Penehyclidine for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery Under Combined Intravenous and Inhalation Anesthesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Purpose: We designed this study to investigate the effect of intravenous use of penehyclidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Patients and Methods: Ninety-two Women Patients (Aged ≥ 18) Scheduled for Elective Gynecologic Laparoscopy Were Enrolled in the Current Study. Patients Were Equally Randomized Assigned Into Penehyclidine group (PHC group: received a bolus of penehyclidine 10 µg/kg during the induction of anesthesia, then followed by a continuous infusion of 10 µg/kg penehyclidine at a fixed rate of 2.0 mL/h in postoperative intravenous analgesia pump over 48h, 0.5 mg upper limit respectively) or Control group (received 0.9% saline in replace of penehyclidine at the same time points). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the postanesthesia care unit and ward area. Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores and general comfort questionnaire (GCQ) scores were assessed on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2. Results: Patients between two groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Compared with the Control group, the incidence and severity of PONV, postoperative nausea (PON), and postoperative vomiting (POV) were significantly lower in the PHC group at 2h (PONV: P = 0.002, P = 0.004, respectively; PON: P = 0.018, P = 0.038, respectively; POV: P = 0.011, P = 0.072, respectively), 24h (PONV: P = 0.003, P = 0.001, respectively; PON: P = 0.010, P = 0.032, respectively; POV: P = 0.006, P = 0.044, respectively), and 48h (PONV: P = 0.003, P = 0.002, respectively; PON: P = 0.007, P = 0.019, respectively; POV: P = 0.002, P = 0.013, respectively) after surgery. The QoR-15 and GCQ scores of the PHC group were significantly higher than those of the Control group at POD 1, 2 (P < 0.001; P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that perioperative intravenous application of penehyclidine can effectively prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynecological laparoscopic surgery patients and improve postoperative recovery.

Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods.

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

A phase II trial of netupitant/palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting in patients receiving BEAM prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients receiving BEAM therapy. Study Design: This phase II, prospective, intention-to-treat, single-center, single-arm study involved 43 adult patients who received NEPA and dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV due to BEAM conditioning chemotherapy. An interim analysis, performed after 13 patients, determined utility versus futility, and supported continuation to full enrollment. Descriptive statistics were used to report complete response (CR), complete protection, incidence of emesis, and administration of rescue agents. A Kaplan-Meier curve depicted time to first emesis and first rescue medication. Patients self-reported levels of daily nausea descriptively via a CINV Questionnaire. Results: By study end, 13 of 43 patients achieved a CR with an average of 10.6 emesis-free days (SD 0.95) over the 11-day observation period, with no emetic events in any patient during the acute/chemotherapy phase. Nausea was well-controlled throughout the acute therapy phase (Day 1-6) and increased during the delayed phase (Day 7-11) with a peak mean level of 2.79/10 at Day 10. Aside from lower grade (≤2), headaches, constipation, and diarrhea were the most widely reported adverse effects. Conclusion: The combination of NEPA and dexamethasone is safe and effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving BEAM conditioning therapy prior to HCT. The regimen demonstrated greater effectiveness in the acute phase versus the delayed phase, with low levels of nausea throughout the study period and complete emesis prevention during chemotherapy.

Palonosetron for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common adverse events in patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), has demonstrated non-inferiority to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs for CINV in pediatric patients. Although palonosetron has a long half-life and prolonged antiemetic action, its efficacy against delayed CINV in pediatric patients is not well understood. Therefore, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron for delayed CINV in pediatric patients. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using forest plots, and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A funnel plot was constructed to explore publication bias. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 842 records, of which 23 full-text articles were assessed, including six RCTs. Meta-analysis of four RCTs that reported on the complete response (CR: defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) rate for delayed CINV revealed that palonosetron was statistically superior to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs (RR = 1.21 [95% CI 1.09-1.35]; p < 0.01). Although the number of studies included was small, no publication bias was observed in the funnel plots. In addition, the CR rate for overall and acute CINV was also significantly higher for palonosetron (RR = 1.25 [95% CI 1.01-1.54]; p = 0.04 and RR = 1.06 [95% CI 1.01-1.12]; p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: Palonosetron is effective in the prophylaxis of delayed CINV in pediatric patients.

