A critical review of oliceridine injection as an IV opioid analgesic for the management of severe acute pain.

INTRODUCTION: Oliceridine is a G protein-selective (biased) agonist at the µ-opioid receptor, with less recruitment of ß-arrestin-2, a signaling pathway associated with opioid-related adverse events. Nonclinical evidence showed that oliceridine elicits a rapid systemic analgesic effect while attenuating opioid-related adverse events. AREAS COVERED: Three pivotal studies in patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain, including two randomized, double-blind, placebo- and morphine-controlled efficacy studies following either orthopedic surgery-bunionectomy or plastic surgery-abdominoplasty; and an open-label safety study following a surgical procedure or due to a medical condition. EXPERT OPINION: Poorly controlled acute postoperative pain is associated with poorer recovery, longer hospitalization, increased complications, and worse healthcare outcomes. Recently, oliceridine intravenous injection was approved for use in adults for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an intravenous opioid analgesic and for whom alternative treatments are inadequate. Introduction of this new IV opioid provides a valuable option to manage postoperative pain.

Safety evaluation of oliceridine for the management of postoperative moderate-to-severe acute pain.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids for managing postoperative pain are associated with side effects including opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) and gastrointestinal complications. Opioids induce analgesia via G-protein signaling, while adverse effects are mediated by the ß-arrestin pathway. Oliceridine is a biased ligand that preferentially activates G-protein signaling over ß-arrestin, theoretically reducing adverse effects. Oliceridine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat acute pain severe enough to require intravenous opioid analgesics. AREAS COVERED: Preclinical and clinical trials demonstrate the analgesic efficacy of oliceridine. Available evidence suggests that oliceridine may have a lower risk of OIRD and gastrointestinal complications compared to conventional opioids. EXPERT OPINION: The analgesic efficacy of oliceridine has been evaluated in several clinical trials. However, safety data were obtained from an open-label observational study and studies assessing adverse effects as secondary outcomes, as post-hoc analyses, or from retrospective studies. These may be affected by gaps in detecting adverse events, heterogeneity in the original studies, and the limitations of retrospective studies. Prospective trials examining the safety of oliceridine versus conventional opioids are needed. Studies are also needed to assess the safety and efficacy of oliceridine in obstetric and pediatric populations, and in the context of multimodal analgesia and Enhanced Recovery after Surgery protocols.

Low Incidence of Postoperative Respiratory Depression with Oliceridine Compared to Morphine: A Retrospective Chart Analysis.

Background: Oliceridine, an investigational IV opioid, is a first-in-class G-protein selective agonist at the µ-opioid receptor. The G-protein selectivity results in potent analgesia with less recruitment of ß-arrestin, a signaling pathway associated with opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs). In randomized controlled studies in both hard and soft tissue models yielding surgical pain, oliceridine provided effective analgesia with a potential for an improved safety and tolerability profile at equianalgesic doses to morphine. The phase 3, open-label, single-arm, multicenter ATHENA trial demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of oliceridine in moderate to severe acute pain in a broad range of patients undergoing surgery or with painful medical conditions warranting use of an IV opioid. This retrospective, observational chart review study compared respiratory depression events associated with oliceridine administration as found in the ATHENA trial to a control cohort treated with conventional opioids. Methods: Patients at 18 years of age or older, who underwent colorectal, orthopedic, cardiothoracic, bariatric, or general surgeries between June 2015 and May 2017 in 11 sites participating in the ATHENA trial who received postoperative analgesia either with IV oliceridine or with IV conventional opioids (e.g., morphine alone or in combination with other opioids) (CO cohort); and had a hospital stay >48 hours, were included in this retrospective analysis. Data from the ATHENA trial was used for the oliceridine cohort; and additional baseline characteristics were collected from medical charts. Data from medical charts were collected for all CO cohort patients. The two cohorts were balanced using an inverse probability weighting method. The primary outcome was the incidence of operationally defined opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) in the two cohorts. Secondary outcomes included between-group comparison of the incidence of OIRD events among a subset of high-risk patients. Results: OIRD was significantly less in the oliceridine cohort compared to the CO cohort (8.0% vs. 30.7%; odds ratio: 0.139) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.22; P < 0.0001). Likewise, the incidence of OIRD was lower among high-risk patients in the oliceridine cohort (9.1% vs. 34.7%; odds ratio: 0.136) (95% CI [0.09-0.22]; P < 0.0001) compared to the CO cohort. Conclusion: In this retrospective chart review study, patients receiving IV oliceridine for moderate to severe acute pain demonstrated a lower incidence of treatment emergent OIRD compared to patients who were treated with IV morphine either alone or with concomitant administration of other opioids.

