Safety and tolerability of intravenous aprepitant and fosaprepitant in children with cancer: A retrospective, single-center review

NK-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) are key agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Current pediatric practice guidelines recommend the use of intravenous fosaprepitant or oral aprepitant. However, there are reports of hypersensitivity reactions with fosaprepitant due to polysorbate 80. Intravenous aprepitant does not contain polysorbate 80, but its use in pediatric patients has not been described. In this retrospective, single-center study, 106 pediatric patients received either fosaprepitant or intravenous aprepitant as part of their antiemetic regimen. Intravenous aprepitant was well tolerated and did not lead to any instances of hypersensitivity reactions requiring discontinuation.

Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, with That of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study

Existing antiemetic therapy against emetic-risk agents across malignancies 24 h post-dose in the acute period in cisplatin (CDDP)-based regimens yields a satisfactory complete response (CR) rate of ≥90%. However, the control rate after 24 h in the delayed period is unsatisfactory. This study compared the efficacy of fosnetupitant (F-NTP), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, with that of fosaprepitant (F-APR) and aprepitant (APR) in the treatment of patients with cancer at high emetic risk due to chemotherapy. In this retrospective case-control study involving patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, patients were divided into three groups based on prophylactic antiemetic therapy: F-NTP, F-APR, and APR. The CR rate was evaluated for each period up to 168 h and further subdivided into acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and beyond-delayed (120-168 h) periods. Eighty-eight patients were included in the F-NTP group, 66 in the F-APR group, and 268 in the APR group. The CR rates at 0-168 and 120-168 h after cisplatin administration were significantly higher in the F-NTP group than in the F-APR and APR groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, F-NTP use was an independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy, including F-NTP, was effective and well-tolerated during the delayed period. The efficacy of F-NTP in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was superior to those of F-APR and APR during the study period.

Opioid-induced respiratory depression suspected of drug interaction in a prostate cancer patient: a case report

BACKGROUND

Many of the drugs used for the treatment and alleviation of symptoms in cancer patients are known to inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 (CYP). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the drug interactions of opioid analgesics that are metabolized by CYPs, because for example when using oxycodone metabolized by CYP3A4, it is possible that the effect will be attenuated or enhanced by the concomitant use of drugs that induce or inhibit CYP3A4. Aprepitant, an antiemetic drug used in many patients receiving anticancer drugs, is known as a moderate competitive inhibitor of CYP3A4. We experienced a case of respiratory depression caused by opioids, which was suspected to be caused by a drug interaction with antiemetics especially aprepitant.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The patient was a 72-year-old man. He had been treated with continuous oxycodone infusion for perianal pain associated with the rectal invasion of prostate cancer. No comorbidities other than renal dysfunction were observed. Oxycodone treatment was started at 48 mg/day, and was increased to 108 mg/day, and then the pain decreased. Once the pain was controlled, chemotherapy was planned. Antiemetics (dexamethasone, palonosetron, and aprepitant) were administered before anticancer drug administration. Approximately 3 hours after antiemetics administration and before the administration of the anticancer drugs, a ward nurse noticed that oversedation and respiratory depression had occurred. When the patient was called, he immediately woke up and was able to talk normally, so the anticancer drugs were administered as scheduled. About 2 hours after the nurse noticed oversedation, the attending physician reduced the dose of oxycodone infusion to 48 mg/day. After that, his drowsiness persisted, but his respiratory condition improved. Despite reducing the dose of oxycodone to less than half, the pain remained stable at numeric rating scale (NRS) 0-1, without the use of a rescue dose. The patient was discharged from the hospital 36 days after the administration of anticancer drugs, without any problems.

CONCLUSIONS

The cause of respiratory depression in this case was thought to be a combination of factors, including drug interactions between oxycodone and antiemetics, and oxycodone accumulation due to renal dysfunction.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

This review is an update of the MASCC/ESMO 2015 recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed from June 1, 2015, through February 1, 2023.

RESULTS

We identified 56 references (16 were duplications or invalid), leaving 40 manuscripts for this search. The panel classified level I evidence (three manuscripts) and level II evidence (14 manuscripts). High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant were discussed in four of these manuscripts, and multiple-day chemotherapy treatment in 15. Some manuscripts covered both topics. Additionally, a search for breakthrough nausea and vomiting resulted in 12 "hits." No new relevant studies were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations for patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplants and patients undergoing multiple-day cisplatin were updated. For patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy for stem cell transplant, a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended. Olanzapine could be considered part of the antiemetic regimen. Patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant plus olanzapine. For patients experiencing breakthrough nausea and vomiting, the available evidence suggests using a single dose of olanzapine daily for 3 days.

The In Vitro Pro-inflammatory Functions of the SP/NK1R System in Prostate Cancer: a Focus on Nuclear Factor-Kappa B (NF-κB) and Its Pro-inflammatory Target Genes

Prostate cancer is one of the main global health threats for men which is in close association with chronic inflammation. Neuropeptide substance P (SP), acting through neurokinin receptor (NK-1R), induces various pro-inflammatory responses which are strongly involved in the pathogenesis of several diseases as well as cancer. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the pro-inflammatory functions of the SP/NK1R complex in prostate cancer and the therapeutic effects of its inhibition by NK-1R antagonist, aprepitant, in vitro. MTT assay was conducted for the cytotoxicity assessment of aprepitant in prostate cancer cells. The protein expression levels were evaluated by Western blot assay. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) was applied to measure mRNA expression levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Concurrently, the protein concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines were also analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. We observed that SP increased the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α), while treatment with aprepitant reduced the effects of SP. We also indicated that SP increased the protein levels of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), as the main regulator of inflammatory processes, and also an NF-κB target gene, cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) in prostate cancer cells, while treatment with aprepitant reversed these effects. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of the SP/NK1R system in the modulation of pro-inflammatory responses in prostate cancer cells and suggest that aprepitant may be developed as a novel anti-inflammatory agent for the management of cancer-associated inflammation.

