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.

Olanzapine Plus Triple Antiemetic Therapy for the Prevention of Carboplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy with olanzapine, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients scheduled to receive carboplatin (AUC ≥5) were randomly assigned to receive either olanzapine 5 mg once daily (olanzapine group) or placebo (placebo group) in combination with aprepitant, a 5-HT3 RA, and dexamethasone. The primary end point was the complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue therapy) rate in the overall phase (0-120 hours). Secondary end points included the proportion of patients free of nausea and safety. RESULTS: In total, 355 patients (78.6% male, median age 72 years, 100% thoracic cancer), including 175 and 180 patients in the olanzapine and placebo groups, respectively, were evaluated. The overall CR rate was 86.9% in the olanzapine group versus 80.6% in the placebo group. The intergroup difference in the overall CR rate was 6.3% (95% CI, -1.3 to 13.9). The proportions of patients free of chemotherapy-induced nausea in the overall (88.6% in the olanzapine group v 75.0% in the placebo group) and delayed (89.7% v 75.6%, respectively) phases were significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (both P < .001). Somnolence was observed in 43 (24.6%) and 41 (22.9%) patients in the olanzapine and placebo groups, respectively, and no events were grade ≥3 in severity. CONCLUSION: The addition of olanzapine was not associated with a significant increase in the overall CR rate. Regarding the prevention of nausea, adding olanzapine provided better control in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, which needs further exploration.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Safety profile of HTX-019 administered as an intravenous push in cancer patients: a retrospective review.

Objectives: HTX-019 (Cinvanti®) is a novel injectable emulsion formulation of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (RA) aprepitant, approved (as 30-min infusion and 2-min injection) for preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This retrospective analysis evaluated the safety of HTX-019 administered by 2-min injection in patients with cancer.Methods: At a single center, HTX-019 was evaluated as a 2-min injection within a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen for CINV prophylaxis in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed 0-60 minutes following initiation of HTX-019 administration, focusing on infusion-site adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions.Results: Among 600 patients (78 MEC, 522 HEC), the most common diagnoses were lung (172) and breast (129) cancer. Patients received a 2-min injection of HTX-019, followed by a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA intravenously (IV) (palonosetron or ondansetron), dexamethasone IV, and chemotherapy regimen (most common was cisplatin-containing) via a central (76%) and peripheral line (24%). No TEAEs occurred within 60 min after start of HTX-019 administration.Conclusion: HTX-019 administered by 2-min injection has a tolerable safety profile in patients with cancer, representing a viable method of HTX-019 administration for CINV prevention.

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.

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.

Relative bioavailability of an extemporaneously prepared aprepitant oral suspension in healthy adults.

PURPOSE: Use of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in patients unable to swallow capsules is hindered by the lack of a commercially available oral liquid formulation in many jurisdictions. A stable oral suspension can be extemporaneously prepared using commercially available capsules. We aimed to determine the bioavailability of this aprepitant suspension relative to the capsule. METHODS: This two-period crossover study enrolled 17 healthy adult volunteers. Volunteers received a single 125 mg aprepitant dose during each study period. Order of formulation presentation (capsule vs suspension first) was randomized. Thirteen blood samples were collected over a 48-h period. Aprepitant plasma concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy. Relative bioavailability was defined as the geometric least squares mean ratio for area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity of the aprepitant suspension versus the capsule. Bioequivalence, defined as per Health Canada guidelines, was assessed as a secondary aim. RESULTS: Relative bioavailability of the aprepitant suspension was 82.3% (90% CI: 69.09-98.00%). Bioequivalence was not established: geometric least squares mean ratios (suspension/capsule) for AUC time zero to 48 h and maximum concentration were 87.8% (90% CI: 75.48-102.16%) and 86.1% (90% CI: 75.59-98.16%), respectively. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: With a relative bioavailability of 82.3%, the extemporaneous aprepitant oral suspension was well-absorbed relative to the capsule. Though not bioequivalent to the oral capsule, the clinical use of this aprepitant oral suspension in adult and pediatric patients unable to swallow capsules is likely to be effective and safe.

Safety Profile of HTX-019 Administered as an Intravenous Infusion in Patients With Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

HTX-019 is a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist approved for prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When administered as a 30-minute intravenous (IV) infusion, HTX-019 has displayed a tolerable and favorable safety profile in healthy subjects. This is the first study to evaluate the safety profile of multiple HTX-019 infusions in patients with cancer. This retrospective analysis shows that HTX-019 administered via IV infusion has a favorable safety profile in patients with cancer, and no new treatment-emergent adverse events were identified.

[Clinical Pharmacology Research for Promoting Individualized Cancer Chemotherapy].

