Impact of fosaprepitant in the prevention of nausea and emesis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemoradiation: a pilot prospective study and a review of literature

PURPOSE

Cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is standard treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, IMRT may increase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV.

METHODS

An infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant was given through a 30 min. We assessed acute toxicity using CTCAE v.4 and the incidence of CINV using the FLIE questionnaire. The evaluation of CINV was done at the second and fifth weeks of CRT and 1 week after the end. The EORTC QLQ-HN 43 questionnaire was administered before treatment beginning (baseline), at second (T1) and fifth (T2) weeks. A dosimetric analysis was performed on dorsal nucleus of vagus (DVC) and area postrema (AP).

RESULTS

Between March and November 2020, 24 patients were enrolled. No correlation was found between nausea and DVC mean dose (p = 0.573), and AP mean dose (p = 0.869). Based on the FLIE questionnaire, patients reported a mean score of 30.5 for nausea and 30 for vomiting during week 2 and 29.8 for nausea and 29.2 for vomiting during week 5. After treatment ended, the mean scores were 27.4 for nausea and 27.7 for vomiting. All patients completed the EORTC QLQ-HN 43. Significantly higher scores at T2 assessment than baseline were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV reduced incidence of moderate to severe nausea and vomiting. No correlation has been found between nausea and median dose to DVC and AP.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic.

RESULTS

The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.

Polysorbate 80 as a possible allergenic component in cross-allergy to docetaxel and fosaprepitant: A literature review

OBJECTIVE

Patients had allergies to both fosaprepitant and docetaxel with similar signs and symptoms. To explore the possible causes of allergy and whether there is cross-allergy between fosaprepitant and docetaxel, we conducted a literature review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic search of the following databases was performed: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Taylor & Francis. The final search was on 12 November 2022. Two investigators independently selected eligible studies and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by a third researcher.

RESULTS

The main cause of fosaprepitant and docetaxel allergy is polysorbate 80. Fosaprepitant and docetaxel have similar allergic symptoms, mainly facial flushing (19.0%, 18.5%); erythema/dermatitis (17.2%, 1.9%); fluid retention (17.2%, 22.2%); and dyspnea, bronchospasm, shortness of breath and coughing (15.5%, 16.7%). Hypotension (1.7%, 7.4%) and decreased oxygen saturation (1.7%, 1.9%) are rare. The treatments for both allergies are similar: stop injection, oxygen, glucocorticoid, antihistamines and symptomatic treatments.

CONCLUSION

Polysorbate 80 is the same allergenic component of docetaxel and fosaprepitant. The symptoms and treatments caused by the two drugs are similar. Most allergic reactions are not serious. Medications containing the same allergy ingredient need to be used with caution for patients with severe allergies to polysorbate 80.

Efficacy of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron plus dexamethasone in preventing nausea and emesis during fractionated radiotherapy with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy: interim analysis of a randomized, prospective, clinical trial using competing risk analysis

PURPOSE

There are no well-recognized guidelines for antiemesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for cervical cancer (CC) and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) until now. The study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly low-dose cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with CC or NPC.

METHODS

Patients with CC or NPC were scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin (25-40 mg/m2) chemotherapy for at least 5 weeks. Patients stratified by tumor type and induction chemotherapy were 1:1 randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone or tropisetron plus dexamethasone as an antiemetic regimen. Efficacy was assessed primarily by the cumulative incidence of emesis after 5 weeks of treatment, and safety by adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Between July 2020 and July 2022, 116 patients consented to the study of whom 103 were included in this interim analysis (fosaprepitant group [N = 52] vs control group [N = 51]). The cumulative incidence of emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 25% (95% CI 14.2-37.4) for the fosaprepitant group compared with 59% (95% CI 43.9-71.0) for the control group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group (HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.19-0.64]; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant was well tolerated as the incidences of adverse events in the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSION

The addition of fosaprepitant to tropisetron plus dexamethasone significantly reduced the risk of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of CCRT in patients with CC or NPC, and fosaprepitant was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on October 3, 2022, number NCT05564286.

