Impact of casopitant, a novel NK-1 antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics of ondansetron and dexamethasone

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Development, Verification, and Prediction of Osimertinib Drug-Drug Interactions Using PBPK Modeling Approach to Inform Drug Label

Osimertinib is a potent, highly selective, irreversible inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and T790M resistance mutation. In vitro metabolism data suggested osimertinib is a substrate of cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4/5, a weak inducer of CYP3A, and an inhibitor of breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP). A combination of in vitro data, clinical pharmacokinetic data, and drug-drug interaction (DDI) data of osimertinib in oncology patients were used to develop the physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model and verify the DDI data of osimertinib. The model predicted the observed monotherapy concentration profile of osimertinib within 1.1-fold, and showed good predictability (within 1.7-fold) to the observed peak plasma concentration (Cmax ) and area under the curve (AUC) DDI ratio changes, when co-administered with rifampicin, itraconazole, and simvastatin, but not with rosuvastatin. Based on observed clinical data and PBPK simulations, the recommended dose of osimertinib when dosed with strong CYP3A inducers is 160 mg once daily. PBPK modeling suggested no dose adjustment with moderate and weak CYP3A inducers.

Pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone and nefopam administered alone or in combination using a newly developed prefilled multi-drug injector in rats

BACKGROUND/AIM

It is significant for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to receive prehospital emergency treatment as early as possible to reduce mortality. Therefore, a new prefilled multi-drug injector was developed to improve the treatment of TBI. Here, we studied the pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone (DXM) and nefopam using the injector to investigate the significance of drug interactions and the necessity of dose adjustment.

METHODS

Rats were administered DXM and nefopam intramuscularly alone or in combination using the injector. The concentrations of DXM and nefopam were measured by means of HPLC. The noncompartmental approach was used to calculate pharmacokinetic parameters.

RESULTS

All animals appeared to tolerate the injection very well. The maximum concentration 90% confidence interval (CI) of nefopam was in the bioequivalence range when nefopam was co-administered with DXM. However, the AUC 90% CI of nefopam was out of the range. A statistically significant alteration was also observed in the clearance of nefopam. The co-administration exhibited no significant influence on the pharmacokinetic parameters of DXM.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the co-administration of DXM and nefopam using the prefilled multi-drug injector significantly alters some pharmacokinetic parameters of nefopam and has a minor effect on DXM pharmacokinetics.

Ondansetron: a review of pharmacokinetics and clinical experience in postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is associated with poor patient satisfaction and delayed recovery after general anesthesia. Multiple neurotransmitters are involved in the mediation of PONV but despite the introduction of new antiemetics, no completely effective drug exists for its prevention or treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a detailed description of ondansetron's chemistry, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, toxicity and a brief review of clinical trials involving ondansetron and the management of PONV. We searched reviews, meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials (Medline, Embase and article reference lists).

EXPERT OPINION

According to current literature, administering ondansetron 4 mg i.v. near the end of surgery provides sufficient protection against PONV in low- and moderate-risk patients, comparable to traditional antiemetics such as antihistamines and droperidol. High-risk patients require a multimodal approach since one quarter of them will not respond to monotherapy. In the future, transdermal formulation or formulations for nasal or buccal delivery will be available. The development of non-racemic mixture consisting of R-ondansetron would enhance the safety profile and probably the efficacy too.

A pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety study of intravenous cyclophosphamide with an oral casopitant antiemetic regimen in cancer patients

Casopitant is a potent and selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist formerly under development for a number of indications, including the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This study was an open-label, randomized, multi-center, two-period crossover casopitant-cyclophosphamide interaction study. Subjects were cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide based chemotherapy. The objectives of the study were to assess the effect of 3-day, repeat-dose, 150 mg oral casopitant on the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, tolerability, and pharmacodynamics (white blood cell count) of single-dose IV cyclophosphamide. PK data from 14 evaluable subjects showed the geometric least-squares mean ratios (90% CI) for cyclophosphamide and the metabolite 4-hydroxycyclophosphamide AUC (with:without casopitant) were 1.03 (0.975, 1.09) and 0.948 (0.835, 1.08), respectively. Administration of casopitant was well tolerated and did not impact the safety profile of the treatment regimen. Casopitant did not affect the expected bone marrow toxicity of cyclophosphamide. Co-administration of 150 mg oral casopitant with single-dose IV cyclophosphamide did not appear to result in a clinically relevant change in cyclophosphamide or 4-hydroxycyclophosphamide exposure or safety.