Pooled Analysis of Studies Evaluating Fosnetupitant and Risk Factors for Cisplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting During the Extended Overall Phase.

INTRODUCTION: Fosnetupitant is a novel neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) with favorable antiemetic efficacy in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. This study assessed the efficacy of fosnetupitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone and identified risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for up to 168 h after treatment using pooled data from Japanese studies. METHODS: A pooled analysis of randomized phase II and phase III studies was performed to compare the efficacy of fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rate, CINV risk factors in various phases (0-120, 0-168, and 120-168 h), and impact of the number of risk factors on the time to treatment failure (TTF) were examined in the overall and NK1RA evaluable populations. RESULTS: In the combined cohort of NK1RA evaluable patients (n = 980), the CR rate at 0-168 h was significantly better in the fosnetupitant 235 mg group than in the fosaprepitant group (rate difference = 6.8%, 95% confidence interval = 1.0-12.7, p = 0.022). In the overall (n = 1368) and NK1RA evaluable populations, the CINV risk factor at 120-168 h was treatment failure in the first 120 h. TTF deteriorated as the number of identified CINV risk factors increased. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed that fosnetupitant could have long-acting antiemetic potency (> 120 h) and indicated the importance of antiemetic therapy at 0-120 h for CINV up to 168 h after chemotherapy.

Effects of penehyclidine hydrochloride combined with dexmedetomidine on pulmonary function in patients undergoing heart valve surgery: a double-blind, randomized trial.

AIM: To investigate the effects of penehyclidine hydrochloride combined with dexmedetomidine on pulmonary function in patients undergoing heart valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). METHODS: A total of 180 patients undergoing elective heart valve surgery with CPB were randomly divided into four groups: 45 in group P (intravenous penehyclidine hydrochloride 0.02 mg/kg 10 min before anesthesia induction and at the beginning of CPB, total 0.04 mg/kg); 43 in group D (dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg/h after induction of anesthesia until the end of anesthesia); 44 in group PD ( penehyclidine hydrochloride 0.04 mg/kg combined with dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg/h intravenously during anesthesia); and 43 in group C (same amount of normal saline 10 min before and after anesthesia induction, to the end of anesthesia, and at the beginning of CPB). The main outcomes were the incidence and severity of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The secondary outcomes were: (1) extubation time, length of stay in intensive care, and postoperative hospital stay, and adverse events; and (2) pulmonary function evaluation indices (oxygenation index and respiratory index) and plasma inflammatory factor concentrations (tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin) during the perioperative period. RESULTS: The incidence of PPCs in groups P, D and PD after CPB was lower than that in group C (P < 0.05), and the incidence in group PD was significantly lower than that in groups P and D (P < 0.05). The scores for PPCs in groups P, D and PD were lower than those in group C (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Combined use of penehyclidine hydrochloride and dexmedetomidine during anesthesia reduced the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary dysfunction, and improved the prognosis of patients undergoing heart valve surgery with CPB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 3/11/2020 (Registration No.: ChiCTR2000039610).

Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. RESULTS: NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Fosnetupitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Short Review and Clinical Perspective.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is often ranked by patients as one of the most distressing and feared consequences of chemotherapy. The novel neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist fosnetupitant, a phosphorylated prodrug formulation of netupitant, was approved in Japan in 2022. Fosnetupitant is one of the standard treatments for the prevention of CINV in patients who are receiving highly (any treatment where CINV occurs in more than 90% of patients) or moderately (where CINV occurs in 30-90% of patients) emetogenic chemotherapies. The aim of this commentary is to describe the mechanism of action, tolerability, and antiemetic efficacy of single-agent fosnetupitant in the prevention of CINV, and to discuss its clinical application, in order to aid optimal use.