Prolonged usage of fosaprepitant for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Even though chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be well controlled in the acute phase, the incidence of delayed CINV remains high. In this study, we intend to investigate whether prolonged use of NK-1 receptor antagonist (RA) in addition to 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone (DEX) was more effective in preventing delayed CINV.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant 150 mg given on days 1,3 (prolonged group) versus on day 1 (regular group) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All patients also treated with palonosetron on day 1 and DEX on days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting. The second endpoint was AEs. All the above endpoints were defined according to CTCAE 5.0.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned to prolonged group and seventy-nine to regular group. Prolonged group demonstrated superiority in controlling delayed CINV to regular group, with statistically significant lower incidence of nausea (6.17% vs 12.66%, P = 0.0056), and slightly lower incidence of grade 1 vomiting (1.62% vs 3.80%, P = 0.0953) in the delayed phase. In addition, prolonged use of fosaprepitant was safe. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding constipation, diarrhea, hiccough, fatigue, palpitation and headache in delayed phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged use of fosaprepitant can effectively and safely prevent delayed CINV in patients receiving HEC.

Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs.

RESULTS

NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

A pharmacological overview of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 30% of all patients undergoing surgery and up to 80% of high-risk patients. Antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis target a variety of receptor systems, with varying degrees of efficacy and side effect profile. Neurokinin -1 receptor antagonists are the most recent class of compounds investigated for PONV prophylaxis, with aprepitant being the only one currently approved for this indication.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pathophysiology of PONV, current recommendations for PONV prophylaxis, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of aprepitant, and the evidence for its efficacy in the management of PONV as a single agent and in combination therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Aprepitant is effective for PONV prophylaxis. It has superior antivomiting efficacy, long half-life, and favorable side effect profile. Data on antiemetic combinations involving aprepitant are limited, and it not clear if the addition of other antiemetics to aprepitant result in improved PONV prophylaxis. The oral route of administration of aprepitant is a potential limitation in a busy clinical practice. However, the recent approval of an intravenous formulation could provide a more convenient route of administration. Aprepitant remains more expensive than other antiemetics, and there are no studies assessing the cost effectiveness of its use.

Multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine improves the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a retrospective study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite a standard triple antiemetic regimen of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone is recommended, how to control the protracted CINV in ASCT setting remains an intractable problem. Here, we retrospectively analyze CINV data of 100 patients who received either SEAM (semustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or MEL140-200 (high-dose melphalan) before ASCT, evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine (FTO), and compare the results to those of patients who received a standard regimen of aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (ATD). The overall rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, is 70% in the FTO group compared to 36% in the ATD group. Although CR rates are comparable in the acute phase between the two groups, significantly more patients treated by FTO achieve CR in the delayed phase than those treated by ATD (74% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Moreover, FTO treatment significantly reduced the percentage of patients who are unable to eat, as well as the requirement for rescue medications. Both regimens are well tolerated and most adverse events (AEs) were generally mild and transient. In conclusion, the antiemetic strategy containing multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant is safe and effective for preventing CINV in lymphoma and MM patients, particularly in the delayed phase.

Exploratory Analysis Comparing Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study (CONSOLE)

Introduction

We describe the results of an exploratory analysis performed on the first head-to-head study (JapicCTI-194611) comparing two different intravenous (IV) neurokinin 1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists, fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant, in combination with palonosetron (PALO) and dexamethasone (DEX) for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This analysis was performed to validate the findings of the primary analysis (previously published) utilizing a last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach for missing values for the efficacy endpoint of complete response (no emetic event and no rescue medication), while also evaluating the time periods encompassing the 0–168-hour (h) “extended overall phase” interval.

Methods

Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to fosnetupitant 235 mg or fosaprepitant 150 mg in combination with PALO 0.75 mg and DEX. Complete response rates were calculated and compared (stratified by age category and sex with a Mantel–Haenszel test) during the study’s primary overall phase (0–120 h) and during additional time intervals of interest [acute (0–24 h), delayed (24–120 h), extended delayed (> 24–168 h), beyond delayed (120–168 h), and extended overall (0–168 h)].

