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.

Impact of body weight-based dosing of palonosetron and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 µg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores. RESULTS: There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron. CONCLUSIONS: The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life. CONCLUSION: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

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.

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus dual therapy in current and former smokers with COPD: IMPACT trial post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In IMPACT, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis investigated trial outcomes by smoking status. METHODS: IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. Endpoints assessed by smoking status at screening included rate and risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score at Week 52. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 3,587 (35%) were current smokers. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in current (rate ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95]; P = 0.003 and 0.86 [0.76-0.98]; P = 0.021) and former smokers (0.85 [0.78-0.91]; P < 0.001 and 0.70 [0.64-0.77]; P < 0.001). FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in former smokers, and versus FF/VI in current smokers. Similar trends were seen for lung function and health status. Former smokers receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy had higher pneumonia incidence than current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI improved clinical outcomes versus dual therapy regardless of smoking status. Benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI were greatest in former smokers, potentially due to relative corticosteroid resistance in current smokers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Evaluation of adverse events in small-breed dogs treated with maropitant and a single dose of doxorubicin.

BACKGROUND: The recommended doxorubicin (DOX) dose for small dogs is 1 mg/kg. Recent data suggest that DOX-induced gastrointestinal (GI) toxicosis can be reduced with maropitant treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in small-breed dogs administered a single 25 mg/m2 DOX followed by administration of maropitant (DOX25). The primary aim was to assess myelo- and GI toxicoses for 2 weeks after DOX administration. The secondary aim was to compare the incidence and grades of AEs found in the DOX25 group with a historical control group (DOX 1 mg/kg without administration of antiemetic or antidiarrheal medications). ANIMALS: Nineteen small-breed tumor-bearing dogs. METHODS: A prospective, observational study of tumor-bearing dogs, weighing 5 to 10 kg, administered a single 25 mg/m2 dose of DOX IV, followed by administration of maropitant for the next 5 days. RESULTS: Inappetence, vomiting, and diarrhea were found in 7/19, 2/19, and 6/19 of the DOX25 dogs, respectively. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was 12/19 and 3/19, respectively. Most AEs were grades 1 and 2, except for grades 3 and 4 inappetence and neutropenia in 3 and 4 dogs, respectively. Furthermore, febrile neutropenia occurred in 3/19 dogs in the DOX25 group. All AEs between the DOX25 and historical control groups were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Vomiting and diarrhea were deemed acceptable with 25 mg/m2 DOX followed by maropitant treatment in 5 to 10 kg dogs; however, additional supportive care might be needed for dogs with inappetence and neutropenia.

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.

Real-world multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of netupitant plus palonosetron fixed-dose combination to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among Malaysian patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: A large proportion of cancer patients are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but the choice of anti-emetics for CINV in Malaysia is limited. METHODS: This was a real-world study of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) to inhibit CINV in adult patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for solid/hematological malignancies at eight Malaysian centers. Each HEC/MEC cycle received one dose of NEPA + dexamethasone for CINV prevention. Complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) (CR), no more than mild nausea (severity score ≤ 2.5), and complete control (CR) (no more than mild nausea) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy were measured. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS: During March 2016-April 2018 (NMRR-17-3286-38282), NEPA + dexamethasone was administered to 54 patients (77.8% solid, 22.2% hematological malignancies). Note that 59.3% received HEC, while 40.7% received MEC regimen. During the overall phase of the first cycle, the majority had CR (77.8%), no more than mild nausea (74.1%), and complete control (61.1%). Seventeen patients received two consecutive cycles at any point of chemotherapy cycles. During the overall phases across two consecutive cycles, all patients achieved CR, and the majority reported no more than mild nausea and complete control. No grades 3-4 AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA had sustained efficacy and tolerability at first administration and across two cycles of MEC/HEC for CINV prevention.

