Effectiveness of Palonosetron, 1-Day Dexamethasone, and Aprepitant in Patients Undergoing Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, is associated with poor control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether using palonosetron (PALO) as a 5HT3RA provides superior control with CINV than first-generation (1st) 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with a DEX-sparing strategy. METHODS: Pooled patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, and prospective observational study were analyzed to compare the incidence of CINV between patients administered PALO and 1st 5HT3RA in combination with 1-day DEX and APR. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CINV, pattern of CINV, or severity of nausea by type of 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with DEX-sparing strategy. In both groups, the incidence of nausea gradually increased from day 3, peaked on day 4 or 5, and then declined slowly. The visual analog scale scores in the delayed phase remained high throughout the 7-day observation period. CONCLUSION: Careful patient selection and symptom monitoring are needed when implementing the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional strategies may be needed to achieve better control of delayed CINV.

Antiemetic use and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting related hospitalization costs after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Aim: Despite numerous available antiemetics, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still affects many patients, and CINV related hospitalizations and costs often result. Materials & methods: PrecisionQ analyzed its database to evaluate CINV related hospitalizations and costs following antiemetics use including netupitant/fosnetupitant with palonosetron (NEPA), aprepitant/fosaprepitant with ondansetron (APON) or aprepitant/fosaprepitant with palonosetron (APPA) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Results: Database analysis identified 15,583 patient records (807 NEPA, 2023 APON, 12,753 APPA) and mean CINV related hospitalization costs were lower across all patients receiving NEPA (US$301) compared with patients receiving APON ($1006, p < 0.0001) or APPA ($321, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: NEPA is associated with lower CINV related hospitalization costs compared with APON and APPA among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy patients often experience nausea and vomiting that not only has a negative impact on the patient's quality of life but can also result in unplanned hospitalizations with high associated costs. Numerous medications and specific guidelines are available to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer. Specifically, the combination of two classes of medications (serotonin inhibitors + neurokinin type 1 inhibitors) has been shown to provide the greatest benefit. However, hospitalizations due to nausea and vomiting still occur, and providers require further information to determine the best options for their patients. In this study, the combination of netupitant/fosnetupitant with palonosetron resulted in lower hospitalization costs compared with aprepitant/fosaprepitant with ondansetron or aprepitant/fosaprepitant with palonosetron in chemotherapy patients.

Combination Therapy of Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy and the Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist Aprepitant: A New Antitumor Strategy?

BACKGROUND: Although chemotherapy is predominantly used for cancer treatment, it can be ineffective and can induce serious side effects and lead to chemoresistance. It is essential to discover novel drugs that can enhance the antitumor activity and at the same time, counteract the severe side effects, of chemotherapy. The substance P (SP)/neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) interaction system is known to play a key role in the pathogenesis of cancer. Studies with NK-1R antagonists (such as aprepitant) denote that the NK-1R is a potential target for the treatment of cancer. Aprepitant combined with major chemotherapeutic drugs has shown the potential to increase antitumor activity and decrease side effects. OBJECTIVE: Since malignant tumor cancer cells overexpress the NK-1R, this combination therapy is a promising approach for the treatment of all kinds of cancer. Since aprepitant shows potential of being a broad-antitumor drug, the repurposing of this NK-1R antagonist as an antitumor agent is warranted. Studies pertaining to combination therapy of aprepitant/radiotherapy will also be outlined in this review. The aim of this review is to provide an update on combinational studies pertaining to chemotherapy/radiotherapy and NK-1R antagonist in cancer. CONCLUSION: This combination strategy once confirmed, might open the door to a new era in chemotherapy and radiotherapy with greater antitumor activity and fewer side effects. This treatment strategy could possibly translate into higher cure rates, better quality of life and fewer sequelae in cancer patients.

Aprepitant exerts anti-fibrotic effect via inhibition of TGF-ß/Smad3 pathway in bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis in rats.

