A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I.

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

Safety and tolerability of intravenous aprepitant and fosaprepitant in children with cancer: A retrospective, single-center review.

NK-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) are key agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Current pediatric practice guidelines recommend the use of intravenous fosaprepitant or oral aprepitant. However, there are reports of hypersensitivity reactions with fosaprepitant due to polysorbate 80. Intravenous aprepitant does not contain polysorbate 80, but its use in pediatric patients has not been described. In this retrospective, single-center study, 106 pediatric patients received either fosaprepitant or intravenous aprepitant as part of their antiemetic regimen. Intravenous aprepitant was well tolerated and did not lead to any instances of hypersensitivity reactions requiring discontinuation.

Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, with That of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Existing antiemetic therapy against emetic-risk agents across malignancies 24 h post-dose in the acute period in cisplatin (CDDP)-based regimens yields a satisfactory complete response (CR) rate of ≥90%. However, the control rate after 24 h in the delayed period is unsatisfactory. This study compared the efficacy of fosnetupitant (F-NTP), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, with that of fosaprepitant (F-APR) and aprepitant (APR) in the treatment of patients with cancer at high emetic risk due to chemotherapy. In this retrospective case-control study involving patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, patients were divided into three groups based on prophylactic antiemetic therapy: F-NTP, F-APR, and APR. The CR rate was evaluated for each period up to 168 h and further subdivided into acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and beyond-delayed (120-168 h) periods. Eighty-eight patients were included in the F-NTP group, 66 in the F-APR group, and 268 in the APR group. The CR rates at 0-168 and 120-168 h after cisplatin administration were significantly higher in the F-NTP group than in the F-APR and APR groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, F-NTP use was an independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy, including F-NTP, was effective and well-tolerated during the delayed period. The efficacy of F-NTP in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was superior to those of F-APR and APR during the study period.

Impact of fosaprepitant in the prevention of nausea and emesis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemoradiation: a pilot prospective study and a review of literature.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is standard treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, IMRT may increase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV. METHODS: An infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant was given through a 30 min. We assessed acute toxicity using CTCAE v.4 and the incidence of CINV using the FLIE questionnaire. The evaluation of CINV was done at the second and fifth weeks of CRT and 1 week after the end. The EORTC QLQ-HN 43 questionnaire was administered before treatment beginning (baseline), at second (T1) and fifth (T2) weeks. A dosimetric analysis was performed on dorsal nucleus of vagus (DVC) and area postrema (AP). RESULTS: Between March and November 2020, 24 patients were enrolled. No correlation was found between nausea and DVC mean dose (p = 0.573), and AP mean dose (p = 0.869). Based on the FLIE questionnaire, patients reported a mean score of 30.5 for nausea and 30 for vomiting during week 2 and 29.8 for nausea and 29.2 for vomiting during week 5. After treatment ended, the mean scores were 27.4 for nausea and 27.7 for vomiting. All patients completed the EORTC QLQ-HN 43. Significantly higher scores at T2 assessment than baseline were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV reduced incidence of moderate to severe nausea and vomiting. No correlation has been found between nausea and median dose to DVC and AP.

Prolonged usage of fosaprepitant for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Even though chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be well controlled in the acute phase, the incidence of delayed CINV remains high. In this study, we intend to investigate whether prolonged use of NK-1 receptor antagonist (RA) in addition to 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone (DEX) was more effective in preventing delayed CINV. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant 150 mg given on days 1,3 (prolonged group) versus on day 1 (regular group) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All patients also treated with palonosetron on day 1 and DEX on days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting. The second endpoint was AEs. All the above endpoints were defined according to CTCAE 5.0. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned to prolonged group and seventy-nine to regular group. Prolonged group demonstrated superiority in controlling delayed CINV to regular group, with statistically significant lower incidence of nausea (6.17% vs 12.66%, P = 0.0056), and slightly lower incidence of grade 1 vomiting (1.62% vs 3.80%, P = 0.0953) in the delayed phase. In addition, prolonged use of fosaprepitant was safe. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding constipation, diarrhea, hiccough, fatigue, palpitation and headache in delayed phase. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged use of fosaprepitant can effectively and safely prevent delayed CINV in patients receiving HEC.