Effect of netupitant, a highly selective NK₁ receptor antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, erythromycin, and dexamethasone

PURPOSE

Netupitant is a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist being studied for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In vitro studies suggest that netupitant inhibits the cytochrome P-450 isoenzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4). Because netupitant may be used with a variety of drugs, which may be substrates of CYP3A4, two studies were designed to establish the potential risk for drug-drug interaction with three different CYP3A4 substrates: midazolam, erythromycin, and dexamethasone.

METHODS

Both trials were three-period crossover studies performed in healthy subjects. In the first study, 20 subjects received netupitant and either midazolam or erythromycin. In the second study, 25 subjects received netupitant and dexamethasone. Serial blood samples were collected over the course of the two studies and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for all analytes.

RESULTS

Netupitant, by inhibiting the CYP3A4, increased the C max and AUCinf of midazolam by 40 and 144 %, respectively, and the C max and AUCinf of erythromycin by 30 %. Netupitant was shown to increase the exposure to dexamethasone in a dose-dependent manner with the mean increase in AUC and C max by 72 and 11 %, respectively, on day 1 and by 138 and 75 %, respectively, on day 4 when co-administered with 300 mg of netupitant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of these studies suggest that netupitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4 and therefore, co-administration with drugs that are substrates of CYP3A4 may require dose adjustments. Treatments were well tolerated in both studies.

Safety of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists

INTRODUCTION

The substance P (SP)/neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor system is involved in many pathological processes. NK-1 receptor antagonists have many promising therapeutic indications. However, the only NK-1 receptor antagonist used in clinical practice is the drug aprepitant and its intravenously administered prodrug, fosaprepitant. In general, NK-1 receptor antagonists are safe and well tolerated.

AREAS COVERED

A search was carried out in Medline using the following terms: adverse events, aprepitant, casopitant, clinical trials, CP-122,721, ezlopitant, fosaprepitant, NK-1 receptor antagonists, randomized, safety, side effects, tolerability and vofopitant.

EXPERT OPINION

Most clinical trials have focused on the antiemetic action of aprepitant in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. However, the efficacy and safety of aprepitant have not been fully tested in other diseases in which the SP/NK-1 receptor system is involved (e.g., cancer, HIV, alcoholism); thus, clinical trials are required. The use of NK-1 receptor antagonists in oncology therapy is quite promising, but to date pharmacological therapy has not exploited the many possible therapies offered by such antagonists.

Effect of casopitant, a novel NK-1 antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics of dolasetron and granisetron

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize the impact of casopitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist under investigation for the prevention of postoperative and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, on the pharmacokinetics of the commonly prescribed 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 3 receptor antagonists, dolasetron or granisetron.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a phase I, open-label, two-part, two-period, single-sequence study, two cohorts of healthy subjects received either oral dolasetron (100 mg once daily for 3 days) or oral granisetron (2 mg once daily for 3 days) alone (period 1) and combined with oral casopitant, 150 mg day 1, 50 mg days 2 and 3 (period 2). Pharmacokinetics of hydrodolasetron and granisetron were assessed on days 1 and 3 of each period. Log-transformed area under the curve (AUC) and Cmax were statistically analyzed by performing an analysis of variance. Eighteen subjects were enrolled in the dolasetron cohort; nine subjects were CYP2D6 extensive metabolizers (EMs) and nine subjects were CYP2D6 poor metabolizers. Nineteen subjects were enrolled in the granisetron cohort.

RESULTS

The largest changes in hydrodolasetron exposure after coadministration with casopitant were seen in CYP2D6 EMs, with a 24% increase in hydrodolasetron AUC on day 1 and 30% increase in Cmax on days 1 and 3. All other changes in hydrodolasetron exposure were <20%, and granisetron exposure was not altered to any relevant extent (<11%).

CONCLUSION

None of the changes observed are considered clinically meaningful, and coadministration of casopitant with dolasetron or granisetron was well tolerated.