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.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10-30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21-24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1-24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (-850-896 mL); however, results are presented for the range -100-400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. CONCLUSIONS: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Netupitant/Palonosetron: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo®), available in oral and intravenous (IV) formulations, is a fixed-dose combination of the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist netupitant (or the prodrug, fosnetupitant, in the IV formulation) and the second-generation serotonin 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist palonosetron. Administered as a single dose, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron (in combination with dexamethasone) is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults. In clinical trials, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron plus dexamethasone was associated with high complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute, delayed and overall phases in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with efficacy maintained over multiple cycles. Further, oral netupitant/palonosetron was found to be superior to palonosetron and non-inferior to aprepitant plus granisetron in preventing CINV in individual trials. Both the oral and IV formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. The fixed-dose combination is concordant with guideline recommendations and provides a simple and convenient option for prophylaxis against acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common problem during cancer treatment. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo^®) is a fixed-dose combination of two drugs (netupitant, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist; and palonosetron, a serotonin 3 receptor antagonist) which target two different signalling pathways involved in the induction of vomiting. Approved for use in the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in adults, netupitant/palonosetron is given orally or via intravenous infusion as a single dose prior to chemotherapy. In clinical trials, high proportions of patients who received netupitant/palonosetron (used in combination with the corticosteroid dexamethasone) prior to chemotherapy reported no vomiting, no requirement for rescue medication, and no significant nausea in the 5 days post chemotherapy. Both the oral and intravenous formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. In conclusion, netupitant/palonosetron is a simple, convenient and effective drug combination for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy that has a moderate to high potential to cause nausea and vomiting.

Eprenetapopt Plus Azacitidine in TP53-Mutated Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Phase II Study by the Groupe Francophone des Myélodysplasies (GFM).

PURPOSE: TP53-mutated (TP53m) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have very poor outcome irrespective of the treatment received, including 40% responses (20% complete remission [CR]) with azacitidine (AZA) alone, short response duration, and a median overall survival (OS) of approximately 6 months. Eprenetapopt (APR-246), a novel first-in-class drug, leads to p53 protein reconformation and reactivates its proapoptotic and cell-cycle arrest functions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study assessed the safety and efficacy of eprenetapopt in combination with AZA in untreated high or very high International Prognostic Scoring System-R TP53m MDS and AML patients. RESULTS: Fifty-two TP53m patients (34 MDS, 18 AML [including seven with more than 30% blasts]) were enrolled. In MDS, we observed an overall response rate (ORR) of 62%, including 47% CR, with a median duration of response at 10.4 months. In AML, the ORR was 33% including 17% CR (27% and 0% CR in AML with less than and more than 30% marrow blasts, respectively). Seventy-three percent of responders achieved TP53 next-generation sequencing negativity (ie, variant allele frequency < 5%). The main treatment-related adverse events were febrile neutropenia (36%) and neurologic adverse events (40%), the latter correlating with a lower glomerular filtration rate at treatment onset (P < .01) and higher age (P = .05), and resolving with temporary drug interruption without recurrence after adequate eprenetapopt dose reduction. With a median follow-up of 9.7 months, median OS was 12.1 months in MDS, and 13.9 and 3.0 months in AML with less than and more than 30% marrow blasts, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this very high-risk population of TP53m MDS and AML patients, eprenetapopt combined with AZA was safe and showed potentially higher ORR and CR rate, and longer OS than reported with AZA alone.

Eprenetapopt (APR-246) and Azacitidine in TP53-Mutant Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

PURPOSE: Approximately 20% of patients with TP53-mutant myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) achieve complete remission (CR) with hypomethylating agents. Eprenetapopt (APR-246) is a novel, first-in-class, small molecule that restores wild-type p53 functions in TP53-mutant cells. METHODS: This was a phase Ib/II study to determine the safety, recommended phase II dose, and efficacy of eprenetapopt administered in combination with azacitidine in patients with TP53-mutant MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with 20%-30% marrow blasts (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03072043). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (40 MDS, 11 AML, and four MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms) with at least one TP53 mutation were treated. The overall response rate was 71% with 44% achieving CR. Of patients with MDS, 73% (n = 29) responded with 50% (n = 20) achieving CR and 58% (23/40) a cytogenetic response. The overall response rate and CR rate for patients with AML was 64% (n = 7) and 36% (n = 4), respectively. Patients with only TP53 mutations by next-generation sequencing had higher rates of CR (69% v 25%; P = .006). Responding patients had significant reductions in TP53 variant allele frequency and p53 expression by immunohistochemistry, with 21 (38%) achieving complete molecular remission (variant allele frequency < 5%). Median overall survival was 10.8 months with significant improvement in responding versus nonresponding patients by landmark analysis (14.6 v 7.5 months; P = .0005). Overall, 19/55 (35%) patients underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, with a median overall survival of 14.7 months. Adverse events were similar to those reported for azacitidine or eprenetapopt monotherapy, with the most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events being febrile neutropenia (33%), leukopenia (29%), and neutropenia (29%). CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with eprenetapopt and azacitidine is well-tolerated yielding high rates of clinical response and molecular remissions in patients with TP53-mutant MDS and oligoblastic AML.

A phase 1 pharmacokinetic study of oral NEPA, the fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, in Chinese healthy volunteers.

PURPOSE: Oral NEPA, the only fixed-combination antiemetic, is composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant (300 mg) and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (0.50 mg). This study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile of netupitant and its main metabolites M1 and M3, and palonosetron in Chinese subjects. Oral NEPA tolerability and safety were also analyzed. METHODS: This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in healthy, adult Chinese volunteers. Eligible subjects received oral NEPA, and blood samples were collected on day 1 predose and at various time points up until day 10 postdose. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using noncompartmental methods. For safety assessments, adverse events (AEs) were monitored during the study. RESULTS: In total 18 Chinese healthy volunteers received oral NEPA. Netupitant mean maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) [± standard deviation] of 698 ± 217 ng/mL was reached at 3-6 h, with a mean total exposure (AUC0-inf) of 22,000 ± 4410 h·ng/mL. For palonosetron, a mean Cmax of 1.8 ± 0.252 ng/mL was reached at 2-6 h postadministration, with a mean AUC0-inf of 81.0 ± 14.0 h·ng/mL. The most common treatment-related AEs in > 2 subjects were constipation (n = 9) and tiredness (n = 3). No severe AEs were observed, and no subject withdrew due to AEs. CONCLUSION: Following single-dose administration of oral NEPA in Chinese subjects, the pharmacokinetic profiles of the NEPA components were mostly similar to those reported previously in Caucasians. NEPA was well tolerated with a safety profile in line with that observed in pivotal trials in Caucasians.

[Efficacy of Antiemetic Therapy with Aprepitant, Palonosetron, and Dexamethasone in Patients Receiving Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy].

Antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is recommended for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in several guidelines to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. There is a lack of information about the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone in patients treated with oxaliplatin in Japan. We recruited patients with untreated colorectal cancer who underwent oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. All patients were treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. The complete response and complete protection rates were analyzed. A total of 52 patients were enrolled in this clinical trial. The complete response rate overall, and in the acute and delayed phases was 92.3%, 98.1%, and 92.3%, respectively. The complete protection rate overall and in the acute and delayed phases was 73.1%, 86.5%, and 73.1%, respectively. Grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity did not occur. Antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is effective and safe in patients treated with oxaliplatin.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of intravenous NEPA, a fixed combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron, in cancer patients: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

NEPA is the fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron. The intravenous (i.v.) formulation of NEPA (fosnetupitant 235 mg/palonosetron 0.25 mg) was developed to enhance the convenience of NEPA administration. In a phase 3 study, i.v. NEPA showed acceptable safety with low risk for injection-site reactions. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of i.v. NEPA in cancer patients. This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received a 30-min infusion of i.v. NEPA plus oral dexamethasone (12 mg) prior to chemotherapy, and oral dexamethasone (8 mg/daily) on days 2-4. Twenty-four patients received the complete i.v. NEPA infusion volume. Fosnetupitant maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was reached at the end of infusion and decreased to <1% of Cmax 30 min later. Netupitant was rapidly released from its prodrug and Cmax of 590 ng/ml was reached at the end of fosnetupitant infusion, with a mean exposure (AUC∞) of 15,588 h∙ng/ml. Palonosetron Cmax was reached at the end of infusion, with a mean AUC∞ of 36.07 h∙ng/ml. The most common adverse events were constipation (29%), nausea (17%), and vasospasm (8%). No i.v. NEPA-related injection site reactions occurred. Fosnetupitant conversion to netupitant occurred rapidly in cancer patients. Netupitant and palonosetron pharmacokinetic profiles in i.v. NEPA were similar to those reported for oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA provides additional administration convenience. Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT 2015-004750-18.

Risk of Parkinson disease in Sjögren syndrome administered ineffective immunosuppressant therapies: A nationwide population-based study.

To determine the incidence and risk of Parkinson disease (PD) in patients with Sjögren syndrome (SS) according to a nationwide population-based database.In total, 12,640 patients in the SS cohort and 50,560 in the non-SS cohort were enrolled from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database from 2000 to 2010. We used the Cox multivariable proportional hazards model to determine the risk factors for PD in the SS cohort.We observed an increased incidence of PD in patients with SS, with a crude hazard ratio (HR) of 1.40 and an adjusted HR (aHR) of 1.23. The cumulative incidence of PD was 1.95% higher in the SS cohort than in the non-SS cohort. The SS cohort had an elevated HR under medication use, namely cevimeline and pilocarpine (crude HR, 1.28), hydroxychloroquine (crude HR, 1.43; aHR, 1.46), and methylprednisolone (crude HR, 2.21; aHR, 1.49). Patients receiving other non-hydroxychloroquine immunosuppressant therapies had a lower risk (aHR, 0.86) of PD. Furthermore, patients with SS aged 20 to 49 years had a 1.93-fold higher risk of PD than did those without SS (aHR, 1.93). The risk of PD was higher (aHR, 2.20) in patients with SS without comorbidities than in those with comorbidities. The aHR of PD significantly increased when the follow-up period exceeded 9 years (aHR, 1.93).We determined an increased risk of PD in patients with SS. Further investigation is warranted to determine the possible underlying mechanisms and the potential role of non-hydroxychloroquine immunosuppressants in ameliorating PD.

Preventing Clinically Important Deterioration of COPD with Addition of Umeclidinium to Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Therapy: An Integrated Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone. METHODS: This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (n = 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (n = 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45-58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV1 (69% risk reduction; p < 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction; p = 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067). Plain language summary available for this article.

Efficacy and Safety of the α7-Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Agonist ABT-126 in the Treatment of Cognitive Impairment Associated With Schizophrenia: Results From a Phase 2b Randomized Controlled Study in Smokers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the α7-nicotinic receptor agonist ABT-126 for treatment of cognitive impairment in stable subjects with schizophrenia who smoke. METHODS: A 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted from August 2012 to March 2014. Subjects with a diagnosis of schizophrenia based on DSM-IV-TR criteria (confirmed by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview version 6.0.0) were randomized 1:1:1 to ABT-126 25 mg, ABT-126 75 mg, or placebo once daily while maintained on their background antipsychotic medication. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline on the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) neurocognitive composite score; the primary analysis compared ABT-126 with placebo at week 12 using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary endpoints included the change from baseline on the University of California San Diego Performance-based Skills Assessment-2 Extended-Range, the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment scale (NSA-16), and safety assessments. RESULTS: Of the 157 randomized subjects, 82% completed the study. The mean baseline MCCB neurocognitive composite score for the entire study sample was 28.8; scores were similar across groups. No statistical difference in the change from baseline score between any of the ABT-126 dose groups and placebo was observed on the MCCB neurocognitive composite score (ABT-126 25 mg, +0.28; ABT-126 75 mg, +0.41; placebo, +1.42). Differences in the NSA-16 total score were seen with ABT-126 75 mg versus placebo at week 6 (-2.79; P = .011) and week 12 (-1.94; P = .053). Adverse events with ABT-126 were similar to placebo, except for constipation (5.8% for ABT-126 vs 0% for placebo). CONCLUSIONS: ABT-126 did not demonstrate a procognitive effect in subjects with stable schizophrenia who smoke. A trend for improvement in negative symptoms was observed with the high dose. The safety profile of ABT-126 was similar to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01678755​.