Bleomycin is a well-recognized antineoplastic drug. However, pulmonary fibrosis (PF) is considered to be the principal drawback that greatly limits its use. Here, we sought to investigate ability of the neurokinin receptor 1 blocker, aprepitant, to prevent PF caused by bleomycin. Male adult Wistar rat groups were given a single intratracheal injection of bleomycin, either alone or in combination with aprepitant therapy for 3 or 14 days. Collagen deposition and a rise in transforming growth factor beta (TGF-ß) immunoreactivity in lung tissue serve as evidence of bleomycin-induced PF. The serum levels of lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, and total antioxidant improved after aprepitant therapy.Additionally, it reduced the protein expressions of interferon alpha, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and lung lipid peroxidation. Moreover, aprepitant treatment led to an increase in the antioxidant indices glutathione, glutathione peroxidase, and catalase. Aprepitant is postulated to protect against bleomycin-induced PF by decreasing TGF-ß, phosphorylating Smad3, and increasing interleukin 37, an anti-fibrotic cytokine, and G Protein-coupled Receptor Kinase 2. Aprepitant for 14 days considerably exceeded aprepitant for 3 days in terms of improving lung damage and having an anti-fibrotic impact. In conclusion, aprepitant treatment for 14 days may be used as an adjuvant to bleomycin therapy to prevent PF, mostly through inhibiting the TGF-/p-Smad3 fibrotic pathway.

Antiemetic prophylaxis for chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: There is sparse research reporting effective interventions for preventing nausea and emesis caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC). METHODS: Treatment-naïve LA-HNSCC patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concomitant cisplatin 100 mg/m2 (33 mg/m2/days [d]1-3) every 3 weeks for two cycles. All patients were given oral aprepitant 125 mg once on d1, then 80 mg once on d2-5; ondansetron 8 mg once on d1; and dexamethasone 12 mg once on d1, then 8 mg on d2-5. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR). Pursuant to δ = 0.2 and α = 0.05, the expected CR rate was 80%. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients with LA-HNSCC were enrolled. The median age was 53 years, and 86.0% were male. All patients received radiotherapy and 86.0% of patients completed both cycles as planned. The overall CR rate was 86.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1-94.7). The CR rates for cycles 1 and 2 were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9-96.1) and 89.2% (95% CI: 74.6-97.0). The complete protection rate in the overall phase was 72.1% (95% CI: 56.3-84.7). The emesis-free and nausea-free responses in the overall phase were 88.4% (95% CI: 74.9-96.1) and 60.5% (95% CI: 44.4-75.0), respectively. The adverse events related to antiemetics were constipation (65.1%) and hiccups (16.3%), but both were grade 1-2. There was no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related toxicity with antiemetic usage. CONCLUSION: The addition of aprepitant into ondansetron and dexamethasone provided effective protection from nausea and emesis in patients with LA-HNSCC receiving radiotherapy and concomitant high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

Prolonged administration of aprepitant improves cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Aims: To determine the antiemetic efficacy of a 6-day aprepitant schedule in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin. Patients & methods: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer and who were chemotherapy-naive were screened. The patients willing to use aprepitant were randomly divided into two groups: prolonged use of aprepitant (PA; 6-day aprepitant) and standard use of aprepitant (SA; 3-day aprepitant); the patients who rejected aprepitant were recruited into the control group (group C). Primary end points included the safety and the number of days without chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results: There was no statistical difference in adverse events among the three groups. The average days without chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting of group PA (18.28 ± 3.35) was significantly longer than in groups SA and C. Furthermore, better life function scores were achieved in group PA according to the Functional Living Index - Emesis questionnaire. Conclusion: In this study 6-day aprepitant was safe and more effective than standard 3-day aprepitant in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to 3-day cisplatin regimens.

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a 6-day aprepitant schedule in patients receiving a multiple-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy drug (cisplatin). Aprepitant is an important medication used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The patients willing to use aprepitant were randomly divided into two groups: prolonged use of aprepitant (PA; 6-day aprepitant) and standard use of aprepitant (SA; 3-day aprepitant). The patients who rejected aprepitant were recruited into the control group. The results showed that cases of CINV in group PA ended more quickly. Group PA also had more days with no vomiting and no nausea than the other two groups. The results of this study propose 6-day aprepitant use as more effective to prevent CINV in patients receiving 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy.  Clinical trial registration: ChiCTR-IPR-15005933 (http://www.chictr.org.cn).

Clinical interaction between dexamethasone and aprepitant in chemotherapy for lymphoma.