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.

Phase Ib study of eprenetapopt (APR-246) in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase I, multicenter, open-label, dose-finding, and expansion study to determine the safety and preliminary efficacy of eprenetapopt (APR-246) combined with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383938). PATIENTS AND METHODS: For dose-finding, requirements were non-central nervous system primary solid tumor, intolerant to/progressed after ≥1 line of treatment, and eligible for pembrolizumab; for expansion: (i) gastric/gastroesophageal junction tumor, intolerant to/progressed after first-line treatment, and no prior anti-programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy; (ii) bladder/urothelial tumor, intolerant to/progressed after first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and no prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy; (iii) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with previous anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Patients received eprenetapopt 4.5 g/day intravenously (IV) on days 1-4 with pembrolizumab 200 mg IV on day 3 in each 21-day cycle. Primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), adverse events (AEs), and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of eprenetapopt. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled (median age 66 years; range 27-85) and 37 received eprenetapopt plus pembrolizumab. No DLTs were reported and the RP2D for eprenetapopt in combination was 4.5 g/day IV on days 1-4. The most common eprenetapopt-related AEs were dizziness (35.1%), nausea (32.4%), and vomiting (29.7%). AEs leading to eprenetapopt discontinuation occurred in 2/37 patients (5.4%). In efficacy-assessable patients (n = 29), one achieved complete response (urothelial cancer), two achieved partial responses (NSCLC, urothelial cancer), and six patients had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The eprenetapopt plus pembrolizumab combination was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile and showed clinical activity in patients with solid tumors.

Efficacy of the dexamethasone-sparing triplet regimen for preventing cisplatin-induced emesis: a combined analysis.

Aim: To further evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of single-dose versus multiple-dose dexamethasone (DEX) against nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin. Materials & methods: Two similar non-inferiority studies were pooled. Patients were randomized to single-day DEX or multiple-day DEX plus palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase. Results: The combined analysis included 242 patients. The absolute risk difference between single day versus multi-day DEX for CR was -2% (95% CI, -14 to 9%). Conclusion: Administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in the setting of single-day cisplatin.

We aimed at further evaluating how well the corticosteroid, dexamethasone (DEX), works as measured in two similar clinical studies of single-day versus multiple-day DEX for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin, a cell-killing drug, which has high potential of triggering nausea and vomiting. In both studies, cancer patients were randomly assigned to 1-day DEX or multiple-day DEX (3­4 days) in combination with palonosetron (this antagonist attaches to a specific receptor for serotonin without triggering nausea and vomiting), and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs; they attach to the NK-1 receptor without triggering nausea and vomiting). The combined analysis of the two studies, which includes 242 patients, showed that a single dose of DEX is as effective as multiple-day DEX in terms of the number of patients achieving complete response (defined as no vomiting and no 'as-needed' use of antiemetics) during the 5 days after cisplatin administration. Therefore, administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in patients undergoing single-day cisplatin.

Does a single dose of palonosetron have any role in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric osteosarcoma patients without dexamethasone? A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troublesome side-effect of chemotherapy in pediatric patients undergoing osteosarcoma treatment. In this context, the role of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists needs to be explored. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the superiority of single-dose palonosetron over granisetron in pediatric patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for osteosarcoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized study, pediatric patients were assessed in terms of acute nausea and vomiting following HEC for osteosarcoma. These children were assigned to group 1 (palonosetron) and group 2 (granisetron) without any other antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary outcome variable was the children's segment with a complete response (CR) during the acute phase of the 1st on-study chemotherapy cycle. The risk factors associated with the emesis were analyzed. The patients were followed up for the first 24 h after chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total number of 200 children were evaluated in terms of the response, and other factors that might alter the response were assessed in the 2 groups. These 200 children underwent 604 blocks of chemotherapy. Complete responses were documented in 83% and 72% of children receiving palonosetron and granisetron, respectively, during the acute phase. Only dexamethasone, used as a rescue medication, was found to be a significant risk factor that predisposed to the response (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose palonosetron is an effective alternative to granisetron for preventing CINV in children receiving HEC for osteosarcoma.

