Evaluation of Efficacy of Adding Aprepitant to Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in Carboplatin and Etoposide Therapy.

Although carboplatin (CBDCA) is classified as a moderately emetogenic agent, the majority of guidelines recommend the use of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist in addition to a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone (DEX) for CBDCA-containing chemotherapy because of its higher emetogenic risk. However, the additional efficacy of aprepitant (APR) in CBDCA-containing treatment remains controversial, and data on multiple-day treatments are limited. Etoposide (ETP) was administered on days 1-3 in the CBDCA + ETP regimen, and it is important to evaluate suitable antiemetic therapy for the regimen. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of additional APR in CBDCA + ETP. Patients were divided into two groups and retrospectively evaluated. One was the control group, which was prophylactically administered palonosetron (PALO) and DEX, and the other was the APR group, which received APR orally with PALO and DEX. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) between the groups. The overall CR rates were 75.0 and 76.4% in the control and APR groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 1.00). In the acute phase, it was 88.9 and 97.2%, respectively, and 86.1 and 79.2% in the delayed phase, respectively, without significant differences (p = 0.10 and 0.38, respectively). The incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, and anorexia were not significantly different between the two groups in the acute and delayed phases. Our findings suggest that combining APR with PALO and DEX does not improve the CR rate in CBDCA + ETP therapy.

Impact of grinding balls on the size reduction of Aprepitant in wet ball milling procedure.

One of the widely used approaches for improving the dissolution of poorly water-soluble drugs is particle size reduction. Ball milling is a mechanical, top-down technique used to reduce particle size. The effect of ball number, ball size, and milling speed on the properties of milled Aprepitant is evaluated. A full factorial design was employed to investigate the influence of affecting factors on particle size reduction. The initial suspension was made by suspending the drug in distilled water using excipients followed by milling in a planetary ball mill. Ball size, ball number, and milling speed modulated particle size distribution of Aprepitant. Increasing the number of balls from minimum to maximum for each ball size led to approximately a 28% reduction in mean particle size, a 37% decrease in D90%, and a 25% decrease in the ratio of volume mean particle diameter to numeric mean particle diameter. On average, using 10 mm balls instead of 30 mm balls reduced mean particle size by 1.689 µm. As a result, ball size, ball number, and milling speed are three effective factors in the process of ball milling. By increasing the ball number and decreasing the ball size, efficient micronization of drug particles takes place and the particle size is more uniform.

A phase I trial of lurbinectedin in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background In vitro/in vivo data showed synergism of cisplatin and lurbinectedin in ovarian cancer cells and grafts. This phase I trial investigated the recommended phase II dose (RD) of cisplatin and lurbinectedin combination, with (Group A) or without aprepitant (Group B), in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods All patients received 60 mg/m2 cisplatin 90-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion followed by lurbinectedin 60-min i.v. infusion at escalating doses on Day 1 every 3 weeks (q3wk). Patients in Group A additionally received orally 125 mg aprepitant one hour before cisplatin on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2 and 3. Toxicity was graded according to the NCI-CTCAE v.4. Results RD for Group A was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.1 mg/m2. RD for Group B was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.4 mg/m2. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hematological [neutropenia (41%), lymphopenia (35%), leukopenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (18%)] and fatigue (35%) in Group A (n = 17), and neutropenia (50%), leukopenia (42%), lymphopenia (29%), and fatigue (13%) and nausea (8%) in Group B (n = 24). Four patients (2 in each group) had a partial response. Disease stabilization for ≥ 4 months was observed in 4 and 10 patients, respectively. Conclusion The combination of lurbinectedin with cisplatin was not possible in meaningful therapeutic dosage due to toxicity. The addition of aprepitant in combination with cisplatin did not allow increasing the dose due to hematological toxicity, whereas omitting aprepitant increased the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Modest clinical activity was observed in general.Clinical trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov code: NCT01980667. Date of registration: 11 November 2013.

Palonosetron versus Granisetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting after Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study.