Aprepitant (Apr) is an effective antiemetic agent for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Current CINV guidelines recommend the antiemetic combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, Apr, and dexamethasone (Dex) for highly emetogenic chemotherapies. Apr inhibits CYP3A4 dose-dependently. Since Dex is metabolized by CYP3A4, the combined use of Apr and Dex inhibits Dex metabolism. CINV guidelines therefore recommend dose-reduction of Dex when Apr and Dex are used together. However, there is some controversy over whether or not Dex should be reduced when administered as an antitumor agent for lymphoid malignancies. We retrospectively compared the antitumor effect of Dex-containing chemotherapy in which Dex is administered at the usual dose without Apr (group A) or administered at a half-dose in combination with Apr (group B). We analyzed 62 consecutive patients with refractory or relapsed CD20 + B cell lymphoma who received R-DHAP therapy in our hospital, including 29 and 33 cases in groups A and B, respectively. The response rate at the end of the first course of R-DHAP was 62.1% and 54.5%, respectively (P = 0.61). As another endpoint to evaluate the effect of Dex, group B tended to show greater suppression of the lymphocyte count (P = 0.05). Therefore, decreasing the dose of Dex by half appeared to be reasonable when combined with Apr.

Improving Guideline-Congruent Care for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis in Pediatric Oncology Patients.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a very common side effect of pediatric cancer therapy. High-quality, evidence-based, pediatric-specific guidelines for prophylaxis and treatment of CINV are available. At many centers, guideline-concordant care is uncommon. We formed a multidisciplinary quality improvement team to implement guideline-concordant care for CINV prophylaxis at our center. We present the results following the first year of our interventions. METHODS: We planned and implemented a multipronged approach in three key phases: (1) developing and publishing an acute CINV prophylaxis pathway, (2) education of providers, and (3) updating the computerized provider order entry system. We used iterative, sequential Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and behavioral economic strategies to improve adherence to guideline-concordant CINV prophylaxis. We focused on aprepitant usage as a key area for improvement. RESULTS: At the beginning of the study period, < 50% of patients were receiving guideline-concordant CINV prophylaxis and < 15% of eligible patients were receiving aprepitant. After 1 year, more than 60% of patients were receiving guideline-concordant care and 50% of eligible patients were receiving aprepitant. CONCLUSION: We describe the development and implementation of a standardized pathway for prevention of acute CINV in pediatric oncology patients. With a multidisciplinary, multifaceted approach, we demonstrate significant improvements to guideline-congruent CINV prophylaxis.

Use of long term aprepitant as a treatment for refractory nausea following oesophageal stent insertion - a case report.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant, a substance P neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is licenced for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly and moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. CASE: A 33 year-old male with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer had multiple admissions for refractory nausea and vomiting following insertion of an oesophageal stent. ACTION: Mechanical issues with the stent, stent removal and central causes were excluded. Multiple anti-emetic agents were trialled in combination and with varying routes of administration without significant symptomatic improvement. FORMULATION: A trial of aprepitant was proposed as an off-licence therapy. OUTCOME: One hundred sixty-five milligrammes of aprepitant was given orally every 3 days and then up titrated to once daily with significant symptomatic improvement enabling the patient to tolerate an oral diet. The patient remained stable at 12 weeks and has been accepted into two clinical trials for potential further cancer treatment. LESSONS: Aprepitant can be effective in refractory nausea and vomiting outside of emetogenic chemotherapy and safely used as a chronic treatment. The prevalence of refractory nausea and vomiting as a rare adverse outcome post-oesophageal stent insertion should be studied. WHAT NOW?: Further research of neurokinin-1 inhibitors for indications other than chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is indicated.

NEPA efficacy and tolerability during (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin.

OBJECTIVES: This is a prospective study evaluating NEPA in patients with breast cancer (the NEPA group), who received (neo)adjuvant AC chemotherapy (consisting of doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2). The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of NEPA in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The secondary objectives were to compare CINV between the NEPA group and historical controls (the APR group) who received aprepitant in an earlier prospective randomised study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 patients participated in the NEPA group; 62 were in the APR group. Eligibility criteria of both groups were similar, that is, Chinese patients with breast cancer who were treated with (neo)adjuvant AC. NEPA group received NEPA and dexamethasone; APR group received aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone. Individuals filled in self-reported diary, visual analogue scale for nausea and Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire. RESULTS: Within the NEPA group, 70.0%, 85.7% and 60.0%, respectively reported complete response in the acute, delayed and overall phases in cycle 1 AC. When compared with the historical APR group during cycle 1 AC, NEPA group achieved significantly higher rates of complete response, complete protection, total control, 'no significant nausea' and 'no nausea' in the delayed phase; similar findings were noted in the overall phase with significantly better quality of life. Superior efficacy of NEPA was maintained over multiple cycles. Both antiemetic regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In this study on Chinese patients with breast cancer who were uniformly receiving AC, NEPA was effective in controlling CINV. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03386617.