Results

A total of 785 patients were included (fosnetupitant N = 392, fosaprepitant N = 393). Complete response rates were numerically higher for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant for all time intervals and statistically significant for the extended overall phase. Complete response rates for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant during the overall, acute, delayed, extended delayed, beyond delayed, and extended overall phases were 75.5% vs. 71.0% (p = 0.1530), 93.9% vs. 92.6% (p = 0.4832), 77.0% vs. 72.8% (p = 0.1682), 74.7% vs. 68.4% (p = 0.0506), 86.7% vs. 81.7% (p = 0.0523), and 73.5% vs. 66.9% (p = 0.0450), respectively.

Conclusion

In this exploratory analysis, fosnetupitant appeared to be more effective than fosaprepitant in preventing CINV associated with cisplatin-based HEC during the extended 7-day period following chemotherapy.

Infographic

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40487-022-00188-2.

Best Practice Approach to Successful Conversion of Fosaprepitant to Aprepitant IV in a Large Multisite Community Oncology Infusion Center: A Retrospective Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the impact on cost, time, resource use, and clinic workflow of converting the route of drug administration from a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion to aprepitant IV, and more specifically to IV push, within a multicenter community oncology practice.

Methods

This was a retrospective, multicenter time, motion, and resource/cost evaluation study. Conversion to aprepitant IV was determined by calculating number of doses of aprepitant IV versus fosaprepitant administered in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Operational advantages (i.e., supply costs, time saved) of switching from fosaprepitant IV infusion to aprepitant administered as a 2-min IV push were assessed.

Results

A total of 12,908 doses of aprepitant IV 130 mg were administered at 13 Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers clinics over an 18-month period. Conversion from fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV reached 90% after 9 months of aprepitant IV initiation. Supply costs per administration were reduced ($2.51 to $0.52) when aprepitant was prepared as an IV push versus an NK-1 RA infusion. The overall time savings per administration of aprepitant was reduced by 90% (from 36.5 to 3.5 min, 33 min saved) as an IV push rather than an infusion. Most of the time saved per administration (30 min) pertained to the infusion nurse, and 3 min was saved by the pharmacy technician.

Conclusion

Successful conversion to aprepitant, and specifically to a 2-min IV push, provides time, cost, and resource savings, improves operational efficiency, and avoids the negative impact of potential future IV fluid shortages.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a major impact on quality of life for patients receiving chemotherapy. Intravenous (IV) aprepitant is an approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) that has been effective and safe when administered as part of a guideline-recommended regimen in patients receiving chemotherapy. In addition to being approved as a 30-min infusion, aprepitant IV is the only NK-1 RA approved for administration as a 2-min injection. These factors contributed to Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers (RMCC), which is a physician-owned community oncology practice, evaluating the impact on cost, time, and resource use of converting from a 30-min infusion of fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV, and more specifically a 2-min injection. Within 9 months of implementing aprepitant IV at RMCC, the percent utilization compared to fosaprepitant reached over 90%, signifying a successful conversion within the practice. Furthermore, a 2-min injection of aprepitant IV resulted in several operational advantages compared to a 30-min infusion. When accounting for all 13 clinics within RMCC, total monthly time savings to the practice would be over 28,000 min, or approximately 60 workdays per month of saved time. This new workflow is more efficient and allows for pharmacy technicians to complete other necessary tasks in the pharmacy such as cleaning, organizing, managing inventory, drug ordering, and charge/documentation corrections. Time saved by the nurses could be used for enhanced patient care, thoroughly reviewing chemotherapy or other orders, and assisting other nurses.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a severe and distressing complication during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The antiemetic fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Data on fosaprepitant in children and adolescents undergoing alloHSCT are missing.