The safety of rolapitant for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a significant clinical issue that affects patients' quality of life as well as treatment decisions. Significant improvements in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have occurred in the past 15 years with the introduction of new antiemetic agents 5-HT3, receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and olanzapine. Oral (aprepitant, 2003; netupitant, 2014; rolapitant, 2015) neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists have been developed along with intravenous formulations (fosaprepitant, NEPA, rolapitant, HTX-019) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Areas covered: This review presents a description of the safety and efficacy of rolapitant along with a comparison to the other oral and intravenous formulations of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.Expert opinion: Oral rolapitant has been demonstrated in clinical trials to be safe and effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant has a longer half-life (180 h) than other commercially available NK-1 receptor antagonists and does not induce or inhibit CYP34A, unlike the other NK-1 receptor antagonists. Future studies may determine if these may be important clinical issues.

NYX-2925, A Novel N-methyl-D-aspartate Receptor Modulator: A First-in-Human, Randomized, Double-blind Study of Safety and Pharmacokinetics in Adults.

NYX-2925, a new chemical entity, acts as a co-agonist to glutamate at the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR). At low concentrations of endogenous agonists (glycine/D-serine), NYX-2925 partially activates NMDARs, modulating neural pathways relevant for chronic pain. NYX-2925 is being developed for the treatment of chronic pain conditions, including painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia. In this first-in-human, phase I, single-ascending dose (50-1,200 mg) and multiple-ascending dose (150-900 mg) study, the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of NYX-2925 were evaluated in 84 healthy adult volunteers. No safety concerns emerged, including no dissociative side effects. NYX-2925 exhibited dose-proportional PKs and minimal accumulation following once-daily dosing for 7 days. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measurements confirmed that NYX-2925 crosses the blood brain barrier, with maximum CSF concentrations approximating 6-9% of maximum plasma concentrations at the same dose level. NYX-2925 was safe and well-tolerated in healthy volunteers, and the study results support the continued clinical development for chronic pain conditions.

Infusion reactions following administration of intravenous rolapitant at an academic medical center.

In 2017, due to a fluid shortage secondary to Hurricane Maria's devastation of Puerto Rico, hospitals and health-systems began to substitute rolapitant for fosaprepitant as part of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention and treatment strategies. However, despite advantageous pharmacologic and formulation (e.g. long half-life, quicker time to onset, and lack of first-pass hepatic metabolism) profiles, there seems to be significant risk of infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the administration of intravenous rolapitant. In January 2018, the U.S. FDA issued a Health Care Provider Letter stating that anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, and other serious hypersensitivity reactions have been reported in the postmarketing setting. Importantly, these reactions were observed at a higher rate than initially reported in the phase 1 bioequivalence study that led to FDA approval of intravenous rolapitant (2.8%), with many resulting in hospitalizations. At our institution, rolapitant-induced infusion-related reactions also occurred in more patients than expected (8.7%). Described herein are six cases of infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions with intravenous rolapitant at the North Carolina Cancer Hospital. Due to the quick onset of the infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions with intravenous rolapitant, interpatient differences in pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics are unlikely to be the cause. An objective assessment utilizing the Naranjo Causality Scale rates these infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions as definite adverse drug reactions.