The triplet antiemetic regimen is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, the superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in triplet antiemetic therapy remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) and granisetron (GRA) in triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV. This study included 267 patients who received MEC at our hospital between April 2017 and September 2020. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising PALO or GRA and dexamethasone on day 1 and aprepitant on days 1-3. We evaluated the rate of complete response (CR) (i.e., no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall phase (0-120 h) after first-cycle chemotherapy. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for non-CR. The rate of CR in the overall and delayed phases was significantly higher in the PALO group (91.9 and 91.9%, respectively) than in the GRA group (74.1 and 75.5%, respectively). In the acute phase, the incidence was not different between the GRA and PALO groups (96.5 and 99.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex and the use of GRA were risk factors for non-CR. Subgroup analysis revealed the superiority of PALO over GRA in female patients, but not in male patients. In conclusion, PALO was more effective than GRA in triplet antiemetic therapy in preventing CINV during MEC, especially for female patients.

15-hydroxystearate micelles for the delivery of aprepitant: Preparation, characterization, pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution in mice.

This study developed a novel Aprepitant micells (APPT-Ms) formulation that uses a mixture of 15-hydroxystearate (HS15) as surfactant to solubilize AAPT. This article determines the content of APPT by HPLC. The in vitro test results show that the optimized APPT-Ms has small particle size, excellent stability and long-lasting release. At a test dose of 20mg/kg, the pharmacokinetic study of APPT-Ms showed that it accorded with first-order kinetics in mice, and its AUC value was higher than the pure AAPT about 6 times. The tissue distribution study of mice showed that the APPT-Ms had higher tissue binding ability than pure AAPT. The APPT-Ms could be rapidly distributed to various tissues and it was easier to pass through the blood-brain barrier than APPT. In this study, the APPT-Ms has high antiemetic activity and improves the compliance of patient. The pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of APPT-Ms after injection administration were studied, which may be of guiding significance for further research.

Stability of Aprepitant Injectable Emulsion in Alternate Infusion Bags, in Refrigerated Storage, and Admixed with Dexamethasone and Palonosetron.

PURPOSE: The stability of aprepitant injectable emulsion is evaluated in various admixture bags and solutions, under different storage conditions, and when combined with other antiemetics. METHODS: A volume of 18 mL aprepitant injectable emulsion was added to infusion bags (either non-di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [DEHP], polyvinyl chloride [PVC]-containing bags or non-DEHP, non-PVC bags) containing 100, 130, or 250 mL of 0.9% normal saline solution (NSS) or 5% dextrose in water (D5W). Bags were stored at controlled room temperature (20-25°C) for up to 12 hours or refrigerated (2-8°C) for up to 72 hours. Compatibility/stability was also assessed in admixtures combined with either dexamethasone or palonosetron. At specified time points, bags were tested for appearance, pH, assay for aprepitant (ie, percent label claim of aprepitant) and aprepitant-related substances, Z-average particle size, globule size distribution, particulate matter, and DEHP content (PVC bags). In separate analyses to assess microbial burden, bags containing aprepitant were inoculated with seven different organisms and assessed for microbial growth. RESULTS: There was no detectable impact on the physicochemical properties or potential to promote microbial growth of aprepitant when diluted with various amounts of either NSS or D5W and when admixed with either dexamethasone or palonosetron at room temperature for at least 6 hours or during refrigeration for up to 72 hours in either PVC- or non-PVC-containing bags. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant-containing admixtures are stable under these conditions, a finding that may improve patient and provider convenience and reduce medication wastage.

Effect of aprepitant on kynurenine to tryptophan ratio in cART treated and cART naïve adults living with HIV.

ABSTRACT: Changes in tryptophan metabolism affect human physiology including the immune system, mood, and sleep and are associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pathogenesis. This study investigates whether the treatment of HIV-infected individuals with the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, alters tryptophan metabolism.This study utilized archival samples from 3 phase 1B clinical trials "Anti-HIV Neuroimmunomodulatory Therapy with Neurokinin-1 Antagonist Aprepitant"-2 double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and 1 open-label study. We tested samples from a total of 57 individuals: 26 combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) naïve individuals receiving aprepitant, 19 cART naïve individuals receiving placebo, and 12 individuals on a ritonavir-containing cART regimen receiving aprepitant. We evaluated the effect of aprepitant on tryptophan metabolism by measuring levels of kynurenine and tryptophan in archival plasma samples and calculating the kynurenine to tryptophan ratio.Aprepitant treatment affected tryptophan metabolism in both cART treated and cART naïve individuals with more profound effects in patients receiving cART. While aprepitant treatment affected tryptophan metabolism in all HIV-infected patients, it only significantly decreased kynurenine to tryptophan ratio in cART treated individuals. Aprepitant treatment offers an opportunity to target inflammation and mood disorders frequently co-existing in chronic HIV infection.