Methods

In this non-interventional observation study, 120 children and adolescents with a median age of 11.8 years undergoing alloHSCT after a moderately or highly emetogenic conditioning (MEC or HEC) were analyzed. They received an antiemetic prophylaxis with granisetron (2 × 40 µg/kg d⁻¹) with or without fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; single dose, max. 1 × 150 mg/kg BW), and were analyzed in the control (CG; n = 60) or fosaprepitant group (FG; n = 60). The efficacy and safety of the two antiemetic prophylaxis regimens were analyzed and compared with respect to the acute (0–24 h) and the delayed (> 24–120 h) CINV phase and > 120–240 h after MEC or HEC administration.

Results

During MEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (58.6 vs. 25.0%; p = 0.0156) and during > 24–120 h (93.1% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.0020), compared with the FG. Likewise, significantly more vomiting events (269 vs. 136; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. During HEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (32.3 vs. 9.4%; p = 0.0319) compared with the FG. Significantly more vomiting events (241 vs. 99; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron was well tolerated, safe, and effective in pediatric patients undergoing alloHSCT. However, larger prospective trials are necessary to evaluate these findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03143-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy, safety and feasibility of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy - results of a non-interventional observation study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) belong among the most burdensome side effects in hemato-oncology. Mostly, a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone is used as antiemetic prophylaxis in pediatric patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. However, dexamethasone is prohibited in different pediatric chemotherapy protocols. Currently, data on the use of ondansetron with the new antiemetic agent fosaprepitant without dexamethasone is not available for pediatric patients.

METHODS

In this non-interventional observation study, 79 pediatric patients with a median age of 8.0 years (range 0.5-17.9 years) who received a CINV prophylaxis regimen with either fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; maximum 150 mg) and ondansetron (as 24-h continuous infusion) (n = 40; fosaprepitant group/FG) or ondansetron only (n = 39; control group/CG) during moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were analyzed. The groups were analyzed and compared for frequency of vomiting, administered doses of on-demand antiemetic dimenhydrinate and adverse events during the acute (0-24 h after chemotherapy administration) and delayed (> 24 h-120 h) CINV phases.

RESULTS

A total of 112 and 116 chemotherapy blocks were analyzed in the fosaprepitant and the control group, respectively. The emetogenic potential of the administered chemotherapy did not significantly differ (p = 0.8812) between the two cohorts. In the acute CINV phase, the percentage of patients experiencing vomiting (n = 26 patients) and the vomiting events were significantly higher (p = 0.0005 and p < 0.0001, respectively) in the CG (n = 26 patients (66.7%); 88 events) compared with the FG (n = 10 patients (25.0%); 37 events). In the delayed CINV phase, the percentage of patients experiencing vomiting and the vomiting events were also significantly higher (p = 0.0017 and p < 0.0001, respectively) in the CG (n = 31 patients (79.5%); 164 events) compared with the FG (n = 17 patients (42.5%); 103 events). Additionally, significantly more dimenhydrinate doses were administered in the CG compared with the FG patients (n = 322/n = 198; p < 0.0001). The occurrence of adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Fosaprepitant (4.0 mg/kg) in addition to ondansetron, without application of dexamethasone, was well tolerated, safe, effective and superior to ondansetron only as CINV prophylaxis in pediatric patients during moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Safety Profile of HTX-019 Administered as an Intravenous Push in Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Review

INTRODUCTION

HTX-019 [CINVANTI® (aprepitant injectable emulsion)] is a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) approved as a 30-min infusion for preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. HTX-019 has been generally well tolerated when administered as a 30-min infusion or 2-min injection [intravenous (IV) push] in healthy subjects. This real-world analysis assesses safety of HTX-019 via IV push in patients with cancer and addresses a recent IV bag shortage.

METHODS

This retrospective review involved six sites in Alabama, USA. Analyzed patients were 18-94 years old with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ranging from 0 to 4. Seventy-six chemotherapy regimens were utilized (emetogenicity high, n = 35; moderate, n = 35; low, n = 6) and patients received HTX-019 130 mg only or switched from fosaprepitant 150 mg to HTX-019 130 mg within a three-drug antiemetic regimen with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. HTX-019 was administered via IV push. Electronic medical records of patients receiving HTX-019 were queried for nursing and medical documentation associated with infusion-site adverse events (ISAEs). The detailed notes were also reviewed for any discontinuation of HTX-019 or substitution of HTX-019 with another NK-1 RA.