A phase I study of the HDM2 antagonist SAR405838 combined with the MEK inhibitor pimasertib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of combination therapy with the HDM2 inhibitor SAR405838 and the MEK1/2 inhibitor pimasertib administered orally once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) in locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours (NCT01985191). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours with documented wild-type TP53 and RAS or RAF mutations were enroled. A 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was employed. The primary objective was to assess maximum tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were treated with SAR405838 200 or 300 mg QD plus pimasertib 60 mg QD or 45 mg BID. The MTD was SAR405838 200 mg QD plus pimasertib 45 mg BID. The most common dose-limiting toxicity was thrombocytopenia. The most frequently occurring treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (81%), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (77%), nausea (62%) and vomiting (62%). No significant drug-drug interactions were observed. The biomarkers MIC-1 and pERK were, respectively, upregulated and downregulated in response to study treatment. In 24 efficacy-evaluable patients, one patient (4%) had a partial response and 63% had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of SAR405838 and pimasertib combined was consistent with the safety profiles of both drugs. Preliminary antitumour activity was observed.

Nociceptin/orphanin FQ receptor ligands and translational challenges: focus on cebranopadol as an innovative analgesic.

Opioids are characterised as classical (mu, delta, and kappa) along with the non-classical nociceptin/orphanin FQ (N/OFQ) receptor or NOP. Targeting NOP has therapeutic indications in control of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and micturition, and a profile as an antidepressant. For all of these indications, there are translational human data. Opioids such as morphine and fentanyl (activating the mu receptor) are the mainstay of pain treatment in the perioperative period, despite a challenging side-effect profile. Opioids in general have poor efficacy in neuropathic pain. Moreover, longer term use is associated with tolerance. There is good evidence interactions between opioid receptors, and receptor co-activation can reduce side-effects without compromising analgesia; this is particularly true for mu and NOP co-activation. Recent pharmaceutical development has produced a mixed opioid/NOP agonist, cebranopadol. This new chemical entity is effective in animal models of nociceptive and neuropathic pain with greater efficacy in the latter. In animal models, there is little evidence for respiratory depression, and tolerance (compared with morphine) only develops after long treatment periods. There is now early phase clinical development in diabetic neuropathy, cancer pain, and low back pain where cebranopadol displays significant efficacy. In 1996, N/OFQ was formally identified with an innovative analgesic profile. Approximately 20 yr later, cebranopadol as a clinical ligand is advancing through the human trials process.

DUET: A Phase 2 Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Sparsentan in Patients with FSGS.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated and compared the effects of sparsentan, a dual endothelin type A (ETA) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, with those of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with primary FSGS. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomized, double-blind, active-control Efficacy and Safety of Sparsentan (RE-021), a Dual Endothelin Receptor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, in Patients with Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis (FSGS): A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-Control, Dose-Escalation Study (DUET), patients aged 8-75 years with biopsy-proven FSGS, eGFR>30 ml/min per 1.73 m2, and urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio (UP/C) ≥1.0 g/g received sparsentan (200, 400, or 800 mg/d) or irbesartan (300 mg/d) for 8 weeks, followed by open-label sparsentan only. End points at week 8 were reduction from baseline in UP/C (primary) and proportion of patients achieving FSGS partial remission end point (FPRE) (UP/C: ≤1.5 g/g and >40% reduction [secondary]). RESULTS: Of 109 patients randomized, 96 received study drugs and had baseline and week 8 UP/C measurements. Sparsentan-treated patients had greater reductions in UP/C than irbesartan-treated patients did when all doses (45% versus 19%; P=0.006) or the 400 and 800 mg doses (47% versus 19%; P=0.01) were pooled for analysis. The FSGS partial remission end point was achieved in 28% of sparsentan-treated and 9% of irbesartan-treated patients (P=0.04). After 8 weeks of treatment, BP was reduced with sparsentan but not irbesartan, and eGFR was stable with both treatments. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. Hypotension and edema were more common among sparsentan-treated patients but did not result in study withdrawals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FSGS achieved significantly greater reductions in proteinuria after 8 weeks of sparsentan versus irbesartan. Sparsentan was safe and well tolerated.