Single-dose netupitant/palonosetron versus 3-day aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pooled analysis.

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p < 0.05) and 78.4 versus 75.0% during the acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. Conclusion: Oral NEPA administered on day 1 was more effective than a 3-day APR regimen in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin.

Lay abstract Oral netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is an innovative product that combines two drugs (netupitant and palonosetron) in a single capsule to prevent nausea and vomiting associated with certain types of chemotherapy. In this paper we pooled together the results of three studies comparing the efficacy of NEPA to two drugs from the same classes administered separately (aprepitant regimen) in patients with various solid tumors receiving cisplatin, a type of chemotherapy with a high likelihood of causing nausea and vomiting. In summary, NEPA was more effective than the aprepitant regimen in preventing nausea and vomiting in the later days (days 3­5) following chemotherapy.

Effect of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has an important role in the overall management of cancer treatment. Objective: To evaluate whether adding aprepitant to palonosetron and dexamethasone can further prevent the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting caused by FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) or FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy regimens among women with gastrointestinal cancer at higher risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited young women (age ≤50 years) who drank little or no alcohol and had gastrointestinal cancer for which they received FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy. A total of 248 women were enrolled and assigned in the ratio 1:1 to intervention and control groups from August 4, 2015, to March 31, 2020. Intention-to-treat analysis was used to evaluate patient baseline characteristics and efficacy. The analysis was conducted on October 30, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to the aprepitant group (aprepitant, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 6 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1) or the placebo group (placebo, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally on each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 12 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the complete response (CR) rate, defined as the proportion of patients without emesis episodes or rescue medication use during the overall phase of the first cycle. Other efficacy indicators, such as no vomiting and no nausea, were measured as the secondary and exploratory end points. Results: A total of 248 women from 4 clinical centers in China entered this study, and 243 patients (aprepitant regimen, 125 patients [51.4%]; placebo regimen, 118 patients [48.5%]) were evaluable for efficacy and safety; mean (SD) age of the total population was 40.1 (7.3) years. The CR rate was significantly higher in the aprepitant group vs the control group overall (107 [87.0%] vs 80 [66.7%]; P < .001) and in the acute (114 [92.7%] vs 91 [75.8%]; P = .001) and delayed (109 [88.6%] vs 84 [70.0%]; P = .001) phases of the trial. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (100 [80.0%] vs 96 [81.3%]; P = .79), and no grade 3 or 4 aprepitant treatment-related adverse events were observed. Multivariable analysis revealed that aprepitant use was the only independent factor associated with CR during the overall phase. Conclusions and Relevance: The combination of aprepitant with palonosetron and dexamethasone provided increased antiemetic efficacy in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen and was well tolerated by younger women with gastrointestinal cancer who have a history of little or no alcohol consumption. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03674294.

Oral Drug Delivery Systems Based on Ordered Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Modulating the Release of Aprepitant.

Two different types of ordered mesoporous nanoparticles, namely MCM-41 and MCM-48, with similar pore sizes but different pore connectivity, were loaded with aprepitant via a passive diffusion method. The percentage of the loaded active agent, along with the encapsulation efficiency, was evaluated using High-performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) analysis complemented by Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA). The determination of the pore properties of the mesoporous particles before and after the drug loading revealed the presence of confined aprepitant in the pore structure of the particles, while Powder X-ray Diffractometry(pXRD), Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), and FTIR experiments indicated that the drug is in an amorphous state. The release profiles of the drug from the two different mesoporous materials were studied in various release media and revealed an aprepitant release up to 45% when sink conditions are applied. The cytocompatibility of the silica nanoparticles was assessed in Caco-2 cell monolayers, in the presence and absence of the active agent, suggesting that they can be used as carriers of aprepitant without presenting any toxicity in vitro.

Understanding Mechanisms of Food Effect and Developing Reliable PBPK Models Using a Middle-out Approach.