Effects of the Mutant TP53 Reactivator APR-246 on Therapeutic Sensitivity of Pancreatic Cancer Cells in the Presence and Absence of WT-TP53.

The TP53 tumor suppressor is mutated in ~75% of pancreatic cancers. The mutant TP53 protein in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) promotes tumor growth and metastasis. Attempts have been made to develop molecules that restore at least some of the properties of wild-type (WT) TP53. APR-246 is one such molecule, and it is referred to as a mutant TP53 reactivator. To understand the potential of APR-246 to sensitize PDAC cells to chemotherapy, we introduced a vector encoding WT-TP53 into two PDAC cell lines, one lacking the expression of TP53 (PANC-28) and one with a gain-of-function (GOF) mutant TP53 (MIA-PaCa-2). APR-246 increased drug sensitivity in the cells containing either a WT or mutant TP53 protein with GOF activity, but not in cells that lacked TP53. The introduction of WT-T53 into PANC-28 cells increased their sensitivity to the TP53 reactivator, chemotherapeutic drugs, and signal transduction inhibitors. The addition of WT-TP53 to PDAC cells with GOF TP53 also increased their sensitivity to the drugs and therapeutics, indicating that APR-246 could function in cells with WT-TP53 and GOF TP53. These results highlight the importance of knowledge of the type of TP53 mutation that is present in cancer patients before the administration of drugs which function through the reactivation of TP53.

Prophylactic Penehyclidine Inhalation for Prevention of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in High-risk Patients: A Double-blind Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications are common. Aging and respiratory disease provoke airway hyperresponsiveness, high-risk surgery induces diaphragmatic dysfunction, and general anesthesia contributes to atelectasis and peripheral airway injury. This study therefore tested the hypothesis that inhalation of penehyclidine, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, reduces the incidence of pulmonary complications in high-risk patients over the initial 30 postoperative days. METHODS: This single-center double-blind trial enrolled 864 patients age over 50 yr who were scheduled for major upper-abdominal or noncardiac thoracic surgery lasting 2 h or more and who had an Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score of 45 or higher. The patients were randomly assigned to placebo or prophylactic penehyclidine inhalation from the night before surgery through postoperative day 2 at 12-h intervals. The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days, including respiratory infection, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, atelectasis, pneumothorax, bronchospasm, and aspiration pneumonitis. RESULTS: A total of 826 patients (mean age, 64 yr; 63% male) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. A composite of pulmonary complications was less common in patients assigned to penehyclidine (18.9% [79 of 417]) than those receiving the placebo (26.4% [108 of 409]; relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.93; P = 0.010; number needed to treat, 13). Bronchospasm was less common in penehyclidine than placebo patients: 1.4% (6 of 417) versus 4.4% (18 of 409; relative risk, 0.327; 95% CI, 0.131 to 0.82; P = 0.011). None of the other individual pulmonary complications differed significantly. Peak airway pressures greater than 40 cm H2O were also less common in patients given penehyclidine: 1.9% (8 of 432) versus 4.9% (21 of 432; relative risk, 0.381; 95% CI, 0.171 to 0.85; P = 0.014). The incidence of other adverse events, including dry mouth and delirium, that were potentially related to penehyclidine inhalation did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients having major upper-abdominal or noncardiac thoracic surgery, prophylactic penehyclidine inhalation reduced the incidence of pulmonary complications without provoking complications.