The use of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are adverse effects after surgery, which may increase the risk of complications. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor blocker and has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and PONV. However, its role in endoscopic skull base surgery remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of aprepitant in reducing PONV in endoscopic transsphenoidal (TSA) pituitary surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review between July 2021 and January 2023 of 127 consecutive patients who underwent TSA was performed at a tertiary academic institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on preoperative aprepitant use. Two groups were matched based on known risk factors of PONV (age, sex, nonsmoking, and history of PONV). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcome measures included the number of anti-emetic use, length of stay, and postoperative cererebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak.

RESULTS

After matching, 48 patients were included in each group. The aprepitant group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of vomiting than the non-aprepitant group (2.1% vs 22.9%, p = 0.002). The number of nausea episodes and anti-emetic use decreased with aprepitant use (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of nausea, length of stay, or postoperative CSF leak. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that aprepitant decreased the incidence of postoperative vomiting with odds ratio of 0.107.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant may serve as a useful preoperative treatment to reduce PONV in patients undergoing TSA. Further studies are needed to evaluate its impact in other arenas of endoscopic skull base surgery.

Efficacy and safety of Aprepitant-containing triple therapy for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most cancer patients suffer from the pain of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a regimen consisting of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prevention and treatment of CINV.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, HEED, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of triple therapy (aprepitant, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone) to prevent and treat CINV. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata17 software, employing either a fixed-effect or random-effect model based on statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 7956 patients was conducted. Efficacy: Results showed significantly improved complete responses (CRs) for CINV in the test group versus the control group in the overall, acute, and delayed phases. Furthermore, in the test group, substantial alleviation of nausea symptoms was observed in the delayed and overall phases but not in the acute phase. Safety: There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, anorexia, and headache between the 2 groups. The incidence of fatigue and hiccups in the test group was higher than that in the control group; however, the incidence of constipation was significantly lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant-containing triple therapy is highly effective in the prevention and treatment of CINV, with reliable medication safety.

A randomized trial evaluating the association between related gene polymorphism and nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We aim to investigate the correlation between gene polymorphisms and cisplatin chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), which was prevented by olanzapine or aprepitant triple antiemetic regimen.

METHODS

Before chemotherapy, the blood samples of 89 malignant tumor patients who received multi-day chemotherapy with cisplatin were collected for sequencing and typing. As there were duplicate patients enrolled in different chemotherapy cycles, there were a total of 190 cases. The patients were divided into two groups randomly, who received the triple antiemetic regimen of olanzapine or aprepitant combined with 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone. The main evaluation indicators were the total protection (TP) rate in the acute phase (0-24 h), the delayed phase (25-120 h) and the overall phase (0-120 h).

RESULTS

Univariate analysis was performed on genetic loci that reached H-W balance with TP. In the olanzapine group, increased TP in the acute phase was associated with HTR3A rs1176719 non-GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. Increased TP in the delayed phase was associated with HTR3A rs1176719 non-GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. In the aprepitant group, increased TP in the acute phase was associated with the MTHFR rs1801131 TT (P < 0.05) genotype etc. Increased TP in the delayed phase was associated with HTR3A rs1062613 CC (P < 0.05) genetype ect. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that HTR3B rs7943062GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. were correlated with increased TP in the delayed phase. MTHFR rs1801131TT genotype was associated with increased TP in the acute phase (P < 0.05) and delayed phase (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study found that gene polymorphisms, including HTR3B (rs1062613, rs1176719, rs2276303), HTR3B (rs45460698, rs7943062), HTR3C (rs6766410), ERCC1 (rs3212986), ERCC4 (rs744154) and MTHFR(rs1801131), may be independent prognostic factors for CINV.

The Repurposing of Non-Peptide Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists as Antitumor Drugs: An Urgent Challenge for Aprepitant

The substance P (SP)/neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) system is involved in cancer progression. NK-1R, activated by SP, promotes tumor cell proliferation and migration, angiogenesis, the Warburg effect, and the prevention of apoptosis. Tumor cells overexpress NK-1R, which influences their viability. A typical specific anticancer strategy using NK-1R antagonists, irrespective of the tumor type, is possible because these antagonists block all the effects mentioned above mediated by SP on cancer cells. This review will update the information regarding using NK-1R antagonists, particularly Aprepitant, as an anticancer drug. Aprepitant shows a broad-spectrum anticancer effect against many tumor types. Aprepitant alone or in combination therapy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy could reduce the sequelae and increase the cure rate and quality of life of patients with cancer. Current data open the door to new cancer research aimed at antitumor therapeutic strategies using Aprepitant. To achieve this goal, reprofiling the antiemetic Aprepitant as an anticancer drug is urgently needed.

The Role of Substance P Receptor Antagonists in Allergic Rhinitis: Ovalbumin-Induced Rat Model

OBJECTIVE

Substance P is a peptide from the tachykinin family, which is found in peripheral and central nervous systems, causing vasodilation and increased secretion in the nasal mucosa. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether the experimental model of allergic rhinitis will cause allergic changes in the larynx and to compare the effects of aprepitant, a substance P antagonist, on nasal symptoms in allergic rhinitis, and histopathological changes in the nasal and laryngeal mucosa with antihistamine and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA).