RESULTS

The HTX-019 safety profile was analyzed on the basis of 2066 IV push administrations in 591 cancer patients (most common diagnoses: lung, n = 107; breast, n = 100; colon, n = 92). No clinically significant ISAEs or adverse events associated with HTX-019 were reported. Also, no patients discontinued HTX-019 treatment, and none switched from HTX-019 to another NK-1 RA.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to demonstrate that HTX-019 can be safely administered via IV push in patients with cancer receiving emetogenic chemotherapy while negating the need for fluid bags, which are scarce.

FUNDING

Heron Therapeutics, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. Plain language summary available for this article.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Fosaprepitant, Ondansetron, Dexamethasone (FOND) Versus FOND Plus Olanzapine (FOND-O) for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Regimens: The FOND-O Trial

Evidence supports olanzapine for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) for highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, most studies focus on solid malignancies and single-day regimens. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to compare the addition of olanzapine to triplet therapy (fosaprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone [FOND-O]) versus triplet therapy alone (FOND) in preventing CINV in hematology patients receiving single-day and multiple-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) regimens (NCT02635984). The primary objective of this study was to compare complete response (CR; no emesis and minimal nausea, <25 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale) during the overall assessment period (chemotherapy days plus 5 days after). Secondary objectives were the number of emesis, number of rescue medications, percent achieving minimal nausea, and percent achieving complete protection (CP; no emesis, rescue antiemetic, or significant nausea), all of which are reported as acute (chemotherapy days), delayed (5 days after chemotherapy), and overall phases. Olanzapine 10 mg or matching placebo were given on each chemotherapy day and 3 days after. Adults with hematologic malignancy receiving HCT regimens of melphalan, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan), busulfan (Bu)/cyclophosphamide (Cy), Bu/fludarabine (Flu), Bu/melphalan, FluCy, FluCy-total body irradiation (TBI), etoposide-TBI, and ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) or 7+3 chemotherapy regimens were included. An estimated 98 patients were required using alpha = .05 and 80% power. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between FOND-O (n = 51) and FOND (n = 50) arms. Mean duration of olanzapine was 7.7 days (range, 4 to 11). Discontinuation for possible adverse events occurred in 3 placebo and 0 olanzapine patients. CR was significantly higher for FOND-O in overall (55% versus 26%, P = .003) and delayed (60.8% versus 30%, P = .001) but not acute (P = .13) phases. Significantly more patients receiving FOND-O achieved no more than minimal nausea in overall (P = .001) and delayed phases (P = .0002), as well as fewer overall mean emesis counts (P = .005). CP rates were not different in any assessment phase (P ≥ .05 each). Within the HCT subgroup (n = 64), the CR, CP, and no significant nausea rates were significantly better for FONDO-O in overall and delayed phases (all P < .05). Analysis within the HCT subgroup revealed significant improvement in outcomes in delayed and overall phases with FOND-O in the autologous but not allogeneic cohort. Addition of olanzapine to an NK-1-based triplet antiemetic regimen significantly improved clinically relevant outcomes in the HCT population.

Safety of Polysorbate 80 in the Oncology Setting

Polysorbate 80 is a synthetic nonionic surfactant used as an excipient in drug formulation. Various products formulated with polysorbate 80 are used in the oncology setting for chemotherapy, supportive care, or prevention, including docetaxel, epoetin/darbepoetin, and fosaprepitant. However, polysorbate 80, like some other surfactants, is not an inert compound and has been implicated in a number of systemic and injection- and infusion-site adverse events (ISAEs). The current formulation of intravenous fosaprepitant has been associated with an increased risk of hypersensitivity systemic reactions (HSRs). Factors that have been associated with an increased risk of fosaprepitant-related ISAEs include the site of administration (peripheral vs. central venous), coadministration of anthracycline-based chemotherapy, number of chemotherapy cycles or fosaprepitant doses, and concentration of fosaprepitant administered. Recently, two polysorbate 80-free agents have been approved: intravenous rolapitant, which is a neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist formulated with the synthetic surfactant polyoxyl 15 hydroxystearate, and intravenous HTX-019, which is a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist free of synthetic surfactants. Alternative formulations will obviate the polysorbate 80-associated ISAEs and HSRs and should improve overall management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Funding Heron Therapeutics, Inc.