Cost-effectiveness of palonosetron and dexamethasone-based triple and quadruple regimens in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analyses that consider all currently used antiemetics in the case of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been performed yet. We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine (OLA), or/and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1-RAs), in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) in preventing highly emetogenic CINV. METHODS: Two decision analytic models were constructed. The first model was based on overall complete response (CR); the second model was based on rate of absence of nausea. Four antiemetic regimens PAL + DEX, NK-1-RAs + PAL + DEX, OLA + PAL + DEX, and PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA were compared in terms of cost, overall CR and rate of absence of nausea. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were calculated. The study was from the US payer perspective. RESULTS: In terms of CR, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest gains in the percentage of CR among all treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $4220 versus PAL + DEX, $4656 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $16,471 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. In term of rate of absence of nausea, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest rate of absence of nausea among all the treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $2291 versus PAL + DEX, $1304 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $2657 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. CONCLUSION: from an economic perspective, our study revealed that whether to use overall CR or/and rate of absence of nausea as determinants in the antiemetic decision for the CINV patients, the CR-based-, and rate of absence of nausea-based cost-effectiveness analyses, showed negotiable ICER estimates for the treatment PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA over the combinations PAL + DEX, NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, and OLA + PAL + DEX regimens.

Targeting p53 for the treatment of cancer.

Dysfunction of the TP53 (p53) gene occurs in most if not all human malignancies. Two principal mechanisms are responsible for this dysfunction; mutation and downregulation of wild-type p53 mediated by MDM2/MDM4. Because of its almost universal inactivation in malignancy, p53 is a highly attractive target for the development of new anticancer drugs. Although multiple strategies have been investigated for targeting dysfunctional p53 for cancer treatment, only 2 of these have so far yielded compounds for testing in clinical trials. These strategies include the identification of compounds for reactivating the mutant form of p53 back to its wild-type form and compounds for inhibiting the interaction between wild-type p53 and MDM2/MDM4. Currently, multiple p53-MDM2/MDM4 antagonists are undergoing clinical trials, the most advanced being idasanutlin which is currently undergoing testing in a phase III clinical trial in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Two mutant p53-reactivating compounds have progressed to clinical trials, i.e., APR-246 and COTI-2. Although promising data has emerged from the testing of both MDM2/MDM4 inhibitors and mutant p53 reactivating compounds in preclinical models, it is still unclear if these agents have clinical efficacy. However, should any of the compounds currently being evaluated in clinical trials be shown to have efficacy, it is likely to usher in a new era in cancer treatment, especially as p53 dysfunction is so prevalent in human cancers.

Netupitant/palonosetron without dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with multiple myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-center experience.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent adverse events compromising quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, CINV prophylaxis is still lacking uniformity for high-dose melphalan (HDM), which is used to condition patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is administered with dexamethasone (DEXA) for CINV prevention in several chemotherapy regimens. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of NEPA, without DEXA, in preventing CINV in 106 adult patients with MM receiving HDM and ASCT. All patients had antiemetic prophylaxis with multiple doses of NEPA 1 h before the start of conditioning and after 72 h and 120 h. A complete response (CR) was observed in 99 (93%) patients at 120 h (overall phase). The percentage of patients with complete control was 93%. The CR rate during the acute phase was 94% (n = 100). During the delayed phase, the CR rate was 95% (n = 101). Grade 1 nausea and vomiting were experienced by 82% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Grade 2 nausea was reported in 18% and vomiting in 10% of patients. Our results showed, for the first time, that NEPA, without DEXA, was a well-tolerated and effective antiemetic option for MM patients receiving HDM followed by ASCT.

Evidence for Alpha7 Nicotinic Receptor Activation During the Cough Suppressing Effects Induced by Nicotine and Identification of ATA-101 as a Potential Novel Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Cough.