STUDY DESIGN

An experimental animal study.

METHOD

The study was carried out on 34 healthy 8-12 weeks old female Sprague Dawley rats in 5 groups. The rats in which an experimental allergic rhinitis model was created with ovalbumin were scored by observing their nasal symptoms, and nasal and laryngeal mucous membranes included in the study were evaluated histopathologically after medications.

RESULTS

As a result of the analysis of the data obtained from the study, antihistamine and LTRA significantly reduced the symptoms of nose scratching and sneezing, while aprepitant did not affect nasal symptoms. In the histopathological examination of the larynx, effects that would make a significant difference were found in the allergy group when compared to the control group. On the larynx, aprepitant reduced pseudostratification significantly compared to the allergy group.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant provides histopathological changes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, but does not have sufficient effect on nasal symptoms. The effect of aprepitant on the larynx has not been clearly demonstrated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 133:2891-2897, 2023.

Addition of aprepitant improves acute emesis control in children and adolescents receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia: a randomised, open-label trial

OBJECTIVES

More than 50% patients develop emesis during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). The addition of aprepitant for emesis control in children receiving induction for AML have not been explored.

METHODS

A single-institutional randomised, open-label trial (NCT02979548) was conducted where children between 5 and 18 years with the diagnosis of AML being planned for 3+7 induction regimen were included. All study participants received ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) every 8 hours for 8 days starting 30 min prior to chemotherapy. Children belonging to aprepitant group additionally received aprepitant capsules (15-40 kg=days 1-3, 80 mg; >40 kg=day 1, 125 mg and days 2-3, 80 mg) starting from 1 hour prior to chemotherapy. The proportion of patients with complete response (CR) in chemotherapy induced vomiting (CIV) in acute phase (day 1-8), delayed phase (day 9-13), overall and initial 96 hours were recorded along with severity of vomiting and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Total 78 children were randomised (Aprepitant group: 37 and control group: 41). The proportion of patients with CR in CIV was significantly higher in Aprepitant group in acute phase (p=0.007), overall phase (p=0.007) and in initial 96 hours (p<0.001) but it was not different in delayed phase (p=0.07). The first episode of vomiting was also significantly delayed in aprepitant group (p=0.02). Adverse effect profile was similar in two groups.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant significantly improves emesis control in children receiving induction therapy for AML, especially in acute phase and should be routinely incorporated as part of antiemetic prophylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02979548).

Efficacy of 3-day versus 5-day aprepitant regimens for long-delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an ongoing problem. While effectiveness of triplet antiemetic regimens in the delayed CINV phase (24-120 hours after administration of chemotherapy) has been studied, their effectiveness in the long-delayed phase (120-168 hours post-administration) is unknown. We compared the efficacy of 3- and 5-day courses of a triplet antiemetic prophylaxis containing aprepitant (APR) in controlling long-delayed CINV after cisplatin (CDDP)-based chemotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We obtained patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study in Japan. The incidence and timing of CINV after 3- and 5-day APR-containing regimens were compared using inverse probability treatment weighting.

RESULTS

The analysis included 380 patients. The incidence rates of long-delayed nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced for the 5-day compared with the 3-day regimen (29.1% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0042; 6.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Among those without CINV, vomiting was not reported after day 2 in the 5-day APR group but increased after day 4 in the 3-day APR group.

CONCLUSION

A 5-day regimen triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with APR decreased long-delayed vomiting compared with a 3-day regimen in patients receiving CDDP-based chemotherapy. However, the 5-day regimen showed no advantage over the 3-day regimen against long-delayed nausea.

Olanzapine With or Without Fosaprepitant for Preventing Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (ALLIANCE A221602)

PURPOSE

A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 -olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%.

RESULTS

A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist.

CONCLUSION

This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).

Single-dose NEPA versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0-120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long-lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post-chemotherapy. In this post-hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1-3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1-4. Patients were chemotherapy-naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0-144 h) phase.

RESULTS

The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors.

The in vitro anti-cancer synergy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and 5-aminolevulinic acid in glioblastoma

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most malignant type of cerebral neoplasm in adults with a poor prognosis. Currently, combination therapy with different anti-cancer agents is at the forefront of GBM research. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the potential anti-cancer synergy of a clinically approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA), a prodrug that elicits fluorescent porphyrins in gliomas on U-87 human GBM cells. We found that aprepitant and 5-ALA effectively inhibited GBM cell viability. The combinatorial treatment of these drugs exerted potent synergistic growth inhibitory effects on GBM cells. Moreover, aprepitant and 5-ALA induced apoptosis and altered the levels of apoptotic genes (up-regulation of Bax and P53 along with downregulation of Bcl-2). Furthermore, aprepitant and 5-ALA increased the accumulation of protoporphyrin IX, a highly pro-apoptotic and fluorescent photosensitizer. Aprepitant and 5-ALA significantly inhibited GBM cell migration and reduced matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-2 and MMP-9) activities. Importantly, all these effects were more prominent following aprepitant-5-ALA combination treatment than either drug alone. Collectively, the combination of aprepitant and 5-ALA leads to considerable synergistic anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, and anti-migratory effects on GBM cells and provides a firm basis for further evaluation of this combination as a novel therapeutic approach for GBM.

Efficacy of aprepitant as a prophylactic medication in adults with cyclic vomiting syndrome

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and recent guidelines by the American Neurogastoenterology and Motility Society recommend its use as prophylaxis in moderate-to severe cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS). Data are limited to small studies in children. We aimed to determine its efficacy in adults with CVS.