Disposition and metabolism of radiolabeled casopitant in humans

Casopitant [1-piperidinecarboxamide,4-(4-acetyl-1-piperazinyl)-N-((1R)-1-(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)-ethyl)-2-(4-fluoro-2-methylphenyl)-N-methyl-(2R,4S)-(GW679769)] is a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist being developed for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting. The disposition of [(14)C]casopitant was determined in a single-sequence study in six healthy male subjects after single-dose 90-mg i.v. and 150-mg oral administration. Blood, urine, and feces were collected at frequent intervals after dosing. Plasma, urine, and fecal samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry coupled with off-line radiodetection for metabolite profiling. Moreover, urine was also analyzed with (1)H-NMR to further characterize metabolites. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters for casopitant, a major metabolite (M13, coded as GSK525060), and total radioactivity were determined. Absorption of radioactivity after oral administration appeared to be nearly complete; elimination was principally via the feces both after oral and intravenous administration. Urinary elimination accounted for only <8% of total radioactivity. The main circulating metabolites were a hydroxylated derivative, M13 (coded as GSK525060), and, after oral administration, a deacetylated and oxidized metabolite, M12 (coded as GSK631832). In addition, many other metabolites were identified in plasma and excreta: the principal route of metabolism included multiple oxidations, loss of the N-acetyl group, modifications or loss of the piperazine group, and cleavage of the molecule. Casopitant was extensively metabolized, and only negligible amounts were excreted as unchanged compound. Some phase II metabolites were also observed, particularly in urine.

Efficacy and safety of casopitant mesylate, a neurokinin 1 (NK1)-receptor antagonist, in prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a clinical management problem after treatment with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We therefore designed and carried out a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess whether a three-drug antiemetic regimen of ondansetron, dexamethasone, and the neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate was able to prevent acute and delayed CINV events in patients naive to chemotherapy with a malignant solid tumour who were scheduled to receive cisplatin-based HEC regimens.

METHODS

The study was done between Nov 6, 2006, and Oct 9, 2007, in 77 participating centres in 22 countries. All 810 patients enrolled in the trial received dexamethasone and ondansetron. Patients were randomly assigned to also receive placebo (n=269), single oral dose of casopitant mesylate (150 mg oral, n=271), or 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate (90 mg intravenous on day 1 plus 50 mg oral on days 2 and 3, n=270). Randomisation was done using a central telephone system at the study level, because some centres were expected to recruit only a few patients during the study period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no vomiting, retching, or use of rescue medications) in the first 120 h after receiving HEC. Efficacy analysis was done on the modified intention-to-treat population (n=800), which included all patients who received placebo or study drug and HEC (n=265 control, n=266 single-dose oral casopitant mesylate, n=269 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate). Safety was reported in 802 patients who received either placebo or study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00431236.

FINDINGS

Significantly more patients in each casopitant group achieved complete response in cycle 1 of HEC treatment than did those in the control group (175 [66%] patients in the control group, 228 [86%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group [p<0.0001 vs control], and 214 [80%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group (p=0.0004 vs control]). This improvement was sustained over multiple cycles of HEC. Adverse events occurred in 205 (77%) patients in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group and 203 (75%) patients in the 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate group compared with 194 (73%) of patients in the control group. The most common serious adverse events were neutropenia (n=5 [3%] in the control group, n=3 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=11 [4%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), febrile neutropenia (n=1 [<1%] in the control group, n=4 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=6 [2%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), and dehydration (n=4 [2%] in the control group, n=2 [<1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=1 [<1%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group).

INTERPRETATION

A three-drug regimen including a single oral dose or 3-day intravenous plus oral regimen of casopitant mesylate plus dexamethasone and ondansetron significantly reduced CINV events in patients receiving HEC compared with a two-drug regimen of dexamethasone and ondansetron.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

Casopitant: a novel NK(1)-receptor antagonist in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most feared and distressing symptoms experienced by patients with cancer. The knowledge of the pathogenesis and neuropharmacology of CINV has expanded enormously over the last decades, the most significant discoveries being the role of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)(3)- and neurokinin (NK)(1) receptors in the emetic reflex arch. This has led to the development of two new classes of antiemetics acting as highly selective antagonists at one of these receptors. These drugs have had a huge impact in the protection from chemotherapy-induced vomiting, whereas the effect on nausea seems to be limited. The first NK(1) receptor antagonist, aprepitant, became clinically available in 2003, and casopitant, the second in this class of antiemetics, has now completed phase III trials. This review delineates the properties and clinical use of casopitant in the prevention of CINV.