Efficacy of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron plus dexamethasone in preventing nausea and emesis during fractionated radiotherapy with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy: interim analysis of a randomized, prospective, clinical trial using competing risk analysis.

PURPOSE: There are no well-recognized guidelines for antiemesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for cervical cancer (CC) and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) until now. The study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly low-dose cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with CC or NPC. METHODS: Patients with CC or NPC were scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin (25-40 mg/m2) chemotherapy for at least 5 weeks. Patients stratified by tumor type and induction chemotherapy were 1:1 randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone or tropisetron plus dexamethasone as an antiemetic regimen. Efficacy was assessed primarily by the cumulative incidence of emesis after 5 weeks of treatment, and safety by adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Between July 2020 and July 2022, 116 patients consented to the study of whom 103 were included in this interim analysis (fosaprepitant group [N = 52] vs control group [N = 51]). The cumulative incidence of emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 25% (95% CI 14.2-37.4) for the fosaprepitant group compared with 59% (95% CI 43.9-71.0) for the control group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group (HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.19-0.64]; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant was well tolerated as the incidences of adverse events in the two groups were comparable. CONCLUSION: The addition of fosaprepitant to tropisetron plus dexamethasone significantly reduced the risk of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of CCRT in patients with CC or NPC, and fosaprepitant was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on October 3, 2022, number NCT05564286.

Polysorbate 80 as a possible allergenic component in cross-allergy to docetaxel and fosaprepitant: A literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Patients had allergies to both fosaprepitant and docetaxel with similar signs and symptoms. To explore the possible causes of allergy and whether there is cross-allergy between fosaprepitant and docetaxel, we conducted a literature review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was performed: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Taylor & Francis. The final search was on 12 November 2022. Two investigators independently selected eligible studies and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by a third researcher. RESULTS: The main cause of fosaprepitant and docetaxel allergy is polysorbate 80. Fosaprepitant and docetaxel have similar allergic symptoms, mainly facial flushing (19.0%, 18.5%); erythema/dermatitis (17.2%, 1.9%); fluid retention (17.2%, 22.2%); and dyspnea, bronchospasm, shortness of breath and coughing (15.5%, 16.7%). Hypotension (1.7%, 7.4%) and decreased oxygen saturation (1.7%, 1.9%) are rare. The treatments for both allergies are similar: stop injection, oxygen, glucocorticoid, antihistamines and symptomatic treatments. CONCLUSION: Polysorbate 80 is the same allergenic component of docetaxel and fosaprepitant. The symptoms and treatments caused by the two drugs are similar. Most allergic reactions are not serious. Medications containing the same allergy ingredient need to be used with caution for patients with severe allergies to polysorbate 80.

A phase 3 safety study of fosnetupitant as an antiemetic in patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide: CONSOLE-BC.

BACKGROUND: Fosnetupitant (FosNTP), an intravenous neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, demonstrated a favorable safety profile with a potentially low risk of injection site reactions (ISRs) and promising antiemetic efficacy in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in a previous phase 2 study. We conducted a randomized, double-blind safety study to evaluate the safety profile of FosNTP, including ISRs, in patients receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC/EC) chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive AC/EC were randomized 1:1 to receive 235 mg of FosNTP or 150 mg of fosaprepitant (FosAPR), both in combination with 0.75 mg of intravenous palonosetron and 9.9 mg of dexamethasone on day 1. The stratification factors were age category (<55 vs ≥55 years) and study site. The primary end point was the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with FosNTP. RESULTS: Overall, 102 patients were randomized to FosNTP (n = 52) or FosAPR (n = 50), and all were treated with the study drug and evaluated for safety. The primary end point, the incidence of TRAEs, was similar with FosNTP (21.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.1%-34.7%) and FosAPR (22.0%; 95% CI, 11.5%-36.0%), with any-cause ISRs observed in 5.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively, and treatment-related ISRs observed in 0% and 10.0%, respectively. The overall (0-120 hour) complete response (defined as no emetic event and no rescue medication) rate, standardized by age category in the full analysis set, was 45.9% (23 of 51 patients) with FosNTP and 51.3% (25 of 49 patients) with FosAPR. CONCLUSIONS: FosNTP demonstrated a favorable safety profile with a very low risk of ISRs in the AC/EC setting.

Multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine improves the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a retrospective study.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite a standard triple antiemetic regimen of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone is recommended, how to control the protracted CINV in ASCT setting remains an intractable problem. Here, we retrospectively analyze CINV data of 100 patients who received either SEAM (semustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or MEL140-200 (high-dose melphalan) before ASCT, evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine (FTO), and compare the results to those of patients who received a standard regimen of aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (ATD). The overall rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, is 70% in the FTO group compared to 36% in the ATD group. Although CR rates are comparable in the acute phase between the two groups, significantly more patients treated by FTO achieve CR in the delayed phase than those treated by ATD (74% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Moreover, FTO treatment significantly reduced the percentage of patients who are unable to eat, as well as the requirement for rescue medications. Both regimens are well tolerated and most adverse events (AEs) were generally mild and transient. In conclusion, the antiemetic strategy containing multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant is safe and effective for preventing CINV in lymphoma and MM patients, particularly in the delayed phase.

A real-world study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of three injectable neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist formulations for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Three different injectable neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist formulations (CINVANTI® [C] vs. intravenous Emend® [E] vs. generic formulations of fosaprepitant [GFF]) were compared with respect to nausea and vomiting control, use of rescue therapy, and the development of infusion reactions over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis from 17 community oncology practices across the USA was conducted on patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The co-primary endpoints were the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) from days 1 to 5 over all cycles and the frequency of infusion-related reactions. Propensity score weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare complete CINV control, the use of rescue therapy, and the risk of infusion reactions between groups. RESULTS: The study enrolled 294 patients (C = 101, E = 101, GFF = 92) who received 1432 cycles of chemotherapy. Using CINVANTI® as the reference group, comparative effectiveness was suggested in CINV control over all chemotherapy cycles (odds ratio (OR): E vs. C = 1.00 [0.54 to 1.86] and GFF vs. C = 1.12 [0.54 to 2.32]). However, use of rescue therapy was significantly higher in the EMEND® group relative to CINVANTI® (OR = 2.69; 95%CI: 1.06 to 6.84). Infusion reactions were also numerically higher in the EMEND® group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR = 4.35; 95%CI: 0.83 to 22.8). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis, patients receiving CINVANTI® had a reduced need for CINV rescue therapy and a numerically lower incidence of infusion reactions.

Incidence of ifosfamide induced encephalopathy in patients receiving concomitant fosaprepitant.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of Ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy (IIE) ranges from 5-30%. Aprepitant and fosaprepitant may increase the risk of IIE; however, data is limited. The objective of this study was to characterize the incidence of IIE in patients receiving concomitant fosaprepitant. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective chart review included adult patients diagnosed with sarcoma who received at least one administration of high dose ifosfamide (≥1800mg/m2) and fosaprepitant between January 2017 and June 2018. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patient cycles in which IIE was experienced. Secondary endpoints included characterization of IIE management strategies, time to IIE resolution, and the incidence of IIE upon ifosfamide re-challenge. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether the following variables predisposed a patient to neurotoxicity: elevated serum creatinine, hypoalbuminemia, metabolic acidosis, hyperbilirubinemia, shorter infusion time, and higher body mass index. The role of CYP2B6 inhibitors and prior cisplatin use were also examined. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients who received 215 total cycles of ifosfamide were included. Twenty (9.3%) patient cycles included documented evidence of IIE. The most common management strategies were to prolong the infusion time and administer methylene blue. The mean time to resolution of IIE was 2.58 days. The incidence of secondary IIE upon re-challenge was 26.3%. Baseline albumin <3.5 g/dL (p<0.001) was statistically associated with the development of IIE. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of fosaprepitant and ifosfamide in sarcoma appears to be safe. Hypoalbuminemia was a notable risk factor confirmed in this study. Further research is needed to delineate IIE risk factors.

Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial of response in subjects by cancer type.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, parallel-group trial evaluating fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) found that a single-day, triple-antiemetic fosaprepitant regimen resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR; no vomiting or rescue medication use) in the delayed phase (25-120 h after chemotherapy initiation), compared with a 3-day control regimen ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01594749). As the risk for CINV is dependent on chemotherapy regimen and generally guided by tumor type, this post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of this regimen by cancer subpopulations (gastrointestinal [GI] or colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancers). METHODS: Subjects with confirmed cancer who were naive to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC) and were scheduled to receive intravenous (IV) anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based MEC on the first day of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ondansetron and oral dexamethasone plus either a single IV dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg (fosaprepitant regimen) or placebo (control regimen). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects achieving CR in the delayed phase. CR rates in the overall and acute phases (0-120 h and 0-24 h after MEC initiation, respectively) were assessed as secondary end points. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: CR rates in the delayed phase favored the fosaprepitant regimen over the control regimen across the GI/colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancer subgroups (range, 6.2-22%); similar findings were observed for CR in the overall phase. CR in the acute phase was high for all groups (≥87%). The fosaprepitant regimen was well tolerated in all cancer subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis indicated that a single-day fosaprepitant regimen was effective in preventing CINV in patients receiving MEC, regardless of cancer type. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01594749 , registered May 9, 2012.

Evaluation of the Antiemetic Effect of Premedication Optimized by Pharmaceutical Support in Cisplatin Regimens.

Cisplatin is classified as a drug with high emetic risk; thus, the use of aprepitant or fosaprepitant in addition to a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended for antiemetic therapy. Further, hydration is required to prevent renal dysfunction, and the use of magnesium has been proposed as a part of the hydration procedure. When fosaprepitant is chosen for antiemetic therapy because the patient has dysphagia, and magnesium is added to the hydration procedure, there may be an incompatibility between the two drugs that reduces the antiemetic effect. In our hospital, in a former regimen, these two drugs were administered concurrently as premedication for regimens containing cisplatin. We varied the conditions so that in a revised regimen the two drugs did not come into contact due to pharmaceutical support, and we conducted a retrospective study to determine the difference in the antiemetic effect. The observation period was 2 years (from October 2015 to September 2017) for the former regimen group (n = 89) and 2 years (from October 2017 to September 2019) for the revised regimen group (n = 177). Comparison of the former and revised regimen groups revealed sex (p = 0.012); anticancer drug dosage (p = 0.006); and variation of premedication condition (p = 0.043) as factors affected by the revised regimen. Optimization of the premedication regimen was a form of necessary pharmaceutical support to maintain the patient's QOL.

Evaluation of fosaprepitant-associated hypersensitivity reactions at a National Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: At our institution, an increased incidence of hypersensitivity reactions was reported following standardization of fosaprepitant as the preferred agent for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic therapies. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the incidence of systemic hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to fosaprepitant infusions compared to available literature. METHODS: This evaluation is a retrospective review of electronic health records of adult patients who received their first dose of fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis beginning January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 at the University of Colorado Cancer Center outpatient infusion center. Subjects were identified using medication administration reports. Individual chart reviews were performed for all patients who received fosaprepitant during the specified timeframe and had a reaction reported on the same date. RESULTS: A total of 868 patients received fosaprepitant in the outpatient infusion center during the study time period. Four patients (0.461%) had a systemic HSR attributed to fosaprepitant. Two of the reactions were reported as HSRs in the adverse reaction reporting system and two were found in provider notes during chart review. Due to the small sample size, risk factors for HSRs to fosaprepitant were not able to be determined. CONCLUSION: The incidence of HSRs to fosaprepitant at our institution was found to be consistent with the <1% incidence currently noted in literature. Based on these findings, opportunities have been identified for education on fosaprepitant-associated HSRs, proper documentation and patient-specific precautions.