METHODS

A retrospective review of CVS patients diagnosed using Rome criteria at a tertiary referral center was conducted. Drug response was defined as >50% reduction in symptoms and/or healthcare utilization. An intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted.

KEY RESULTS

Of 96 patients prescribed aprepitant, 26 (27%) were unable to start due to cost/lack of insurance coverage. Of 70 receiving therapy, mean age was 33 ± 11 years; 51 (73%) were female and 56 (80%) Caucasian. The majority (93%) were refractory to other prophylactic medications. Aprepitant was taken thrice weekly in 51 (73%), daily in 16 (23%) and a few times a month in 3 (4%) due to cost. Fifty (71.4%) had a global symptom response to aprepitant. There was significant reduction in the number of CVS episodes (14.5 ± 11.7 to 6.2 ± 8.0, p < 0.0001), emergency department visits (4.2 ± 7.7 to 1.8 ± 3.4, p = 0.006), and hospital admissions (1.6 ± 3.9 to 0.8 ± 2.1, p = 0.02) in patients treated with aprepitant. Seven (10%) discontinued the drug due to minor side effects.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Aprepitant is a safe and effective prophylactic medication in adults with refractory CVS. Adequate insurance coverage is a major barrier preventing its use.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen for children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: Individual patient data analysis of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In this study, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for children receiving HEC in India, United Kingdom, and the United States.

PROCEDURE

We utilized individual patient-level outcome data from a pediatric randomized trial, which demonstrated the superiority of an aprepitant-based anti-emetic prophylaxis over standard ondansetron and dexamethasone for HEC. Health state for each day of follow-up was analyzed and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB) for each country were estimated. Sensitivity analyses by varying cost of aprepitant, hospitalization, and health state utility values by ±25% were conducted.

RESULTS

Use of the aprepitant-based regimen resulted in gain of 0.0019 QALY per chemotherapy cycle along with cost savings of $22.25, $1335.52, and $6612.10 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The cost savings per QALY was estimated to be $12,355.84 for India, $734,282.90 for the United Kingdom, and $3,567,564.11 for the United States. The cost savings for 50% gain in the percentage of days without grade 3 vomiting was $124.18 for India, $7451.63 for the United Kingdom, and $36,892.76 for the United States. The NMB for gain in QALY was $33.62, $1418.60, and $6727.01 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The estimates remained cost-effective across all scenarios of the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen is cost-effective for children receiving HEC. It results in overall cost savings and reduced healthcare-resource utilization.

[Antiemetic Therapy for Vomiting and Nausea Related to Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Using Cisplatin in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma]

Combination therapy using multiple antiemetic drugs is recommended for intravenous administration of cisplatin, a highly emetogenic agent, whereas a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist alone is commonly used in hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin for hepatocellular carcinoma owing to its less toxicity than that in the intravenous administration. Given that optimal antiemetic therapy is not yet established, we retrospectively investigated the efficacy of antiemetic drugs for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin. This study enrolled 72 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who received hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin at Kurashiki Central Hospital between January 2011 and May 2019. A 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was used in all cases, while aprepitant and/or dexamethasone were used concomitantly in 6 cases. After chemotherapy, a complete response rate for 5 days was achieved in 73.6% of the patients; however, complete control could be achieved only in 29.2%. During these 5 days, both rates were lower on days 2-5 than on day 1. In addition, younger age was associated with worse control rates. Our findings suggest that more effective antiemetic therapy is needed for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin, especially in non-elderly patients.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of 5 mg Olanzapine and Aprepitant in the Prevention of Multiple-Day Cisplatin Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

OBJECTIVE

The significance of this article is to talk about aprepitant and olanzapine 5 mg, compare them, and deeply explore the safety or effectiveness during the whole process of multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy-induced vomiting and nausea.

METHODS

This trial was randomized and prospective. It is needed to receive cisplatin chemotherapy (25 mg/m2/d) for three days. Its patients would need to choose to use 5 mg olanzapine or aprepitant for this treatment, combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone. The primary endpoints were the total protection (TP) during the acute phase (AP) (0-24 hours), delayed phase (DP) (25-120 hours), and overall phase (OP) (0-120 h) between the two groups. The secondary endpoints were the complete response (CR) and total control (TC) during the three phases. The first time of the whole process is particularly important and needs to be observed vigorously. However, the time of the patient's first vomiting symptom is also compared accurately by using the Kaplan-Meier curve. The functional life index vomiting (FLIE) was used to calculate and carefully evaluate the serious impact of nausea and vomiting (CINV) induced by the whole chemotherapy process on the quality of life. About olanzapine, its related symptoms and other side effects and aprepitant were also recorded.

RESULTS

(1) The primary endpoint TP rates of the olanzapine and aprepitant groups were similar; for the AP, they were 94.23% (98/104) vs. 95.45% (98/106) P=0.61(P=0.61); for the DP, they were 54.81% (57/104) vs. 54.72% (58/106) (P=0.99), and for the OP, the values were 53.79% (58/105) and 55.31% (56/104), respectively (P=0.99). The secondary endpoints, the TC rates, and CR rates were also comparable in the three phases (P > 0.05). (2) After research and display, the results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups when they were used for the first time of vomiting and the FLIE index (P > 0.05). (3) The main olanzapine-related adverse event was drowsiness, while that of aprepitant was constipation.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of 5 mg olanzapine was similar to that of aprepitant, and it also showed an advantageous economic potency ratio in preventing CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy with increased sedation side effects.