Studies performed in healthy smokers have documented a diminished responsiveness to tussive challenges, and several lines of experimental evidence implicate nicotine as an antitussive component in both cigarette smoke and the vapors generated by electronic cigarettes (eCigs). We set out to identify the nicotinic receptor subtype involved in the antitussive actions of nicotine and to further evaluate the potential of nicotinic receptor-selective agonists as cough-suppressing therapeutics. We confirmed an antitussive effect of nicotine in guinea pigs. We additionally observed that the alpha-4 beta-2 (α 4 ß 2)-selective agonist Tc-6683 was without effect on evoked cough responses in guinea pigs, while the α 7-selective agonist PHA 543613 dose-dependently inhibited evoked coughing. We subsequently describe the preclinical evidence in support of ATA-101, a potent and highly selective (α 7) selective nicotinic receptor agonist, as a potential candidate for antitussive therapy in humans. ATA-101, formerly known as Tc-5619, was orally bioavailable and moderately central nervous system (CNS) penetrant and dose-dependently inhibited coughing in guinea pigs evoked by citric acid and bradykinin. Comparing the effects of airway targeted administration versus systemic dosing and the effects of repeated dosing at various times prior to tussive challenge, our data suggest that the antitussive actions of ATA-101 require continued engagement of α 7 nicotinic receptors, likely in the CNS. Collectively, the data provide the preclinical rationale for α 7 nicotinic receptor engagement as a novel therapeutic strategy for cough suppression. The data also suggest that α 7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) activation by nicotine may be permissive to nicotine delivery in a way that may promote addiction. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study documents the antitussive actions of nicotine and identifies the α7 nicotinic receptor subtype as the target for nicotine during cough suppression described in humans. We additionally present evidence suggesting that ATA-101 and other α7 nicotinic receptor-selective agonists may be promising candidates for the treatment of chronic refractory cough.

APR-246 induces early cell death by ferroptosis in acute myeloid leukemia.

APR-246 is a promising new therapeutic agent that targets p53 mutated proteins in myelodysplastic syndromes and in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). APR-246 reactivates the transcriptional activity of p53 mutants by facilitating their binding to DNA target sites. Recent studies in solid cancers have found that APR-246 can also induce p53-independent cell death. In this study, we demonstrate that AML cell death occurring early after APR-246 exposure is suppressed by iron chelators, lipophilic antioxidants and inhibitors of lipid peroxidation, and correlates with the accumulation of markers of lipid peroxidation, thus fulfilling the definition of ferroptosis, a recently described cell death process. The capacity of AML cells to detoxify lipid peroxides by increasing their cystine uptake to maintain major antioxidant molecule glutathione biosynthesis after exposure to APR-246 may be a key determinant of sensitivity to this compound. The association of APR-246 with induction of ferroptosis (either by pharmacological compounds, or genetic inactivation of SLC7A11 or GPX4) had a synergistic effect on the promotion of cell death, both in vivo and ex vivo.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study of Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: CONSOLE.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fosnetupitant (FosNTP) versus fosaprepitant (FosAPR) for preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This phase III study was the first head-to-head comparison between two different neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to FosNTP 235 mg or FosAPR 150 mg in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone. The primary end point was overall (0-120 hours) complete response (CR; no emetic event and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, to show the noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR (noninferiority margin, -10% for the difference in the overall CR rate). RESULTS: Overall, 795 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 785 received the study drug (FosNTP [N = 392] v FosAPR [N = 393]) and were evaluated for efficacy and safety. The overall CR rate was 75.2% versus 71.0%, respectively (Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%), demonstrating noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR. The CR rates in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and beyond delayed (120-168 hours) phases, and at 0-168 hours were 93.9% versus 92.6%, 76.8% versus 72.8%, 86.5% versus 81.4%, and 73.2% versus 66.9%, respectively. The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events with FosNTP versus FosAPR were 22.2% versus 25.4%, whereas adverse events or treatment-related adverse events relevant to injection site reactions were 11.0% versus 20.6% (P < .001) and 0.3% versus 3.6% (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: FosNTP demonstrated noninferiority to FosAPR, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for injection site reactions. Thus, FosNTP is valuable in the prophylaxis of acute, delayed, and beyond delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.