Peripheral neuropathy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients receiving vincristine with and without aprepitant/fosaprepitant.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral neuropathy is a common treatment-related adverse effect associated with vincristine. Vincristine is a major CYP3A4 substrate and is often administered alongside the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, aprepitant or fosaprepitant, which are moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors. This inhibition may result in increased concentrations of vincristine and an increased incidence of toxicity. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to investigate if there is a clinically significant drug interaction between vincristine and aprepitant or fosaprepitant resulting in early-onset peripheral neuropathy. The secondary objective of this study was to investigate the cumulative rate of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). METHODOLOGY: This was a single-centered, retrospective, cohort chart review. Patients receiving vincristine-based chemotherapy between 1 July 2010 through 30 June 2018 were identified and reviewed for concomitant use of aprepitant or fosaprepitant and incidence of neuropathy. Early-onset CIPN was defined as neuropathy onset during the first cycle of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 115 subjects were retrospectively reviewed over the study period, of whom 71 were included in the aprepitant/fosaprepitant group and 44 were included in the group without a NK-1 receptor antagonist. Of the subjects who received aprepitant/fosaprepitant, 26.7% experienced early-onset peripheral neuropathy as compared to 22.7% in the group without a NK-1 receptor antagonist (P = 0.627). Overall, CIPN was higher in the group who received aprepitant/fosaprepitant compared to the group without (56% vs. 36%, P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: There appears to be an increased risk of CIPN with the concomitant use of vincristine and aprepitant or fosaprepitant.

Human acute myeloid leukemia cells express Neurokinin-1 receptor, which is involved in the antileukemic effect of Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.

The substance P/neurokinin-1 receptor system has been implicated in tumor cell proliferation. Neurokinin-1 receptor has been identified in different solid tumors but not frequently in hematopoietic malignant cells. We investigated the presence of the Neurokinin-1 receptor in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines (KG-1 and HL-60), demonstrating that acute myeloid leukemia cell lines overexpress the truncated Neurokinin-1 receptor isoform compared with lymphocytes from healthy donors. Using the MTS (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium) method, we demonstrated that substance P induced cell proliferation in both acute myeloid leukemia cell lines. We also observed that four different Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (L-733,060, L-732,138, CP 96-345 and aprepitant) elicited inhibition of acute myeloid leukemia cell growth lines in a concentration-dependent manner, while growth inhibition was only marginal in lymphocytes; the specific antitumor action of Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists occurs via the Neurokinin-1 receptor, and leukemia cell death is due to apoptosis. Finally, administration of high doses of daily intraperitoneal fosaprepitant to NOD scid gamma mice previously xenografted with the HL60 cell line increased the median survival from 4 days (control group) to 7 days (treated group) (p = 0.059). Taken together, these findings suggest that Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists suppress leukemic cell growth and may be considered to be potential antitumor drugs for the treatment of human acute myeloid leukemia.