A Novel Mechanism of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress- and c-Myc-Degradation-Mediated Therapeutic Benefits of Antineurokinin-1 Receptor Drugs in Colorectal Cancer

The neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonists are approved as treatment for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. The emerging role of the substance P-NK-1R system in oncogenesis raises the possibility of repurposing well-tolerated NK-1R antagonists for cancer treatment. This study reports that human colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with high NK-1R expression have poor survival, and NK-1R antagonists SR140333 and aprepitant induce apoptotic cell death in CRC cells and inhibit CRC xenograft growth. This cytotoxicity induced by treatment with NK-1R antagonists is mediated by induction of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. ER stress triggers calcium release, resulting in the suppression of prosurvival extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)-c-Myc signaling. Along with ER calcium release, one ER stress pathway mediated by protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK) is specifically activated, leading to increased expression of proapoptotic C/EBP-homologous protein (CHOP). Moreover, NK-1R antagonists enhance the efficacy of chemotherapy by increasing the sensitivity and overcoming resistance to 5-fluorouracil in CRC cells through the induction of sustained ER stress and the consequent suppression of ERK-c-Myc signaling both in vitro and in vivo. Collectively, the findings provide novel mechanistic insights into the efficacy of NK-1R antagonists either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy for cancer treatment.

Aprepitant: an antiemetic drug, contributes to the prevention of acute lung injury with its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties

OBJECTIVES

We investigated, the effects of aprepitant (APRE) on the lung tissues of rats with an experimental polymicrobial sepsis model (CLP: cecal ligation and puncture) biochemically, molecularly and histopathologically.

METHODS

A total of 40 rats were divided into 5 groups with 8 animals in each group. Group 1 (SHAM), control group; Group 2 (CLP), cecal ligation and puncture; Group 3 (CLP + APRE10), rats were administered CLP + 10 mg/kg aprepitant; Group 4 (CLP + APRE20), rats were administered CLP + 20 mg/kg aprepitant; and Group 5 (CLP + APRE40), rats were administered CLP + 40 mg/kg aprepitant. A polymicrobial sepsis model was induced with CLP. After 16 h, lung tissues were taken for examination. Tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and nuclear factor-kappa b (NFK-b) messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) expressions were analysed by real-time PCR (RT-PCR), biochemically antioxidant parameters such as superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione (GSH) and oxidant parameters such as malondialdehyde (MDA) and lung damage histopathologically.

KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The GSH level and SOD activity increased while the MDA level and the expressions of TNF-α and NFK-b were reduced in the groups treated with APRE, especially in the CLP + APRE40 group. The histopathology results supported the molecular and biochemical results.

Long-Term Daily Administration of Aprepitant for the Management of Intractable Nausea and Vomiting in Children With Life-Limiting Conditions: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting is a common symptom in children through their end of life journey. Aprepitant, a NK-1 antagonist, has become a potent weapon in the fight against chemo-induced nausea and vomiting. However, its use in palliative care for refractory nausea and vomiting has been limited due to limited experience or evidence of continuous use. Emerging evidence suggests that continuous use is not only safe, but also effective in patients with nausea and vomiting refractory to multiple lines of antiemetic therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a single centre retrospective chart review of children receiving care from a specialist palliative care team who were given continuous daily aprepitant for nausea and vomiting and were unresponsive to at least two prior lines of antiemetic therapy. Parental reports of the impact of nausea on mobility and feeding were used as proxy efficacy markers. Duration of effect and toxicity was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Ten children (eight with cancer as a primary diagnosis and two with noncancer diagnoses) received continuous aprepitant and all showed resolution of nausea and vomiting and an increased ability to mobilize and tolerate feeds. No adverse events noted.

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests a role for aprepitant in management of refractory nausea and vomiting, demonstrating safety and efficacy. This case series is the first report of aprepitant use in this manner in the paediatric palliative care setting.

Neurokinin Receptor 1 (NK1R) Antagonist Aprepitant Enhances Hematoma Clearance by Regulating Microglial Polarization via PKC/p38MAPK/NFκB Pathway After Experimental Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Mice

Hematoma clearance is an important therapeutic target to improve outcome following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Recent studies showed that Neurokinin receptor-1 (NK1R) inhibition exerts protective effects in various neurological disease models, but its role in ICH has not been explored. The objective of this study was to investigate the role of NK1R and its relation to hematoma clearance after ICH using an autologous blood injection mouse model. A total of 332 adult male CD1 mice were used. We found that the expression levels of NK1R and its endogenous ligand, substance P (SP), were significantly upregulated after ICH. Intraperitoneal administration of the NK1R selective antagonist, Aprepitant, significantly improved neurobehavior, reduced hematoma volume and hemoglobin levels after ICH, and promoted microglia polarization towards M2 phenotype. Aprepitant decreased phosphorylated PKC, p38MAPK, and NFκB p65, and downregulated M1 markers while upregulating M2 markers after ICH. Intracerebroventricular administration of the NK1R agonist, GR73632 or PKC agonist, phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) reversed the effects of Aprepitant. To demonstrate the upstream mediator of NK1R activation, we performed thrombin injection and found that it increased SP. Inhibiting thrombin suppressed SP and decreased M1 markers while increasing M2 microglia polarization. Thus, NK1R inhibition promoted hematoma clearance after ICH by increasing M2 microglial polarization via downregulating PKC/p38MAPK/NFκB signaling pathway, and thrombin may be a key upstream mediator of NK1R activation. Therapeutic interventions inhibiting NK1R signaling may be a new target for the treatment of ICH.