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.

Effect of aprepitant administration on CINV caused by cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy and pharmacokinetics of docetaxel.

PURPOSE: To compare efficacy and safety of postponing administration of aprepitant and routine triple-antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients who received docetaxel and cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy treatment, and to evaluate the effect of aprepitant on docetaxel pharmacokinetics in the Chinese population. METHODS: A total of 24 cancer patients (including 5 females and 19 males, 22-74 years old) received two cycles of high-emetic DP (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 + cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on days 1-3) regimen. A randomized, two-period and cross-over study was applied for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The patients in group A took aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3 (administered aprepitant 1 h before chemotherapy). In group B, the patients took aprepitant 125 mg on day 2, 80 mg on days 3-4, which was delayed 1 day than group A. Efficacy and safety in overall phase were evaluated within 5 days after initiation of chemotherapy. Simultaneously, the differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of docetaxel between two different antiemetic treatments are compared. RESULTS: The CR rate of delayed-phase nausea was compared between the routine triple-antiemetic treatment (group A) and the aprepitant delayed 1-day administration treatment (group B), and the difference was statistically significant (16.7% vs 45.8% P < 0.05), despite there were similar for two groups in the CR rate of acute-phase nausea and vomiting, and delayed-phase vomiting. In two groups, the area under the docetaxel curve (AUC0-t values) (mean ± SD) of docetaxel was 1134.21 ± 732.55 (ng h/mL) and 1080.94 ± 585.09 (ng h/mL), and the geometric means were 944.82 and 902.10 (ng h/mL), respectively. There was no significant difference in AUC values between the two antiemetic treatments (P > 0.05), as well as Cmax, CLz, T1/2z, MRT and Tmax. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed administration of aprepitant provided superior delayed-phase nausea protection for patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy in comparison with the routine triple-antiemetic treatment. In addition, in the routine triple-antiemetic treatment, aprepitant did not significantly affect the main pharmacokinetic parameters of docetaxel.

Evaluation of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Single-dose i.v. fosaprepitant has been approved as an alternative to 3 day oral aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Because fosaprepitant has shown similar efficacy to aprepitant in adult patients only, this study compared the efficacy and safety of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients. METHODS: Children younger than 18 years who received aprepitant or fosaprepitant to manage CINV between January 2015 and March 2018 at the National Cancer Center Hospital (Tokyo) were recruited to this study. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting/rescue medication) between 0 and 120 h after the start of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints were safety based on the frequency of severe adverse events, and evaluation of patient characteristics as risk factors (effect of age and sex). RESULTS: A total of 125 chemotherapy cycles were evaluated. In the aprepitant group, CR was observed in 36 of 80 treatment cycles (45.0%), whereas in the fosaprepitant group, it was observed in 19 of 45 cycles (42.2%; P = 0.852). No treatment-related severe adverse events were observed in either group. The number of non-CR was greater than that of CR in patients aged 6-14 years. The difference in CR rate between male and female patients was not statistically significant (47.1% vs 40.0%, respectively; P = 0.471). CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant and fosaprepitant were safely used and may be equally useful for pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. CR rate may be associated with patient age.

Adverse events associated with aprepitant pediatric bone cancer patients.

An eight-year long case series follow-up study with pediatric bone cancer patients was conducted to compare the occurrence of adverse events associated with aprepitant with official sources of drug information (manufacturer's leaflet, clinical trials, and European Medicines Agency leaflet). All patients admitted were analyzed, representing 192 aprepitant cycles. Anorexia, febrile neutropenia, and headache were observed in frequencies over 43.8 per 100 patients, which was higher than previous estimates. Adverse events were classified as probable or possible, by using Naranjo score. The increased rates of adverse events, especially on the risk febrile neutropenia, warrant further safety studies on this population.

Hypersensitivity and infusion-site adverse events with intravenous fosaprepitant after anthracycline-containing chemotherapy: a retrospective study.