Effects of Rolapitant Administered Intravenously or Orally on the Pharmacokinetics of Digoxin (P-glycoprotein Substrate) and Sulfasalazine (Breast Cancer Resistance Protein Substrate) in Healthy Volunteers.

Rolapitant is a selective and long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved in an oral formulation in combination with other antiemetic agents for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults. Four open-label phase 1 studies evaluated the safety and drug-drug interactions of a single dose of rolapitant given intravenously (166.5 mg) or orally (180 mg) with oral digoxin (0.5 mg) or sulfasalazine (500 mg), probe substrates for the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), respectively. Administration of intravenous rolapitant with the substrates did not result in clinically significant effects on digoxin and sulfasalazine pharmacokinetics. In contrast, peak concentration and area under the curve for last quantifiable plasma concentrations increased by 71% (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 1.71; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.95) and 30% (GMR, 1.30; 90%CI, 1.19-1.42), respectively, when rolapitant was coadministered orally with digoxin compared with digoxin alone; they increased by 140% (GMR, 2.40; 90%CI, 2.02-2.86) and 127% (GMR, 2.27; 90%CI, 1.94-2.65), respectively, when rolapitant was given orally with sulfasalazine compared with sulfasalazine alone. Adverse events were mild to moderate in severity in the absence or presence of rolapitant. There were no abnormal clinical laboratory or electrocardiogram findings. Thus, whether administered orally or intravenously, rolapitant was safe and well tolerated. Patients taking oral rolapitant with P-gp and BCRP substrates with a narrow therapeutic index should be monitored for potential adverse events; although increased plasma concentrations of these substrates may raise the risk of toxicity, they are not contraindicated.

[The use of fenspiride for the combined treatment of exacerbation of chronic laryngitis]. / Fenspirid v kompleksnom lechenii obostreniia khronicheskogo laringita.

The present study was carried out based at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology of I.P. Pavlov First State Medical University of Saint-Petersburg. The objective of this work was to elucidate the efficacy and safety of fenspiride therapy for the treatment of exacerbation of chronic laryngitis associated with an acute respiratory infection. The patients comprising the main group received fenspiride (Eurespal, 'Servier', France) at the standard dose in addition to the conventional therapy with the use of antibiotics, inhalation, and voice rest. The patients in the group of comparison were treated following the conventional protocol without fenspiride. The clinical symptoms evaluated based on the scoring system, the results of videolaryngoscopy, and computer-assisted analysis of the voice were compared before and after treatment in the patients of both groups. The results of the study have confirmed the high effectiveness and safety of fenspiride therapy of exacerbation of chronic laryngitis.

Recent developments in the clinical pharmacology of rolapitant: subanalyses in specific populations.

Knowledge of the involvement of the neurokinin substance P in emesis has led to the development of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1 RAs) for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in combination with serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. The NK-1 RA rolapitant, recently approved in oral formulation, has nanomolar affinity for the NK-1 receptor, as do the other commercially available NK-1 RAs, aprepitant and netupitant. Rolapitant is rapidly absorbed and has a long half-life in comparison to aprepitant and netupitant. All three NK-1 RAs undergo metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, necessitating caution with the concomitant use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, but in contrast to aprepitant and netupitant, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce CYP3A4. However, rolapitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, and concomitant use with CYP2D6 substrates with narrow therapeutic indices should be avoided. Aprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant have all demonstrated efficacy in the control of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in randomized controlled trials, including over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. We reviewed recent post hoc analyses of clinical trial data demonstrating that rolapitant is efficacious in the control of CINV in patient populations with specific tumor types, namely, breast cancers, gastrointestinal/colorectal cancers, and lung cancers. In addition, we show that rolapitant has efficacy in the control of CINV in specific age groups of patients receiving chemotherapy (<65 and ≥65 years of age). Overall, the safety profile of rolapitant in these specific patient populations was consistent with that observed in primary analyses of phase 3 trials.