Aprepitant for Cough in Lung Cancer. A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial and Mechanistic Insights

Rationale: Effective cough treatments are a significant unmet need in patients with lung cancer. Aprepitant is a licensed treatment for nausea and vomiting, which blocks substance P activation of NK-1 (neurokinin 1) receptors, a mechanism also implicated in cough.Objectives: To assess aprepitant in patients with lung cancer with cough and evaluate mechanisms in vagal nerve tissue.Methods: Randomized double-blind crossover trial of patients with lung cancer and bothersome cough. They received 3 days of aprepitant or matched placebo; after a 3-day washout, patients crossed to the alternative treatment. The primary endpoint was awake cough frequency measured at screening and Day 3 of each treatment; secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes. In vitro, the depolarization of isolated guinea pig and human vagus nerve sections in grease-gap recording chambers, indicative of sensory nerve activation, was measured to evaluate the mechanism.Measurements and Main Results: Twenty patients with lung cancer enrolled, with a mean age 66 years (±7.7); 60% were female and 80% had non-small cell cancer, 50% had advanced stage, and 55% had World Health Organization performance status 1. Cough frequency improved with aprepitant, reducing by 22.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-37.7%) over placebo while awake (P = 0.03), 30.3% (95% CI, 12.7-44.3) over 24 hours (P = 0.002), and 59.8% (95% CI, 15.1-86.0) during sleep (P = 0.081). Patient-reported outcomes all significantly improved. Substance P depolarized both guinea pig and human vagus nerve. Aprepitant significantly inhibited substance P-induced depolarization by 78% in guinea pig (P = 0.0145) and 94% in human vagus (P = 0.0145).Conclusions: Substance P activation of NK-1 receptors appears to be an important mechanism driving cough in lung cancer, and NK-1 antagonists show promise as antitussive therapies.

Highly effective use of aprepitant in an adolescent girl with severe cyclic vomiting syndrome

Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is a debilitating functional gastrointestinal disorder. Diagnosis is based on the Rome III criteria. There are no evidence-based guidelines for the management of paediatric CVS, although ondansetron and antimigraine medications are frequently tried. We describe a 13-year-old adolescent girl with severe CVS and numerous hospital admissions for dehydration because of cyclic vomiting. She had failed oral ondansetron therapy. Oral aprepitant (125 mg in the first, and 85 mg on the second and third days), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist that has been approved for preventing chemotherapy-induced vomiting or postoperative emesis, was tried in our patient at home during the first prodromal signs of an upset stomach. She had a dramatic response to it, with no further episodes of vomiting since its start. There is an urgent need for randomised clinical studies to assess the efficacy of available treatment options, including aprepitant in patients with severe CVS.

Can aprepitant used for nausea and vomiting be good gastrointestinal complaints?

Aprepitant is a selective SP/NK-1 receptor antagonist and used in postoperative and chemotherapeutics induced emesis and vomiting. The aim of our study is to show aprepitant may have beneficial effects on gastrointestinal complaints in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapeutics by indomethacin-induced gastric ulcer model. A total of 48 rats were fasted 24 h for ulcer experiment. Aprepitant doses of 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg/kg were evaluated for their antiulcer activity. Omeprazole (20 mg/kg) was used as a positive control group. Six hours after 25 mg/kg indomethacin administration, all stomachs were dissected out. After macroscopic analyses, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), COX-1, and COX-2 mRNA levels and SOD activity, and GSH and MDA levels of stomachs were determined. Histopathological examinations were evaluated. Aprepitant administration exerted 48.14%, 49.62%, 65.92%, and 76.77% ulcer inhibition effects at 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg/kg, respectively. Aprepitant administration decreased oxidative stress and inflammatory parameters in stomach tissues dose dependently. Aprepitant administration increased stomach COX-2 mRNA levels at 20 and 40 mg/kg doses. Although aprepitant appears to be disadvantageous in terms of treating gastric ulcer due to COX enzyme inhibition according to the previous studies, aprepitant has been shown to have ulcer healing effect in our study. When aprepitant is given as an anti-nausea and vomiting drug to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, we can argue that it will not be necessary to add a new gastric protective agent as it also shows beneficial effects in gastrointestinal complaints.

Antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and provide updated information for clinical practice.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 3 Chinese literature databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing standard regimen (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and glucocorticoid) with aprepitant triple regimen (aprepitant plus the standard regimen) for preventing CINV were screened. Literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 51 randomized controlled trials were finally included in the systematic review. Compared with the standard regimen, the aprepitant triple regimen significantly improved the complete response in the overall (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.71-2.07), acute (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.65-2.32) and delayed (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.70-2.27) phases, regardless of emetogenic risk of chemotherapy. Aprepitant could also significantly enhance the proportions of patients who have no emesis, nausea, or use of rescue medication respectively in the overall, acute and/or delayed phases. Aprepitant was found to be associated with decreased risk of constipation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97), but increased the incidence of hiccup (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups on other safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The aprepitant triple regimen is effective for the prevention of CINV in patients being treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and has a significant tendency to reduce the risk of constipation and increase the incidence of hiccup.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) relative to aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a trial-based analysis

PURPOSE

To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

A pH-responsive nanoparticle targets the neurokinin 1 receptor in endosomes to prevent chronic pain

Nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery is especially useful for targets within endosomes because of the endosomal transport mechanisms of many nanomedicines within cells. Here, we report the design of a pH-responsive, soft polymeric nanoparticle for the targeting of acidified endosomes to precisely inhibit endosomal signalling events leading to chronic pain. In chronic pain, the substance P (SP) neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) redistributes from the plasma membrane to acidified endosomes, where it signals to maintain pain. Therefore, the NK1R in endosomes provides an important target for pain relief. The pH-responsive nanoparticles enter cells by clathrin- and dynamin-dependent endocytosis and accumulate in NK1R-containing endosomes. Following intrathecal injection into rodents, the nanoparticles, containing the FDA-approved NK1R antagonist aprepitant, inhibit SP-induced activation of spinal neurons and thus prevent pain transmission. Treatment with the nanoparticles leads to complete and persistent relief from nociceptive, inflammatory and neuropathic nociception and offers a much-needed non-opioid treatment option for chronic pain.