Over the last 10 years, 40% of approved oral drugs exhibited a significant effect of food on their pharmacokinetics (PK) and currently the only method to characterize the effect of food on drug absorption, which is recognized by the authorities, is to conduct a clinical evaluation. Within the pharmaceutical industry, there is a significant effort to predict the mechanism and clinical relevance of a food effect. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models combining both drug-specific and physiology-specific data have been used to predict the effect of food on absorption and to reveal the underlying mechanisms. This manuscript provides detailed descriptions of how a middle-out modeling approach, combining bottom-up in vitro-based predictions with limited top-down fitting of key model parameters for clinical data, can be successfully used to predict the magnitude and direction of food effect when it is predicted poorly by a bottom-up approach. For nefazodone, a mechanistic clearance for the gut and liver was added, for furosemide, an absorption window was introduced, and for aprepitant, the biorelevant solubility was refined using multiple solubility measurements. In all cases, these adjustments were supported by literature data and showcased a rational approach to assess the factors limiting absorption and exposure.

Analysis of pharmacogenomic factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can lead to a significant deterioration in the quality of life of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. This study aimed to determine whether ABCB1 2677G > T/A was associated with complete response (CR; defined as no vomiting and no rescue medication) in acute phase (CR0-24), as well as to explore the genetic factors affecting delayed phase (CR24-120) CINV in cancer patients treated with a standard triple antiemetic regimen that included aprepitant. METHODS: This prospective single-center study included a total of 166 chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer who received a standard dose of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide combination chemotherapy; granisetron, dexamethasone, and aprepitant were administered prior to chemotherapy. CR0-24 was compared between minor allele homozygous (TT, AA, and TA) and major allele homozygous plus heterozygous (GG, GA, and GT) groups of ABCB1 2677G > T/A. In addition, 14 genetic polymorphisms were genotyped and their associations with CRs were investigated. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who achieved CR0-24, which was the primary endpoint of this study, was 59% in the minor allele homozygous and 61% in the major allele homozygous plus heterozygous groups of ABCB1 2677G > T/A. Although this difference was not statistically significant, multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential risk factors showed that TACR1 1323TT (OR, 2.57; P = 0.014) was a significant determinant of CR24-120. CONCLUSION: No significant association was found between ABCB1 2677G > T/A and CR0-24. However, it was observed that the polymorphism of TACR1, which encodes the neurokinin 1 receptor, might be a potential genetic risk factor for the development of delayed phase CINV.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

Aprepitant in the Treatment of Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of aprepitant in patients with subacute sclerosing panencephalitis. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with subacute sclerosing panencephalitis assigned to receive two courses of aprepitant 250 mg/day orally or placebo for 15 days with an interval of two months between courses. Primary end points were safety and tolerability, and secondary end point was clinical improvement or stabilization assessed by subacute sclerosing panencephalitis scoring system. Electroencephalography (EEG), brain magnetic resonance imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measles-specific immunoglobulin G index were evaluated before and after treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with subacute sclerosing panencephalitis were allocated to aprepitant (n = 31, median age 18 years) or placebo (n = 31, median age 22 years) group. Fifteen patients left the study within the first six months and 12 patients left between six and 12 months. Aprepitant was well tolerated and treatment-associated adverse events were similar to those described in the treatment of nausea. Clinical status at six and 12 months' follow-up did not differ between aprepitant and placebo groups. Post-treatment EEG scores at 12 months were better in the aprepitant group (P = 0.015). Cerebral atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging increased in both groups, whereas measles-specific immunoglobulin G index decreased in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this first clinical trial of aprepitant treatment in patients with subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, the drug was safe and well tolerated. No clinical effect was observed. A modest improvement in EEG findings might justify trials for longer periods because EEG changes can precede clinical findings in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis.

Comparison of Pharmacokinetics of Aprepitant in Healthy Chinese and Caucasian Subjects.

PURPOSE: Aprepitant is used to prevent nausea and vomiting associated with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this open-label, 2-period study, the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of aprepitant (EMEND®) were evaluated in healthy Chinese and Caucasian subjects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve Chinese and 12 Caucasian subjects were to receive a 125 mg single-dose of aprepitant during period 1; subsequently, after 15 days washout, only Chinese subjects were to receive the 3-day regimen in period 2. In each period, serial blood samples were collected and analyzed by a validated liquid chromatographic and mass spectrometric method to characterize aprepitant PK across both groups. RESULTS: In both Chinese and Caucasian subjects, there were no serious adverse events. AUC0-∞, Cmax, Tmax, and t1/2 were largely comparable between the two ethnicities. Comparing the result of period 1 in Chinese and Caucasian subjects, the geometric least-squares mean maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) were 1482 ng/mL and 1435 ng/mL, and the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-∞) 34,035 hr·ng/mL and 34,188 hr·ng/mL. In period 2, the geometric mean AUC0-24 on Day 1 and Day 3 were 19,446 hr·ng/mL and 27,843 hr·ng/mL, and the geometric mean Cmax on Day 1 and Day 3 were 1423 ng/mL and 1757 ng/mL, respectively. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant is generally safe and well tolerated in healthy Chinese and Caucasian subjects. Aprepitant PK is comparable between Chinese and Caucasian subjects following single-dose administration. The PK following a clinical 3-day regimen on healthy Chinese subjects has been characterized.