Human acute myeloid leukemia cells express Neurokinin-1 receptor, which is involved in the antileukemic effect of Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists

The substance P/neurokinin-1 receptor system has been implicated in tumor cell proliferation. Neurokinin-1 receptor has been identified in different solid tumors but not frequently in hematopoietic malignant cells. We investigated the presence of the Neurokinin-1 receptor in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines (KG-1 and HL-60), demonstrating that acute myeloid leukemia cell lines overexpress the truncated Neurokinin-1 receptor isoform compared with lymphocytes from healthy donors. Using the MTS (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium) method, we demonstrated that substance P induced cell proliferation in both acute myeloid leukemia cell lines. We also observed that four different Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (L-733,060, L-732,138, CP 96-345 and aprepitant) elicited inhibition of acute myeloid leukemia cell growth lines in a concentration-dependent manner, while growth inhibition was only marginal in lymphocytes; the specific antitumor action of Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists occurs via the Neurokinin-1 receptor, and leukemia cell death is due to apoptosis. Finally, administration of high doses of daily intraperitoneal fosaprepitant to NOD scid gamma mice previously xenografted with the HL60 cell line increased the median survival from 4 days (control group) to 7 days (treated group) (p = 0.059). Taken together, these findings suggest that Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists suppress leukemic cell growth and may be considered to be potential antitumor drugs for the treatment of human acute myeloid leukemia.

Growth inhibition of formed corneal neovascularization following Fosaprepitant treatment

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of Neurokinin-1 Receptor (NK-1R) antagonist -Fosaprepitant- in inducing regression of established corneal neovascularization (CNV).

METHODS

Twenty C57BL/6 mice underwent alkali burn. Seven days later, when corneal neovessels had developed, they received Fosaprepitant 10 mg/ml, administered topically six times a day in the right eye for 10 days. In parallel, a group of 20 causticated mice was treated with normal saline, as control. A second independent experiment was also performed (n = 10/group). Finally, ten healthy mice received the same topical treatment for 10 days to evaluate Fosaprepitant safety. Haemangiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis were measured by means of vesselj plugin (imagej). Secondary endpoints, such as leucocyte infiltration, corneal opacity and corneal fluorescein staining were also evaluated. Inflammatory cell composition was assessed by flow cytometry. Differences between groups were assessed using unpaired t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test or two-way anova, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Topical Fosaprepitant administration induced a significant reduction of (i) CD31⁺ blood corneal neovessels (-27%, p = 0.0132), (ii) LYVE1⁺ lymphatic corneal neovessels (-31%, p = 0.0118) and (iii) CD45⁺ leucocyte infiltration (-36%; p = 0.0237). The second independent experiment confirmed these data. Moreover, Fosaprepitant-treated corneas showed a reduction in opacity, no impairment in corneal fluorescein staining and decreased infiltration of neutrophils (-72%, p < 0.05) and macrophages (-75%, p < 0.01). Finally, topical Fosaprepitant was not toxic to the ocular surface: no signs of conjunctivitis, opacity, perforations or corneal fluorescein staining were detected. Similarly, corneal TUJ1⁺ nerve density was not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that NK-1R antagonists, such as Fosaprepitant, could be a new, promising therapeutic tool to inhibit CNV after this has been established.

Systemic hypersensitivity to fosaprepitant - A report of two cases

Fosaprepitant is a widely administered antiemetic used mainly for moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Local injection site reactions are the most common type of infusion reaction reported from fosaprepitant. At our institution, two separate patients have experienced systemic hypersensitivity reactions to their infusions of fosaprepitant. We report a review of the literature and the details of these reactions.