Fixed combination of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron) for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy: Efficacy data from 2 randomized, double-blind phase III studies

AIM

To assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles.

METHODS

Two randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1-4 in each study were evaluated.

RESULTS

In Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P < 0.05), no emesis (all P < 0.05), and NSN (delayed phase P < 0.05 cycles 1, 2, and 4) reported across 4 cycles. In Study 2, oral NEPA had numerically higher CR and NSN rates in the acute and delayed phases than aprepitant-palonosetron in MEC/HEC patients.

CONCLUSION

Oral NEPA was highly effective in preventing both acute and delayed CINV over multiple chemotherapy cycles of HEC, AC, and MEC regimens.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

Study 1, NCT01339260; Study 2, NCT01376297.

Single center experience on efficacy and safety of Aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing treatment side-effect that could negatively affect children's quality of life (QoL). Different scoring systems for CINV were applied and different antiemetic drugs were used; however, few studies have been performed in children undergoing chemotherapy with Aprepitant. Herein, we report a pediatric experience on efficacy and safety of Aprepitant as part of triple antiemetic prophylaxis, in a cohort of thirty-two children and adolescents with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL), treated with moderate/highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC/HEC) regimens in a single Hemato-Oncology Institution. The triple therapy was compared to standard antiemetic therapy in a cohort of twenty-three HL patients (control group). Aprepitant therapy was associated to a significant decrease of chemotherapy-induced vomiting (p = 0.0001), while no impact on the reduction of nausea was observed; these observations were also confirmed by multivariate analysis (p = 0.0040). Aprepitant was well tolerated and the most commonly reported adverse events were neutropenia and hypertransaminasemia. No significant differences on the toxicity were observed between the two compared groups. Our experience on Aprepitant efficacy and safety, associated with feasibility of orally administration, suggests a possible widespread use of the drug to prevent pediatric CINV.

Aprepitant in Anti-histamine-refractory Chronic Nodular Prurigo: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Cross-over, Phase-II trial (APREPRU)

The aim of this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over, phase-II study was to determine the antipruritic effect of aprepitant vs. placebo in 58 patients with anti-histamine-refractory chronic pruritus in chronic nodular prurigo. Patients were randomized to receive either first oral aprepitant 80 mg/day or placebo for 4 weeks. Following a 2-week wash-out phase, the patients were crossed-over to receive the other treatment for 4 weeks. Primary efficacy criterion was the intra-individual difference between mean itch intensity (visual analogue scale) at baseline compared with the end of treatment period. Prurigo lesions, pruritus course, quality of life, patient benefits, and safety were secondary parameters. No significant differences were found between aprepitant treatment and placebo for any of the parameters investigated. Under the experimental conditions of the study, aprepitant, 80 mg daily for 4 weeks, did not have an antipruritic effect in patients with chronic prurigo. (DRKS00005594; EudraCT Number: 2013-001601-85).

Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) is recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC, respectively). We previously reported that aprepitant, an NK₁RA, was needed to control CINV in 43% and 12% of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively (Support Care Cancer 23:905-912, 2015). To elucidate the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in these patients, a cost-utility analysis according to the necessity of aprepitant was performed.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed according to the necessity of aprepitant and CINV responses in both acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy. Probabilities of health states and medical costs were derived from the results of the abovementioned trial.

RESULT

In patients who received HEC and needed aprepitant, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the regimen with no aprepitant, was 7912 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which was far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. The ICER was 27,457 USD/QALY in patients who received MEC and needed aprepitant. In contrast, in patients who received HEC or MEC but did not need aprepitant, the ICER was 175,959 or 478,844 USD/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of whether a patient received HEC or MEC, aprepitant use was highly cost-effective for patients who truly needed it. These results warrant further research to predict the necessity of NK₁RA treatment before initiating emetogenic chemotherapies.

Study protocol for an open-label, single-arm, multicentre phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined triplet therapy and olanzapine for prevention of carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in gynaecological cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Carboplatin (CBDCA) administered at a dosage of 4 mg/mL/min or more area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC) is considered to be ranked as the highest chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk of the moderately emetogenic chemotherapy agents. The complete response (CR) rate for preventing overall CINV, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication, for standard triplet antiemetic therapy (5-HT3RA, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist; NK1RA, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist; DEX, dexamethasone) was approximately 60% in gynaecological cancer patients receiving CBDCA-based therapy. Further improvement in antiemetic treatment is needed to optimise care. This trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) plus standard triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV after AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA combination therapy in gynaecological cancer patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial is an open-label, single-arm, multicentre phase II trial. Patients who receive CBDCA (AUC ≥4)-based therapy and have never been administered moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapy will be enrolled. All patients will receive OLZ (5 mg oral administration on days 1-4, after supper) in combination with 5-HT3RA, NK1RA and DEX. The primary endpoint is the CR rate during the overall period (0-120 hours). Testing the hypothesis that this regimen can improve CR rate from 60% (null hypothesis) to 75% (alternative hypothesis) with a one-sided type I error of 0.1 and power of 0.8 will require 53 patients. Considering the dropout rate, the target sample size is set at 60.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each of the participating centres. Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000031646.