Cancer chemotherapy has progressed remarkably with conventional and molecular-targeted anticancer drugs as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, adverse drug reaction (ADR) management remains a challenge in cancer chemotherapy. Therefore, improving the quality of medical care through clinical pharmacology research is warranted. Intravenous injection of bendamustine in patients with follicular or mantle cell lymphoma frequently causes venous irritation. Because the underlying mechanisms are not clear, we investigated the factors responsible for bendamustine-induced venous irritation. Based on the results of our analysis, we altered the administration regimen and observed that the incidence of venous irritation, which manifested in a concentration-dependent manner following conventional approaches, significantly decreased when following the modified regimen. Guidelines on the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting recommend aprepitant, a selective neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist, 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone as prophylactic antiemetics. Pretreatment with high-dose chemotherapy before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has extremely high emetogenic potential. This can be countered by using aprepitant in combination with conventional antiemetics. However, the safety and efficacy of such combinations are unexplored. Upon evaluation, we observed improved antiemetic effects without an increase in ADRs. At this symposium, I highlight the significance of clinical pharmacology research for promoting individualized cancer chemotherapy.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis Between Aprepitant- and Fosaprepitant-containing Regimens To Prevent Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Japan.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials have shown that the addition of aprepitant (APR) or a phosphorylated prodrug of aprepitant, fosaprepitant (FosAPR) as prophylactic antiemetic therapy consisting of a 5-hydrotryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is effective in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. These combination therapies have been commonly used in Japan. In the present study, we performed a cost-utility analysis of APR and FosAPR in the context of the Japanese medical insurance system, and economic efficiency was compared. METHODS: Data from randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of APR and FosAPR in the Japanese population were used. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the effectiveness of chemotherapy for 5 days from the day of the treatment and the cost associated with outpatient chemotherapy from the perspective of a payer. Health outcome was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were estimated based on medical fees and drug prices from 2018. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each regimen containing either APR or FosAPR. The robustness of the model was assessed using 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. FINDINGS: The base-case analysis estimated that the addition of APR or FosAPR would have incremental effects of 0.00166 and 0.00143 QALY and incremental costs of 8305 and 11,348 JPY (74 and 101 USD [1 USD = 112.17 JPY]), resulting in ICERs of 4,992,172 and 7,955,560 JPY/QALY (44,505 and 70,924 USD/QALY), respectively. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of a complete response for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting had the most influence on the ICERs. Reductions in the drug costs of APR and FosAPR also had an effect on the ICERs. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, APR and FosAPR were dominant in terms of cost-effectiveness in 48.7% and 8.55% of cases, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: The ICER of outpatient prophylactic antiemetic therapy in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy was calculated in the context of the Japanese medical insurance system. Assuming the willingness-to-pay of 5,000,000 JPY/QALY based on the calculated ICER, our findings suggest that although the addition of APR is cost-effective, FosAPR is not cost-effective.

Olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prevention of carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: There remains an unmet clinical need for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), particularly in the prevention of nausea and the delayed phase control. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy with olanzapine, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. Olanzapine inhibits signalling via multiple neurotransmitter receptors involved in CINV. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer who received carboplatin-containing chemotherapy were enrolled in this phase-II study. Patients received olanzapine, aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) during 120 h after administration of chemotherapy agents. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients received olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy. The overall complete response rate was 93.3% (95% confidence interval, 80.4-98.3%). The frequency of nausea was 15.2% in the delayed phase and 18.2% in the overall phase. Somnolence was observed in 16 patients. CONCLUSION: Adding olanzapine to antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone improved CINV control in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: comparison of two prophylactic antiemetic regimens.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) provide optimal perioperative care for surgical patients. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after colorectal surgery (CRS). We aim to compare the efficacy of aprepitant to a cost-effective alternative, perphenazine, as components of triple antiemetic prophylaxis in ERP patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent ERP CRS at a single institution from July 2015 to July 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Only subjects who received aprepitant (Group 1) or perphenazine (Group 2) preoperatively for PONV prophylaxis were included. Patient characteristics, simplified Apfel PONV scores, perioperative medications, and PONV incidence were compared between the groups. PONV was defined as the need for rescue antiemetics on postoperative days (POD) 0-5. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-seven patients underwent CRS of which 498 met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty-one (46.4%) received aprepitant and 267 (53.6%) received perphenazine. The incidence of early PONV (POD 0-1) was comparable between the two groups: 44.2% in Group 1 and 44.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.926). Late PONV (POD 2-5) occurred less often in Group 1 than Group 2, respectively (35.9% vs. 45.7%, P = 0.027). After matching the groups for preoperative, procedural, and anesthesia characteristics (164 pairs), no difference in early or late PONV could be demonstrated between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PONV remains high despite most patients receiving three prophylactic antiemetic medications. Perphenazine can be considered a cost-effective alternative to oral aprepitant for prophylaxis of PONV in patients undergoing CRS within an ERP.