A phase I study of SAR405838, a novel human double minute 2 (HDM2) antagonist, in patients with solid tumours.

PURPOSE: In tumours with wild-type TP53, the tumour-suppressive function of p53 is frequently inhibited by HDM2. This phase I, dose-escalating study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of SAR405838, an HDM2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumours (NCT01636479). METHODS: In dose escalation, patients with any locally advanced/metastatic solid tumour with TP53 mutation prevalence below 40%, or documented as TP53 wild-type, were eligible. In the MTD expansion cohort, only patients with de-differentiated liposarcoma were included. Primary end-points were MTD and efficacy in the MTD expansion cohort. Secondary end-points included safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics biomarkers. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were treated with SAR405838 (50-800 mg once daily [QD], 800-1800 mg weekly and 1800 mg twice weekly). Two patients treated with SAR405838 400 mg QD had thrombocytopaenia as a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The MTD for the QD schedule of SAR405838 was 300 mg QD. No DLTs were observed with the weekly schedule; one patient had a DLT of nausea with the 1800 mg twice-weekly dose. Treatment with SAR405838 was associated with increased plasma MIC-1, reflecting p53 pathway activation. In the de-differentiated liposarcoma MTD cohort, 89% of the patients had HDM2 amplification at baseline and no TP53 mutations were observed; best response was stable disease in 56% and progression-free rate at 3 months was 32%. CONCLUSION: SAR405838 had an acceptable safety profile with limited activity in patients with advanced solid tumours. The MTD of SAR405838 was 300 mg QD; MTD was not reached with the weekly schedule.

Rolapitant hydrochloride: prophylactic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant clinical issue which affects patients' quality of life as well as treatment decisions. Significant improvements in the control of CINV have occurred in the past 15 years with the introduction of new antiemetic agents: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists and olanzapine. Aprepitant was the first NK1 receptor antagonist introduced (2003) for the prevention of CINV in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Two additional NK1 receptor antagonists, netupitant and rolapitant, were approved by the FDA in 2014 and 2015, respectively. A description of rolapitant and its role in CINV will be presented, along with a comparison to the other NK1 receptor antagonists, aprepitant and netupitant.

Efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Rolapitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, provided effective protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimen. The current analysis explored the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in preventing CINV in a subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant (180 mg) or a placebo 1 to 2 hours before chemotherapy administration; all patients received oral granisetron (2 mg) on days 1 to 3 and oral dexamethasone (20 mg) on day 1. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin in cycle 1. The efficacy endpoints were as follows: complete response (CR), no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, complete protection, time to first emesis or use of rescue medication, and no impact on daily life. RESULTS: In the subgroup administered carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 401), a significantly higher proportion of patients in the rolapitant group versus the control group achieved a CR in the overall phase (0-120 hours; 80.2% vs 64.6%; P < .001) and in the delayed phase (>24-120 hours; 82.3% vs 65.6%; P < .001) after chemotherapy administration. Superior responses were also observed by the measures of no emesis, no nausea, and complete protection in the overall and delayed phases and by the time to first emesis or use of rescue medication. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for the rolapitant and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rolapitant provided superior CINV protection to patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy in comparison with the control. These results support rolapitant use as part of the antiemetic regimen in carboplatin-treated patients. Cancer 2016;122:2418-2425. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Efficacy and safety of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over multiple cycles of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Rolapitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA), was shown to protect against delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the first cycle of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in randomized, double-blind trials. This analysis explored the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in preventing CINV over multiple cycles of MEC or HEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in one phase III MEC, one phase II HEC, and two phase III HEC clinical trials were randomized to receive oral rolapitant (180 mg) or placebo in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Regardless of response in cycle 1, patients could continue the same antiemetic treatment for up to six cycles. On days 6-8 of each subsequent chemotherapy cycle, patients reported the incidence of emesis and/or nausea interfering with normal daily life. Post hoc analyses of pooled safety and efficacy data from the four trials were performed for cycles 2-6. RESULTS: Significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reported no emesis or interfering nausea (combined measure) in cycles 2 (p = 0.006), 3 (p < 0.001), 4 (p = 0.001), and 5 (p = 0.021). Over cycles 1-6, time-to-first emesis was significantly longer with rolapitant than with control (p < 0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events during cycles 2-6 was similar in rolapitant (5.5%) and control (6.8%) arms. No cumulative toxicity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Over multiple cycles of MEC or HEC, rolapitant provided superior CINV protection and reduced emesis and nausea interfering with daily life compared with control and remained well tolerated.

