medication on Days 2-5.

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.