Fosaprepitant versus droperidol for prevention of PONV in craniotomy: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after craniotomy. Vomiting may be a potentially hazardous complication in neurosurgical patients. We compared the efficacy of fosaprepitant and droperidol for the prevention of PONV, vomiting in particular, after craniotomy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy were enrolled in the study and randomly divided in a double-blind manner into two groups to receive either 150 mg of fosaprepitant (group F) or 1.25 mg of droperidol (group D). Dexamethasone (9.9 mg) was given to all patients, except those with diabetes mellitus. The incidence of PONV, frequency of vomiting, nausea score, and use of rescue antiemetic during the first 72 h after surgery were assessed at five time intervals (0-2, 2-6, 6-24, 24-48, and 48-72 h).

RESULTS

Of the 200 randomized patients eligible for entry into the study, 186 were ultimately included for analysis. There were no significant differences in demographics or intraoperative variables between the two treatment groups. Over the entire 72-h post-craniotomy observation period the overall and cumulative incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in group F patients than in group D patients, while there were no between-group differences in the overall and cumulative incidence of PONV or in complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic). The incidence and frequency of vomiting during each of the five observational periods were significantly lower in group F patients than group D patients, although there were no differences in the nausea score and antiemetic use between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, fosaprepitant was more effective than droperidol in the prevention of vomiting after craniotomy over the entire 72-h study period. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea and antiemetic use.

Phase II study of fosaprepitant + 5HT3 receptor antagonist + dexamethasone in patients with germ cell tumors undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a Hoosier Cancer Research Network study

PURPOSE

A phase III study adding aprepitant to a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) plus dexamethasone in germ cell tumor (GCT) patients treated with 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in complete response (CR) (J Clin Onc 30:3998-4003, 2012). Fosaprepitant has demonstrated non-inferiority compared to aprepitant in single-day cisplatin chemotherapy and is approved as a single-dose alternative. This single-arm phase II study is the first clinical trial evaluating fosaprepitant in patients receiving multi-day cisplatin regimen.

METHODS

GCT patients receiving a 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy were enrolled. Fosaprepitant 150 mg was given IV on days 3 and 5. A 5HT3-RA days 1-5 (days 1, 3, and 5, if palonosetron) plus dexamethasone 20 mg days 1 and 2 and 4 mg po bid days 6, 7, and 8 was administered. Rescue antiemetics were allowed. The primary objective was to determine the CR rate-no emetic episodes or use of rescue medications. Accrual of 64 patients was planned with expected CR > 27 %.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were enrolled of whom 54 were eligible for analysis. Median age was 33. Fifty-one patients received bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) chemotherapy. CR was observed in 13 (24.1 %) patients (95 % Agresti-Coull binomial C.I. 14.5 %, 37.1 %).

CONCLUSION

The data in this phase II study, in contrast to our prior phase III study, appears to indicate a lower CR rate with the substitution of fosaprepitant for aprepitant. It is unknown whether the substitution of fosaprepitant for aprepitant provides the same benefit in multi-day cisplatin that was achieved with single-day cisplatin. Trial registration Clinical trial information NCT01736917.

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

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

Differential impact of fosaprepitant on infusion site adverse events between cisplatin- and anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimens

BACKGROUND

Fosaprepitant may be associated with infusion site adverse events (AEs), and these adverse events possibly vary according to chemotherapy regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

267 oncology patients who were administered anthracycline- or cisplatin-based regimens were retrospectively studied. Multivariate logistic regression was performed in stratified analyses to evaluate potential regimen-specific effects of fosaprepitant.

RESULTS

41.7% of patients administered fosaprepitant experienced infusion site AEs. On the other hand, only 10.9% of patients administered aprepitant experienced AEs. Multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant overall increased risk of infusion site reaction associated with fosaprepitant (p<0.001), but when evaluated separately according to chemotherapy regimen, this relationship appeared to be largely confined to patients receiving an anthracycline-based regimen (OR=12.95, 95%CI=5.74-29.20). No association was observed among patients on cisplatin-based regimens. A test for interaction was statistically significant (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Fosaprepitant is associated with an elevated risk of infusion site reaction in patients receiving anthracyclines.