Aprepitant Intravenous Emulsion Based on Ion Pairing/Phospholipid Complex for Improving Physical and Chemical Stability During Thermal Sterilization.

An aprepitant (APT) cholesteryl hemisuccinate (CHEMS) ion pair complex emulsion (AIPE) with high lecithin content was prepared to improve sterilization stability through the film dispersion homogenization method; therefore, it could be a promising delivery system of APT. Medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) was selected as the oil phase to improve the solubility and stability of APT in oil phase. DSC, XRD, FT-IR, and 1H-NMR spectroscopies confirmed that the APT-CHEMS ion pair (AIP) was formed between CHEMS and APT. The formation of AIP significantly increased the hydrophobicity of APT, allowing it to be completely embedded in the oil phase core to improve chemical stability and decrease hydrolysis of APT in the water phase. Also, CHEMS had a strong affinity with lecithin and could stabilize lipid membranes, forming a stronger and thicker interface membrane to increase the physical stability of AIPE. As a result, AIPE could withstand autoclaving at 120°C for 8 min without any change of particle size or content. Furthermore, AIPE with a potential of - 53.4 mV remained stable through spatial repulsion during sterilization. The encapsulation efficiency of AIPE was over 90% and the particle size was 106.8 ± 65.62 nm(0.286). Pharmacokinetic study in rats was comparable with that of CINVANTI which yielded a relative bioavailability of 114.31% indicating that the AIPE had similar pharmacokinetic processes in vivo with the analog of CINVANTI®. The AUC0-t of the AIPE was 4.31-fold that of the APT solution.

Extrapolation of Adult Efficacy to Pediatric Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common treatment-related adverse event that negatively impacts the quality of life of cancer patients. During pediatric drug development, extrapolation of efficacy from adult to pediatric populations is a pathway that can minimize the exposure of children to unnecessary clinical trials, improve efficiency, and increase the likelihood of success in obtaining a pediatric indication. The acceptability of the use of extrapolation depends on a series of evidence-based assumptions regarding the similarity of disease, response to intervention, and exposure-response relationships between adult and pediatric patients. This study evaluated publicly available summaries of data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for drugs approved for CINV to assess the feasibility of extrapolation for future development programs. Extracted data included trial design, emetogenic potential of chemotherapy, primary end points, participant enrollment criteria, and antiemetic pharmacokinetics. Adult and pediatric clinical trial designs for assessment of efficacy and safety shared key design elements. Antiemetic drugs found to be efficacious in adults were also efficacious in pediatric patients. Systemic drug concentrations at approved doses were similar for ondansetron, granisetron, and aprepitant, but an exposure-response analysis of palonosetron in children suggested that higher palonosetron systemic exposure is necessary for the prevention of CINV in the pediatric population. For 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist antiemetic drugs, efficacy in adults predicts efficacy in children, supporting the extrapolation of effectiveness of an antiemetic product in children from adequate and well-controlled studies in adult patients with CINV.