AIM: Fosaprepitant, an intravenous neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, contains polysorbate 80, which is associated with infusion-site adverse events (ISAEs) and hypersensitivity systemic reactions (HSRs). This study investigated ISAEs/HSRs following fosaprepitant with anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. PATIENTS & METHODS: This retrospective chart review noted ISAEs/HSRs following the anthracycline doxorubicin+cyclophosphamide and a three-drug fosaprepitant regimen, via peripheral line. RESULTS: 35/127 patients (28%) developed ISAEs/HSRs with chemotherapy and antiemetic therapy: 32 developed 137 individual ISAEs, primarily erythema, pain and catheter-site swelling; 16 developed 50 individual HSRs, primarily edema/swelling, erythema or dermatitis (no anaphylaxis). CONCLUSION: Fosaprepitant is associated with a significant ISAE/HSR rate following anthracycline-containing chemotherapy via peripheral line. Polysorbate 80-free intravenous neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist may provide a safer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis option.

Effectiveness of Antiemetic Regimens for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed.

HTX-019 via 2-min injection or 30-min infusion in healthy subjects.

AIM: HTX-019 (CINVANTI® [aprepitant injectable emulsion]) is a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist approved for preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). HTX-019 is free of polysorbate 80 and other synthetic surfactants and showed bioequivalence to and a more favorable safety profile than fosaprepitant when administered as a 30-min infusion in healthy subjects. The shortage of small-volume parenteral solutions led to a recommendation to administer HTX-019 by intravenous push. The objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetics, tolerability and safety following HTX-019 administration by injection versus infusion. MATERIALS & METHODS: Study comprised Part A, a pilot Phase I, single-center, randomized, pharmacokinetic, safety and tolerability, open-label study, followed by Part B, a two-sequence crossover study of HTX-019 130 mg in healthy adults, via injection and infusion. Blood samples were evaluated for aprepitant pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, clinical laboratory testing and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: In Part A, 24 subjects were randomly assigned to three cohorts (n = 8 per cohort) and received HTX-019 130 mg, administered intravenously over 15 min (cohort 1), 5 min (cohort 2) or 2 min (cohort 3). Progression to Part B occurred after acceptable tolerability was established in cohorts 2 and 3. In Part B, 50 randomized subjects received a 2-min injection (9 ml/min) and 30-min infusion (296 ml/h) of HTX-019 130 mg. Bioequivalence was demonstrated for HTX-019 injection and infusion. Both administration methods via a peripheral line were well tolerated; eight subjects experienced 11 TEAEs (six related) following injection and nine experienced 14 TEAEs (nine related) following infusion. Headache and fatigue were the most prevalent treatment-related TEAEs; one subject per group experienced feeling hot ≤30 min after drug administration. CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic and tolerability profiles of 2-min HTX-019 injection support this potential alternative administration method for CINV prevention.

Olanzapine plus aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline: A retrospective study.

This study aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy and safety of a four-drug combination with those of a standard three-drug combination in Japanese patients with breast cancer treated with anthracycline. We retrospectively analyzed data from Japanese patients with breast cancer, who had received their first cycle of anthracycline and were treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone with or without olanzapine. This retrospective observational study was performed at Ehime University Hospital using the electronic medical records. Multivariable and propensity score-adjusted analyses were performed to compare the onset of complete response (CR) failure between the groups. One-hundred and thirty patients were included in this study and the four- and three-drug group had 22 and 108 patients, respectively. Similar to multivariable logistic regression analysis, propensity-adjusted logistic regression analysis revealed that the four-drug group was markedly associated with a decreased odds of CR failure in the overall, acute, and delayed phases (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.73; OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10-0.76; and OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04-0.57, respectively). Additionally, treatment-related adverse events were well tolerated in both the groups. These findings suggest that the antiemetic efficacy of the four-drug combination is superior to that of the standard three-drug combination.

Safety of HTX-019 (intravenous aprepitant) and fosaprepitant in healthy subjects.

AIM: Evaluate safety of HTX-019, a novel polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free intravenous formulation of neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Two open-label, randomized, two-way crossover studies evaluated treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in 200 healthy subjects. Subjects received HTX-019 130 mg (30-min infusion) and fosaprepitant 150 mg (20- or 30-min infusion), with ≥7-day washout between doses. RESULTS: Less than or equal to 30 min after start of infusion, TEAEs occurred in 5 (3%) HTX-019 and 30 (15%) fosaprepitant recipients. No HTX-019 recipients had infusion-site adverse events, versus 15 (8%) fosaprepitant recipients. Treatment-related dyspnea occurred in one HTX-019 and six fosaprepitant recipients. No severe/serious TEAEs occurred; all TEAEs resolved. CONCLUSION: HTX-019 may provide a safer aprepitant formulation than fosaprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention.