Aprepitant in adolescent patients for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and tolerability.

BACKGROUND: The neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and corticosteroid is well-tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults but has not been formally assessed in adolescents. PROCEDURE: Patients age 11-19 years old receiving emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to aprepitant triple therapy (aprepitant [A] 125 mg p.o., dexamethasone [D] 8 mg p.o., and ondansetron [O] 0.15 mg/kg i.v. t.i.d. day 1; A 80 mg, D 4 mg, and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 2; A 80 mg and D 4 mg day 3; and D 4 mg day 4) or a control regimen (D 16 mg and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 1; D 8 mg and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 2; and D 8 mg days 3 and 4). The primary endpoint was the difference in drug-related adverse events during and for 14 days following treatment. Efficacy and aprepitant pharmacokinetics were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between aprepitant (N = 28) and control (N = 18) groups. Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the aprepitant group (25% vs. 11.1%). Complete response (CR) rates were 35.7% for aprepitant triple therapy versus 5.6% for the control group. Mean plasma aprepitant AUC(0-24 hr) and C(max) on day 1 and mean trough concentrations on days 2 and 3 were consistently lower compared to historical data obtained from healthy adults; however, the differences were not clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant triple therapy was generally well tolerated; CR were greater with aprepitant, although not statistically significant. Pharmacokinetics suggest that the adult dosing regimen is appropriate for adolescents.

Predictors of adherence to triptans: factors of sustained vs lapsed users.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to identify factors that predict adherence to triptans by migraine patients. BACKGROUND: Triptans have demonstrated efficacy for acute migraine yet many migraine sufferers discontinue their use. DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey study was conducted using 785 subjects (390 health maintenance organizations [HMO] and 395 non-HMO). Of those, 586 were sustained users of triptans (defined by at least 1 refill within the past year), and 199 were classified as lapsed users (ie, individuals who had 0 refills in the past year). Groups were compared on a variety of measures including a comprehensive Migraine Survey that included items related to efficacy and adverse events associated with the patient's current medication, as well as the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 and Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaires. Data were analyzed with multivariate analysis of variance and stepwise multiple regression. RESULTS: Sustained users of triptans were significantly more satisfied with their medication, confident in the medication's ability to control headache, and reported control of migraine with fewer doses of medication. Sustained users also switched triptans products significantly less often than lapsed users, and reported greater benefit from triptan intervention in restoring normal daily functions, including improved cognitive ability, compared with lapsed users' ratings of their nontriptan medication. More lapsed users than sustained users reported adverse events associated with past triptan use. Results from multiple and logistic regression analyses correctly classified 95% of sustained users and identified the most significant predictors for sustained use as: satisfaction and belief in medication, reliability of response, effectiveness in rapidly restoring normal levels of productivity, and fewer doses of medication for resolving an attack. The HIT-6 and MIDAS distinguished between sustained and lapsed triptan users on days unable to do household work and missed family and social events. CONCLUSIONS: Predictors of adherence to triptans included satisfaction and confidence in triptans' ability to stop the migraine and associated symptoms and to return the individual to normal functioning. The findings suggest that lapsed users may not be receiving optimal treatment, and that if their past response to triptans was a consequence of inadequate education, they may benefit from additional education on proper use of triptans.

Lack of effect of aprepitant or its prodrug fosaprepitant on QTc intervals in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: A single 115-mg dose of fosaprepitant, the IV prodrug of the NK(1) receptor antagonist aprepitant, is bioequivalent to a 125-mg dose of oral aprepitant. Thus far, fosaprepitant/aprepitant has not shown a meaningful effect on QTc intervals; in this study, we sought to confirm these findings. METHODS: This double-blind, active-controlled, randomized, three-treatment, three-period, crossover study in healthy young subjects evaluated the effect of a 200-mg dose of fosaprepitant on QTc prolongation. In each period, subjects received 400 mg moxifloxacin per os, 200 mg fosaprepitant IV, or placebo in randomized sequence. The effect of fosaprepitant on QTc interval was assessed by 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs). The baseline value for QTc interval for each subject during each period was defined as the average of five replicate baseline QTc intervals extracted from predose ECGs. ECGs were performed at predose, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 min; and 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 h postinfusion. Values for individual QTc change from baseline were evaluated in a repeated-measures mixed model appropriate for a crossover design. A two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the true difference in QTc interval change from baseline at each timepoint was calculated for fosaprepitant versus placebo and for moxifloxacin versus placebo. RESULTS: After fosaprepitant 200-mg administration, the mean (95% CI) QTc interval change from baseline at T(max) was -1.45 (-4.67 to 1.77) ms, and the placebo-corrected mean (90% CI) QTc interval change from baseline was -1.37 (-4.78 to 2.05) ms. Neither was statistically significant at alpha = 0.05. After 400 mg moxifloxacin administration, the mean (95% CI) QTc interval change from baseline at 2 h was 9.71 (6.49-12.93) ms, and the placebo-corrected mean (90% CI) QTc interval change from baseline at moxifloxacin T(max) was 10.50 (7.09-13.92) ms. Both were statistically significant at alpha = 0.05. The maximum aprepitant concentration after fosaprepitant 200 mg administration was 6300 ng/mL (approximately twofold, fourfold, and ninefold higher than that observed historically with fosaprepitant 115 mg [3095 ng/mL], aprepitant 125 mg [1600 ng/mL], and aprepitant 40 mg [675 ng/mL]). CONCLUSIONS: In subjects receiving fosaprepitant 200 mg, no clinically meaningful increases in QTc were seen at any timepoint, whereas after moxifloxacin 400 mg, increases were observed at the approximate T(max) of moxifloxacin and additional timepoints. The lack of QTc increase at this high dose of fosaprepitant and resulting aprepitant plasma exposures support the expectation that clinical doses of fosaprepitant or aprepitant will not be associated with significant QTc prolongation.

Migraine strikes study: factors in patients' decision to treat early.

To describe factors associated with early treatment of migraine, and to examine reasons patients do not treat early, this cross-sectional observational study email-recruited migraineurs >or= 18-years-old who were currently prescribed acute migraine medication. Within 24 h of migraine resolution, eligible patients completed an online migraine strikes questionnaire which addressed pain severity, associated symptoms, and other variables including reasons for not treating early. Results reported were descriptive. Among 1,044 evaluable patients, early treatment was significantly associated with several factors such as leisure activity at onset (OR 1.32, P=0.010), photophobia (OR 1.39, P=0.013), diagnosis of migraine with aura (OR 1.36, P=0.004), and other factors. Among 840 patients who reported wanting to treat earlier desire to reserve medication for a severe migraine was the most common reason given for not doing so (51.2%). Overcoming these factors may facilitate earlier migraine treatment.

Tolerability of fosaprepitant and bioequivalency to aprepitant in healthy subjects.

Fosaprepitant is an intravenous formulation of aprepitant, an oral NK1 antagonist used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This randomized study was designed to evaluate fosaprepitant in polysorbate 80 vehicle for tolerability and bioequivalency to aprepitant. Tolerability was assessed by physical and laboratory examinations and adverse events. Plasma collected for 72 hours was assayed for aprepitant and fosaprepitant. Analysis of variance models were applied to natural log-transformed aprepitant area under the curve (AUC) data. Fosaprepitant up to 150 mg (1 mg/mL) was generally well tolerated. Fosaprepitant 115 mg was AUC bioequivalent to aprepitant 125 mg; the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio of aprepitant AUC for fosaprepitant 115 mg/aprepitant 125 mg fell within prespecified equivalence bounds of 0.80 to 1.25.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of the NK1 antagonist, aprepitant, versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetics currently in use are not totally effective. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic that have shown promise for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This is the first study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 805 patients receiving general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery to a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg orally, aprepitant 125 mg orally, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Vomiting, nausea, and use of rescue therapy were assessed over 48 h after surgery. Treatments were compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: Incidence rates for the primary end point (complete response [no vomiting and no use of rescue] over 0-24 h after surgery, tested for superiority of aprepitant) were not different across groups (45% with aprepitant 40 mg, 43% with aprepitant 125 mg, and 42% with ondansetron). The incidence of no vomiting (0-24 h) was higher with aprepitant 40 mg (90%) and aprepitant 125 mg (95%) versus ondansetron (74%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), although between-treatment use of rescue and nausea control was not different. Both aprepitant doses also had higher incidences of no vomiting over 0-48 h (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were seen among the side effect profiles of the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant was superior to ondansetron for prevention of vomiting in the first 24 and 48 h, but no significant differences were observed between aprepitant and ondansetron for nausea control, use of rescue, or complete response.

The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin--the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group.

PURPOSE: In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

The oral NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Pooled data from 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials.

In this work, data from two phase III studies were pooled to further evaluate the NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for prevention of cisplatin induced nausea and vomiting. One thousand and forty three patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomised to receive either a control regimen (32 mg intravenous ondansetron [O] and 20 mg oral dexamethasone [D] on day 1; 8 mg D twice daily on days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (125 mg A plus 32 mg O and 12 mg D on day 1, 80 mg A and 8 mg D once daily on days 2-3, and 8 mg D on day 4). The primary endpoint was no emesis and no rescue therapy. Potential correlations between acute and delayed emesis were assessed, as were frequency of emetic episodes by time interval and effects on nausea and quality of life as measured by the functional living index emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. In the aprepitant group, there was statistically significantly less nausea over the study period as well as higher functioning on the FLIE questionnaire in both the nausea and vomiting domains. Patients without acute emesis were more likely to have no emesis in the delayed phase. Compared with control, the aprepitant regimen improved prevention of delayed emesis by 16% points in patients without acute emesis, and by 17% points in patients with acute emesis. Among patients who did not have complete response, the frequency of emesis at various intervals over 5 days was consistently lower in patients receiving aprepitant. Analyses of this combined Phase III population further characterized the clinical profile of the aprepitant regimen, showing that delayed emesis is correlated with, but not entirely dependent on, the presence of acute emesis, and that aprepitant has a favorable effect against nausea throughout 5 days postchemotherapy. In addition, even among patients who had emesis or needed rescue therapy, aprepitant was associated with a lower frequency of these events compared with the control regimen.

Evaluation of potential inductive effects of aprepitant on cytochrome P450 3A4 and 2C9 activity.

The NK(1) receptor antagonist aprepitant (EMEND(R)), developed for use in combination with a 5HT(3) receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid to prevent highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), has been shown to have a moderate inhibitory effect as well as a possible inductive effect on cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4. Aprepitant has been noted to produce modest decreases in plasma S(-)-warfarin concentrations, suggesting potential induction of CYP2C9. Because metabolism of some chemotherapeutic agents may involve CYP3A4, the potential inductive effect of the CINV dosing regimen of aprepitant on this metabolic pathway was evaluated using intravenous midazolam, a sensitive probe substrate of CYP3A4. The time course of induction of CYP2C9 by aprepitant was also evaluated using oral tolbutamide, a probe substrate of CYP2C9. In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-center study, 24 healthy subjects were randomized (12 subjects per group) to receive either an aprepitant 3-day regimen (aprepitant 125 mg p.o. on day 1 and aprepitant 80 mg p.o. on days 2 and 3) or matching placebo. All subjects also received probe drugs (midazolam 2 mg i.v. and tolbutamide 500 mg p.o.) once prior to aprepitant dosing (baseline) and again on days 4, 8, and 15. The ratio (aprepitant/placebo) of the geometric mean area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) fold-change from baseline for midazolam was 1.25 on day 4 (p < 0.01), 0.81 on day 8 (p < 0.01), and 0.96 on day 15 (p = 0.646). The ratio (aprepitant/placebo) of the geometric mean AUC fold-change from baseline for tolbutamide was 0.77 on day 4 (p < 0.01), 0.72 on day 8 (p < 0.001), and 0.85 on day 15 (p = 0.05). Assessed using intravenous midazolam as a probe, aprepitant 125/80 mg p.o. administered over days 1 to 3 produced clinically insignificant weak inhibition (day 4) and induction (day 8) of CYP3A4 activity and no effect on CYP3A4 activity on day 15. Assessed using oral tolbutamide as a probe, the aprepitant regimen also produced modest induction of CYP2C9 activity on days 4 and 8, which resolved nearly to baseline by day 15. Thus, the aprepitant regimen for CINV results in modest, transient induction of CYPs 3A4 and 2C9 in the 2 weeks following administration.

Upper gastrointestinal tolerability of alendronate sodium monohydrate 10 mg once daily in postmenopausal women: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: The dissolution profiles of generic oral bisphosphonate alendronate (ALN) sodium for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis differ by formulation, suggesting potential differences in the risk for upper gastrointestinal (GI) irritation. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the tolerability profile of ALN monohydrate with that of placebo, with a focus on upper GI irritation, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled estimation study enrolled postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive ALN monohydrate 10 mg or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Tolerability was monitored throughout the study and up to 14 days after administration of the final dose. Primary end points were the proportions of patients with upper GI adverse events (AEs); upper GI AEs that were rated as serious or study drug related or that led to study discontinuation; and esophageal AEs. Between-treatment differences and associated 95% CIs were assessed using the Wilson score method. RESULTS: Of 438 patients who were randomized, 367 (mean age, 65.5 years; history of osteoporotic fracture, 6.8%; ALN monohydrate, 237; placebo, 130) completed the study. The proportion of patients with a history of upper GI disorders at baseline was numerically greater in the ALN monohydrate group than in the placebo group (117 [40.2%] and 45 [30.6%], respectively). The proportions of patients with active baseline upper GI disease were 83 (28.5%) and 30 (20.4%) in the ALN monohydrate and placebo groups, respectively. The proportions of patients who experienced an upper GI AE during the study period were 66 (22.7%) and 30 (20.4%) (95% CI, -6.2 to 10.0). The proportions of patients with upper GI AEs that were rated as serious or study drug related or that led to study discontinuation were 20.3% and 12.9% (95% CI, -0.3% to 14.1%). Three serious AEs in the active-treatment group (breast cancer, 2; wrist fracture, 1) were not considered related to the study drug, nor was the 1 serious AE in the placebo group (wrist fracture). One patient (ALN monohydrate) had an esophageal AE (nonserious spasm). Approximately 8% of patients who received ALN monohydrate reported dyspepsia, compared with none who received placebo. Within each treatment group, the rates of upper GI AEs were numerically higher in patients with a history of upper GI disease. CONCLUSIONS: In these postmenopausal women who received ALN monohydrate or placebo, upper GI AEs were common (20.4%-22.7%). The proportion of patients who experienced upper GI AEs considered drug related or that led to discontinuation was appar- ently greater with ALN monohydrate compared with placebo.

Preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: post hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized active-controlled trials of aprepitant.

OBJECTIVE: Compared with the 5HT(3) antagonist ondansetron, the NK(1) antagonist aprepitant has been shown in two double-blind trials to provide greater protection against postoperative vomiting and comparable or greater control of nausea. Post hoc analyses of pooled data from these trials were performed to more fully characterize the efficacy profile of aprepitant in terms of nausea and use of rescue therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1599) scheduled for major surgery under general anesthesia (primarily gynecological surgery) were assigned to receive a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg PO, 125 mg PO, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. in two randomized, double-blind, clinical trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Post-surgery vomiting episodes, use of rescue therapy, and nausea severity (verbal rating scale). RESULTS: In the 24 hours after surgery, aprepitant 40 mg was more effective than ondansetron for all five endpoints evaluated: (1) no significant nausea (56.4% vs. 48.1%); (2) no nausea (39.6% vs. 33.1%); (3) no vomiting (86.7% vs. 72.4%); (4) no nausea and no vomiting (38.3% vs. 31.4%); and (5) no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue (37.9% vs. 31.2%) (p < 0.035 for the odds ratio for each comparison). Numerically more patients receiving aprepitant 125 mg also achieved these endpoints compared with ondansetron. CONCLUSIONS: These post hoc analyses confirm the favorable efficacy profile of aprepitant for the prevention of post operative nausea and vomiting.

Antiemetic efficacy of the neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid in patients receiving anthracyclines or cyclophosphamide in addition to high-dose cisplatin: analysis of combined data from two Phase III randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The tendency of chemotherapeutic regimens to cause vomiting is dependent on the individual drugs in the regimen. The authors analyzed data combined from 2 Phase III trials to assess the effect of the neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) antagonist aprepitant combined with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus a corticosteroid in a subpopulation receiving > 1 emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. METHODS: In the current study, 1043 cisplatin-naive patients (42% were women) receiving cisplatin-based (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy were assigned randomly to a control regimen (ondansetron [O] 32 mg intravenously and dexamethasone [D] 20 mg orally on Day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg orally plus O 32 mg and D 12 mg on Day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and D 8 mg on Day 4). Randomization was stratified for use of concomitant chemotherapy and female gender. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) on Days 1-5 (0-120 hours). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach, and logistic regression was used to make treatment comparisons among patients receiving the most frequently coadministered emetogenic concomitant chemotherapy (Hesketh level > or = 3). RESULTS: Among the approximately 13% of patients (n = 81 for A; n = 80 for control) who received additional emetogenic chemotherapy (doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide), the aprepitant regimen provided a 33 percentage-point improvement in the complete response rate compared with the control regimen. Among the general population, the advantage with aprepitant was 20 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: The current analysis of > 1000 patients from 2 large randomized trials showed that in the subpopulation at increased risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to concomitant emetogenic chemotherapy, the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetics improved protection to an even greater extent than in the general study population.

Rizatriptan 5 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adolescents: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the tolerability and efficacy of rizatriptan 5 mg in adolescent migraineurs. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients aged 12 to 17 years received rizatriptan 5 mg (n = 149) or placebo (n = 147) for a moderate or severe headache and for up to two recurrences. Headache severity, presence or absence of associated symptoms, and functional disability were assessed over a 4-hour postdose period, and any adverse events were recorded. The primary efficacy measure was pain-free status at 2 hours postdose. RESULTS: Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse events (all with incidence of 5% or less) among patients receiving rizatriptan were dry mouth, dizziness, asthenia/fatigue, nausea, and somnolence. The percentage of patients pain-free at 2 hours was 32% for rizatriptan 5 mg versus 28% for placebo (P=.474). The percentage of patients with pain relief (reduction of predose pain intensity to mild or none) at 2 hours was 66% for rizatriptan versus 56% for placebo (P=.079). Placebo response rates were higher than those typically observed in previous studies of rizatriptan in adults. Compared with placebo, rizatriptan significantly improved functional disability at 1.5 and 2 hours, and nausea at 1 and 1.5 hours. Post hoc analysis showed a significant benefit of rizatriptan versus placebo in the percentage of patients who had pain relief when their migraine attacks were treated on weekends (65% versus 36%, P=.046) compared with weekdays (66% versus 61%, P=.365), and the weekend placebo response rate was similar to that seen in adults. CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated and effective on some measures when used in adolescents for the treatment of a migraine attack.

Aprepitant: an oral NK1 antagonist for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

This paper reviews the clinical profile of aprepitant, the first neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist to be approved for use in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. When given to patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, aprepitant in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 (5HT(3)) receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid provides significantly improved protection from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over that which has been previously achievable with current antiemetics.

Addition of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a novel neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) antagonist that has been shown to improve control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) when added to a standard antiemetic regimen of a 5-hydroxytriptamine-3 antagonist plus a corticosteroid. The authors sought to evaluate further the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant plus standard therapy in a large clinical trial. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-groups, Phase III study. Patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive treatment with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatment regimens; the standard therapy group received intravenous ondansetron 32 mg and oral dexamethasone 20 mg on Day 1, and oral dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4. The aprepitant group received oral aprepitant 125 mg, intravenous ondansetron 32 mg, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on Day 1; oral aprepitant 80 mg and oral dexamethasone 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on Day 4. Patients recorded episodes of emesis, use of rescue therapy, and severity of nausea in a diary. A modified intent-to-treat approach was used to analyze the efficacy data. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) during the 5-day period postcisplatin. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models, and reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments were used to assess tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were evaluated for efficacy, and 568 patients were evaluated for safety. During the 5 days after chemotherapy, the percentages of patients who achieved a complete response were 62.7% in the aprepitant group (163 of 260 patients) versus 43.3% in the standard therapy group (114 of 263 patients; P < 0.001). For Day 1, the complete response rates were 82.8% for the aprepitant group and 68.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.001); for Days 2-5, the complete response rates were 67.7% in the aprepitant group and 46.8% in the standard therapy group (P < 0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 treatment groups (72.8% in the aprepitant group [206 of 283 patients] and 72.6% in the standard therapy group [207 of 285 patients]) as were rates of serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, and deaths. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cancer who are receiving high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy, therapy consisting of aprepitant (125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-3) plus a standard regimen of ondansetron and dexamethasone provided superior antiemetic protection compared with standard therapy alone and was generally well tolerated.

The gastrointestinal safety of the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib assessed by both endoscopy and analysis of upper gastrointestinal events.

OBJECTIVES: Etoricoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase inhibitor that in clinical studies has improved the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis and reduced the potential for GI injury. The incidence of endoscopically detected ulcers and of clinically important upper GI events (perforations, ulcers, and bleeding episodes) was compared in patients taking etoricoxib or nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). METHODS: Upper GI endoscopy was performed at intervals over 12 wk in 680 patients taking etoricoxib 120 mg once daily, ibuprofen 800 mg three times daily, or placebo in a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study. Survival analysis was used to analyze time-to-event data for the incidence of gastric or duodenal ulcers (> or =3 mm and > or =5 mm), and the log rank test was used to compare the cumulative incidence between treatment groups. A combined analysis of upper GI events in all 10 Phase II/III clinical trials of etoricoxib (60, 90, or 120 mg) versus nonselective NSAIDs (naproxen, ibuprofen, or diclofenac) for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic low back pain was conducted. Investigators reported potential events for adjudication by an external, blinded committee, using prespecified criteria to confirm events. All events that occurred during active treatment periods (maximum 792 days) or within 14 days of stopping treatment were included in the analysis. Time to first event was evaluated using survival analysis; the Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine the cumulative incidence, and relative risk was estimated with the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: In the endoscopy study, the cumulative incidence of ulcers >/=3 mm at 12 wk in the ibuprofen group (17%) was significantly higher than in the etoricoxib group (8.1%, p < 0.001); similar results were seen for ulcers >/=5 mm. In the placebo group, the rate of ulcers >/=3 mm was 1.86%. Of 3142 patients treated with once-daily etoricoxib and 1828 patients treated with a nonselective NSAID (ibuprofen, naproxen, or diclofenac), 82 patients with investigator-reported upper GI events (71 confirmed) were eligible for the combined analysis. For etoricoxib versus NSAIDs, the rate per 100 patient-yr for confirmed events was 1.16 versus 3.05 (relative risk = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.27-0.72, p < 0.001), whereas that for investigator-reported events was 1.35 versus 3.42 (relative risk = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.74, p = 0.001). Results were driven primarily by studies with naproxen as the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of endoscopically detected ulcers was significantly lower with etoricoxib 120 mg than with ibuprofen 2400 mg. Treatment with etoricoxib reduced the incidence of investigator-reported and confirmed adverse upper GI events by approximately 50% compared with treatment with nonselective NSAIDs.

Establishing the dose of the oral NK1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: The neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant (EMEND; Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, PA) has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when it is given with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. The current study sought to define the most appropriate dose regimen of oral aprepitant. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with cancer who were receiving initial cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) and standard antiemetic therapy (intravenous ondansetron plus oral dexamethasone). Patients were randomized to receive standard therapy plus either aprepitant 375 mg on Day 1 and 250 mg on Days 2-5, aprepitant 125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-5, or placebo. Due to an apparent interaction with dexamethasone suggested by pharmacokinetic data obtained while the study was ongoing, the aprepitant 375/250 mg dose was discontinued and replaced with aprepitant 40 mg on Day 1 and 25 mg on Days 2-5, and a new randomization schedule was generated. Patients recorded nausea and emesis in a diary. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy), which was analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach with data obtained after the dose adjustment. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments, and included all available data. RESULTS: The percentages of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall study period were 71.0% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (n = 131 patients), 58.8% for the aprepitant 40/25-mg group (n = 119 patients), and 43.7% for the standard therapy group (n = 126 patients; P < 0.05 for either aprepitant regimen vs. standard therapy). Rates for Day 1 were 83.2% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group, 75.6% for aprepitant 40/25-mg group, and 71.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.05 for aprepitant 125/80 mg vs. standard therapy), and rates on Days 2-5 were 72.7% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group, 63.9% for the aprepitant 40/25-mg group, and 45.2% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.01 for either aprepitant group vs. standard therapy). The efficacy of the aprepitant 375/250-mg regimen was similar to that of the aprepitant 125/80-mg regimen. The overall incidence of adverse events was generally similar across treatment groups: 85% in the aprepitant 375/250-mg group (n = 34 patients), 76% in the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (n = 214 patients), 71% in the aprepitant 40/25-mg group (n = 120 patients), and 72% in the standard therapy group (n = 212 patients), with the exception of a higher incidence of infection in the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (13%) compared with the standard therapy group (4%). CONCLUSIONS: When it was added to a standard regimen of intravenous ondansetron and oral dexamethasone in the current study, aprepitant reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and was generally well tolerated, although increases in infection were noted that were assumed to be due to elevated dexamethasone levels as a result of the pharmacokinetic interaction. The aprepitant 125/80-mg regimen had the most favorable benefit:risk profile.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis by the selective neurokinin-1 antagonists, L-758,298 and MK-869.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that antiemetic therapy with a triple combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist MK-869, a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist, and dexamethasone provides enhanced control of cisplatin-induced emesis compared with standard therapy regimens. The authors compared the antiemetic activity of a dual combination of MK-869 and dexamethasone with that of a standard dual combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to characterize further the efficacy and tolerability profile of MK-869. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active agent-controlled study of 177 cisplatin-naïve patients with malignant disease. On Day 1, MK-869 was given intravenously as its water-soluble prodrug, L-758,298. Patients were randomized to one of three groups as follows. Group I received L-758,298 100 mg intravenously (i.v.), then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by 300 mg MK-869 (tablet) orally on Days 2-5; Group II received L-758,298 100 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5; and Group III received ondansetron 32 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5. Emesis was recorded over Days 1-5 in a diary. Nausea was assessed every 24 hours by visual analog scale. Additional medication was available for emesis or nausea at any time. The primary efficacy parameters of interest were the proportion of patients without emesis and the proportion without emesis or rescue therapy on Day 1 (acute phase) and on Days 2-5 (delayed phase). RESULTS: No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298 or MK-869. On Day 1, the proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication were 44% of patients in Group I, 36% of patients in Group II, 40% of patients in Groups I and II combined, and 83% of patients in Group III (P < 0.001 for Group III vs. the combined Groups I and II). The proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication on Days 2-5 were 59% of patients in Group I, 46% of patients in Group II, and 38% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I vs. Group III). The proportions of patients who were without emesis on Day 1 were 49% of patients in Group I, 47% of patients in Group II, and 84% of patients in Group III (P < 0.01 for Group I or II vs. Group III). On Days 2-5, however, the proportions of patients who were without emesis on Days 2-5 were 65% of patients in Group I, 61% of patients in Group II, and 41% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I or II vs. Group III). Nausea scores in the acute phase were lower for Group III than for Group I, Group II, or Groups I and II combined (P < 0.05), although there was no significant difference among groups either for the delayed phase or overall for Days 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: Although the L-758,298 and dexamethasone combination reduced acute (Day 1) emesis compared with historic rates, dual therapy with ondansetron and dexamethasone was superior in controlling acute emesis. Continued dosing with MK-869 may enhance control of other measures of delayed emesis, such as the use of rescue medication, although confirmation is required before a definitive conclusion may be drawn. MK-869 given as dual therapy with dexamethasone was superior to ondansetron with dexamethasone for the control of delayed emesis (Days 2-5) and control of the need for rescue medication on Days 2-5.