Patient-related Risk Factors for Nausea and Vomiting with Standard Antiemetics in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Anthracycline-based Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Observational Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify a high-risk or low-risk population for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast cancer treated with a current standard 3-drug antiemetic regimen and receiving anthracycline.

METHODS

We analyzed data from chemotherapy-naive Japanese patients with breast cancer, who had received the first cycle of anthracycline-based regimen and were treated with a 3-drug combination of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. This study was carried out at Ehime University Hospital (Toon, Japan) using electronic medical records from May 2011 to June 2017. The primary end point was complete response (CR), which was defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medication.

FINDINGS

A total of 103 patients were included in this study. The percentages of patients who had a CR in the overall, acute, and delayed phases were 35.0%, 40.8%, and 50.5%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age <55 years and body mass index <27.5 kg/m² were significantly associated with an increased risk for CR failure in the overall and acute phases. In contrast, a history of alcohol habit was significantly associated with a decreased risk for CR failure in overall phase.

IMPLICATIONS

The present findings suggest that, among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline and treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, patients younger than 55 years and having a body mass index <27.5 kg/m² are high-risk populations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, whereas those with a history of habitual alcohol consumption is a low-risk one.

Treatment of severe rash caused by crizotinib with both traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine: Two case reports and literature review

RATIONALE

Lung adenocarcinoma is the most common pathologic pattern of lung cancer. During the past decades, a number of targeted agents have been explored to treat advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Recently, Crizotinib, the antagonist of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has been widely used in ALK-rearranged lung cancer treatment. Crizotinib is generally well tolerated while its most frequent adverse events include visual disorders, gastrointestinal disturbances, cardiac and endocrine abnormalities. Rash caused by crizotinib is rarely seen, and there are few case reports of severe rash caused by crizotinib.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSES

Here we report cases of an 81-year-old man and a 66-year-old woman with ALK-rearranged advanced lung adenocarcinoma. When patients came to our department, they both had crizotinib-induced severe rash.

INTERVENTIONS

Crizotinib was initiated as the 1st-line treatment without other therapies. We treated severe rash with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapy called Zhiyang Pingfu liquid along with Western medicine. Zhiyang Pingfu liquid consists of Scutellaria baicalensis 20 g, Portulaca oleracea 30 g, Cortex Dictamni 30 g, Sophora flavescens 30 g, and other substances. Western medicine includes Minocycline hydrochloride tablets and Aprepitant capsules.

OUTCOMES

Both patients achieved a partial response when treated with crizotinib, and suffered from severe rash. With Zhiyang Pingfu liquid and Western medicine, their rash gradually disappeared with no sign of cancer progression. Also the male patient did not relieve after taking only antibiotics (standard therapy) and anti-allergic medicine.

LESSONS

Despite the dramatic benefit of crizotinib for patients with ALK rearrangement, crizotinib-induced severe rash needs to be dealt with caution. This is the 1st case in which TCM and Western medicine are used to successfully treat crizotinib-induced severe rash. The mechanism of crizotinib-induced rash deserves further attention in future research.

Olanzapine as antiemetic drug in oncology: a retrospective study in non-responders to standard antiemetic therapy

Background The role of olanzapine in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in addition to the antiemetic therapeutic combination with aprepitant, setrons, and corticosteroids has not been well defined. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of the addition of olanzapine to a standard triplet therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients who experienced CINV during their first chemotherapy course, despite receiving a well-managed prevention protocol. Setting One comprehensive cancer centre in France. Method In a retrospective study with comparator, patients with a high risk of emesis were assigned to two groups during two different 6-month periods, before and after the introduction of olanzapine in clinical practice, respectively. In the olanzapine group, the antiemetic protocol for the second course of chemotherapy was reinforced by the addition of olanzapine at 5 mg/day from day 1 to 5 in contrast with the control group. Main outcome measure The proportion of patients who experienced neither nausea nor emesis during the delayed phase (24-120 h). Results The 25 patients in each group exhibited comparable characteristics and emetic chemotherapy level. During the first course, no significant difference was observed. During the second course, nausea and vomiting were ameliorated in 12 patients in the olanzapine group and 4 patients in the control group (p < 0.05). Nausea (12 vs. 4, p < 0.05) and vomiting (18 vs. 11, p < 0.05) also significantly improved. In the OLZ group, no adverse event was linked to olanzapine use. Conclusion The addition of olanzapine was observed to effectively restore CINV prevention in patients who did not respond to standard antiemetic therapy.

Phase II study of palonosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the antiemetic efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone in patients with testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs) receiving 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this open-label, single-arm, single-centre study, the antiemetic therapy consisted of palonosetron 0.75 mg on day 1, aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-7 and dexamethasone 6.6 mg on days 1-7. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching or rescue medication) in the overall period (0-240 h), and secondary endpoints included complete protection (CP; defined as CR and no more than mild nausea) and total control (TC; defined as CR and no nausea). The incidence and severity of nausea were assessed on the basis of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 and a subjective rating scale completed by patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were enrolled and evaluated for safety, and 24 patients were evaluated for efficacy. CR was achieved in 62.5% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.6-81.2, p = 0.043) in the overall period. CP and TC were achieved in 62.5% (95% CI = 40.6-81.2) and 25.0% of patients (95% CI = 9.8-46.7), respectively, in the overall period. The primary adverse drug reaction was hiccups (48.0%). The events were expected, and none was grade 3 or 4.

CONCLUSIONS

The examined combination antiemetic therapy was effective and well-tolerated in patients with TGCTs receiving 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.