Efficacy, safety and feasibility of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy - results of a non-interventional observation study.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) belong among the most burdensome side effects in hemato-oncology. Mostly, a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone is used as antiemetic prophylaxis in pediatric patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. However, dexamethasone is prohibited in different pediatric chemotherapy protocols. Currently, data on the use of ondansetron with the new antiemetic agent fosaprepitant without dexamethasone is not available for pediatric patients. METHODS: In this non-interventional observation study, 79 pediatric patients with a median age of 8.0 years (range 0.5-17.9 years) who received a CINV prophylaxis regimen with either fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; maximum 150 mg) and ondansetron (as 24-h continuous infusion) (n = 40; fosaprepitant group/FG) or ondansetron only (n = 39; control group/CG) during moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were analyzed. The groups were analyzed and compared for frequency of vomiting, administered doses of on-demand antiemetic dimenhydrinate and adverse events during the acute (0-24 h after chemotherapy administration) and delayed (> 24 h-120 h) CINV phases. RESULTS: A total of 112 and 116 chemotherapy blocks were analyzed in the fosaprepitant and the control group, respectively. The emetogenic potential of the administered chemotherapy did not significantly differ (p = 0.8812) between the two cohorts. In the acute CINV phase, the percentage of patients experiencing vomiting (n = 26 patients) and the vomiting events were significantly higher (p = 0.0005 and p < 0.0001, respectively) in the CG (n = 26 patients (66.7%); 88 events) compared with the FG (n = 10 patients (25.0%); 37 events). In the delayed CINV phase, the percentage of patients experiencing vomiting and the vomiting events were also significantly higher (p = 0.0017 and p < 0.0001, respectively) in the CG (n = 31 patients (79.5%); 164 events) compared with the FG (n = 17 patients (42.5%); 103 events). Additionally, significantly more dimenhydrinate doses were administered in the CG compared with the FG patients (n = 322/n = 198; p < 0.0001). The occurrence of adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Fosaprepitant (4.0 mg/kg) in addition to ondansetron, without application of dexamethasone, was well tolerated, safe, effective and superior to ondansetron only as CINV prophylaxis in pediatric patients during moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Intravenous fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Fosaprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, approved for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The data on the use of fosaprepitant in children are limited and therefore we conducted a phase III randomized controlled trial. PROCEDURE: Children aged 1-12 years scheduled to receive moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to arm-A (fosaprepitant) or arm-B (placebo). Children recruited to arm-A received intravenous ondansetron plus dexamethasone followed by fosaprepitant infusion. Children recruited to arm-B received the same drugs as those given to children in arm-A, except that fosaprepitant was substituted with a placebo. Ondansetron and dexamethasone were continued for 48 hours after completion of chemotherapy. The primary end point of the study was to determine the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting, no retching, and no use of rescue medication, during the 24-120 hours (delayed phase) after administration of the last dose of chemotherapy. Secondary end points were the proportion of patients who achieved a CR during the acute phase (0-24 hours) and overall after administration of the last dose of chemotherapy. RESULTS: One-hundred-sixty-three patients were analyzed (81 in the fosaprepitant arm and 82 in the placebo arm). CR rates were significantly higher in the fosaprepitant arm compared to those in the placebo arm during the acute phase (86% vs 60%, P < 0.001), delayed phase (79% vs 51%, P < 0.001), and overall phase (70% vs 41%, P < 0.001). Three (4%) patients in the fosaprepitant arm and sixteen (20%) in the placebo arm required rescue anti-emetics (P = 0.0017). CONCLUSION: Addition of fosaprepitant to ondansetron and dexamethasone improved chemotherapy-induced vomiting control in children treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Current antiemetic regimens are less effective in children than in adults. Fosaprepitant was recently approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children aged six months and older. PROCEDURE: The pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) profile, safety, and tolerability of a single intravenous dose of fosaprepitant administered concomitantly with ondansetron with/without dexamethasone were evaluated in pediatric patients with cancer receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. PK/PD from three doses of fosaprepitant (3.0, 1.2, and 0.4 mg/kg, up to 150, 60, and 20 mg, respectively) were compared with placebo in 2- to 17-year-old subjects; an open-label amendment evaluated a fourth dose (5.0 mg/kg, up to 150 mg) in those under 12 years old. Historical adult PK data were used for comparison. Efficacy was measured as an exploratory endpoint. RESULTS: PK data were evaluable for 167/234 subjects who completed cycle one. Aprepitant exposures were dose proportional; adolescents (12 to 17 years) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg had exposures similar to adults at the same dose. Higher weight-normalized doses (5 mg/kg) were necessary for children aged < 12 years to achieve comparable adult exposures. The adverse event profile was typical of cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16 (6.8%) subjects, with hiccups being most common (n = 5; 2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous fosaprepitant was well tolerated by pediatric subjects with cancer, and dose-proportional exposures were observed. Subjects < 12 years old required higher doses to achieve comparable adult exposures.

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

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