Rolapitant: a pooled analysis of its efficacy and safety in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a pooled analysis of rolapitant-containing regimens versus control in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODOLOGY: Eligible studies included randomized studies evaluating rolapitant-containing regimens in the settings of highly emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. RESULTS: The pooled relative risk for complete response in the overall phase was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.18-1.33; p < 0.00001), the pooled relative risk for no significant nausea in the overall phase was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.04-1.32; p = 0.008) and the pooled RR for no emesis in the overall phase was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.18-1.31; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Rolapitant-based regimens are associated with higher rates of complete response, no significant nausea and no emesis with highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy compared with control regimens.

Anti-cancer Effect of Luminacin, a Marine Microbial Extract, in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Progression via Autophagic Cell Death.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether luminacin, a marine microbial extract from the Streptomyces species, has anti-tumor effects on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) cell lines via autophagic cell death. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inhibition of cell survival and increased cell death was measured using cell viability, colony forming, and apoptosis assays. Migration and invasion abilities of head and cancer cells were evaluated using wound healing, scattering, and invasion assays. Changes in the signal pathway related to autophagic cell death were investigated. Drug toxicity of luminacin was examined in in vitro HaCaT cells and an in vivo zebrafish model. RESULTS: Luminacin showed potent cytotoxicity in HNSCC cells in cell viability, colony forming, and fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis. In vitro migration and invasion of HNSCC cells were attenuated by luminacin treatment. Combined with Beclin-1 and LC3B, Luminacin induced autophagic cell death in head and neck cancer cells. In addition, in a zebrafish model and human keratinocyte cell line used for toxicity testing, luminacin treatment with a cytotoxic concentration to HNSCC cells did not cause toxicity. CONCLUSION: Taken together, these results demonstrate that luminacin induces the inhibition of growth and cancer progression via autophagic cell death in HNSCC cell lines, indicating a possible alternative chemotherapeutic approach for treatment of HNSCC.

Study of rolapitant, a novel, long-acting, NK-1 receptor antagonist, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PURPOSE: Rolapitant is a novel, long-acting neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of four different doses of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, global study was conducted in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy ≥70 mg/m(2). Patients received a 9, 22.5, 90, or 180 mg oral dose of rolapitant or placebo with ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1 of chemotherapy. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) in the overall (0 to 120 h) phase of cycle 1. Other assessments were CR in delayed (24-120 h) and acute (0-24 h) phases, no emesis, no significant nausea, and no nausea. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-four patients were randomized. All doses of rolapitant improved CR with the greatest benefit observed with rolapitant 180 mg vs. active control in the overall phase (62.5 and 46.7 %, p = 0.032) and in the acute (87.6 vs. 66.7 %, p = 0.001) and delayed (63.6 vs. 48.9 %, p = 0.045) phases. Rates for no emesis and no significant nausea were significantly (p < 0.05) higher with rolapitant 180 mg vs. active control in the overall, acute, and delayed phases. Treatment-related adverse events were largely considered related to the chemotherapy and included constipation, headache, fatigue, and dizziness which were mostly mild or moderate and were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: All doses of rolapitant were well tolerated and showed greater CR rates than active control. Rolapitant 180 mg demonstrated significant clinical efficacy for preventing CINV in the overall, delayed, and acute phases for patients receiving HEC.