Peripheral neuropathy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients receiving vincristine with and without aprepitant/fosaprepitant.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral neuropathy is a common treatment-related adverse effect associated with vincristine. Vincristine is a major CYP3A4 substrate and is often administered alongside the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, aprepitant or fosaprepitant, which are moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors. This inhibition may result in increased concentrations of vincristine and an increased incidence of toxicity. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to investigate if there is a clinically significant drug interaction between vincristine and aprepitant or fosaprepitant resulting in early-onset peripheral neuropathy. The secondary objective of this study was to investigate the cumulative rate of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). METHODOLOGY: This was a single-centered, retrospective, cohort chart review. Patients receiving vincristine-based chemotherapy between 1 July 2010 through 30 June 2018 were identified and reviewed for concomitant use of aprepitant or fosaprepitant and incidence of neuropathy. Early-onset CIPN was defined as neuropathy onset during the first cycle of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 115 subjects were retrospectively reviewed over the study period, of whom 71 were included in the aprepitant/fosaprepitant group and 44 were included in the group without a NK-1 receptor antagonist. Of the subjects who received aprepitant/fosaprepitant, 26.7% experienced early-onset peripheral neuropathy as compared to 22.7% in the group without a NK-1 receptor antagonist (P = 0.627). Overall, CIPN was higher in the group who received aprepitant/fosaprepitant compared to the group without (56% vs. 36%, P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: There appears to be an increased risk of CIPN with the concomitant use of vincristine and aprepitant or fosaprepitant.

Olanzapine 5 mg plus standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (J-FORCE): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine 10 mg added to standard antiemetic therapy including aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone has been recommended for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Guidelines suggest that a dose reduction to 5 mg should be considered to prevent sedation. In several phase 2 studies, olanzapine 5 mg has shown equivalent activity to olanzapine 10 mg and a favourable safety profile in relation to somnolence. We evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg combined with standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg with triplet-combination antiemetic therapy done in 26 hospitals in Japan. Key inclusion criteria were patients with a malignant tumour (excluding those with a haemopoietic malignancy) who were scheduled to be treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m2) for the first time, age between 20 and 75 years, and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral olanzapine 5 mg or placebo once daily on days 1-4 combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone (dosage based on the standard antiemetic therapy against highly emetogenic chemotherapy). Patients were randomly assigned to interventions by use of a web entry system and the minimisation method with a random component, with sex, dose of cisplatin, and age as factors of allocation adjustment. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and individuals handling data were all masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response, defined as absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the delayed phase (24-120 h). All randomly assigned patients who satisfied eligibility criteria received a dose of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or more, and at least one study treatment, were included in efficacy analysis. All patients who received any treatment in this study were assessed for safety. This study is registered at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000024676. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2017, and July 13, 2018, 710 patients were enrolled; 356 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 354 were assigned to receive placebo. All eligible patients were observed 120 h after cisplatin initiation. One patient in the olanzapine group and three in the placebo group did not receive treatment and were excluded from all analyses. One patient in the olanzapine group discontinued treatment on day 1 and was excluded from the efficacy analysis. In the delayed phase, the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response was 280 (79% [95% CI 75-83] of 354 patients in the olanzapine group and 231 (66% [61-71] of 351 patients in the placebo group (p<0·0001). One patient had grade 3 constipation and one patient had grade 3 somnolence related to treatment in the olanzapine group. INTERPRETATION: Olanzapine 5 mg combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone could be a new standard antiemetic therapy for patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

Every-other-day palonosetron plus aprepitant for prevention of emesis following induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia: A randomized, controlled study from the "Rete Ematologica Pugliese".

BACKGROUND: Compared with older 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron requires fewer drug administrations to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following multiple-day chemotherapy. We conducted a phase II multicenter study comparing palonosetron plus aprepitant to palonosetron alone in patients undergoing a range of induction chemotherapy regimens for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: Patients were randomized to palonosetron (0.25 mg) every other day until the last dose of chemotherapy alone or with aprepitant on days 1-3. Patients mainly received an anthracycline on days 1-3 plus cytarabine administered for 5-10 days. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) over the whole study period (days of chemotherapy plus two additional days). Unplanned analysis of time to anti-emetic treatment failure (TTF) was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 134 patients enrolled in the study, 130 were evaluable: 68 subjects received palonosetron plus aprepitant and 62 received palonosetron alone. Although the primary end point of CR was similar between the treatment arms (72% vs 69%; P = .55), a higher proportion of patients treated with palonosetron plus aprepitant were free from nausea during the whole study period (43% vs 27%; P = .03). There was also a significant difference in favor of the two-drug regimens in TTF (median: 5 days vs 3 days; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that every-other-day palonosetron plus 3-day aprepitant can add clinical benefit to the control of CINV caused by multiple-day, corticosteroid-free chemotherapy for AML. In this challenging setting of CINV, further investigations of palonosetron in combination with aprepitant administered with an expanded schedule are warranted. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT02205164.