Palonosetron plus 3-day aprepitant and dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70-80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact. Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT₃ RA + NK₁ RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care. Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.

Evaluation of a Neurokinin-1 Antagonist in Preventing Multiple-day Cisplatin-induced Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

To perform a prospective non-randomized comparison of the effectiveness and safety of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment with the standard multiple-day cisplatin regimen for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods

Patients being administered 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m²/d) who had never received aprepitant were given either the standard regimen (tropisetron and dexamethasone) or the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus tropisetron and dexamethasone). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP, 0–120 h) between the combined aprepitant triple regimen group and the standard group. Secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP, 0–24 h) and delay phase (DP, 25–120 h) between the two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan–Meier curves. The impact of CINV on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded.

Results

A CR was achieved by 80.0% in the aprepitant group compared with 56.0% in the standard group during the OP (P =0.018)as well as during the DP. However, during the AP, the aprepitant and standard therapy groups achieved identical CR rates (98.0%, P =1.000). A longer time to first emesis was documented for the aprepitant group than for the standard group. No effect of CINV on quality of life as assessed by FLIE was reported by 44.7% of aprepitant therapy patients and 24.0% of standard therapy patients (P=0.035). The main aprepitant-related AEs were fatigue and constipation, but there was no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion

Combined aprepitant therapy is recommended for the prevention of multiple-day CINV because of its improved CINV control rate and safety.

Rikkunshito for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Lung Cancer Patients: Results from 2 Prospective, Randomized Phase 2 Trials

The herbal medicine rikkunshito has the potential to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by stimulating ghrelin secretion. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rikkunshito in preventing CINV for patients with lung cancer. Two separate prospective, randomized, phase II parallel design studies were conducted in patients with lung cancer. Fifty-eight and sixty-two patients scheduled to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), respectively, were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard antiemetic therapy in accordance with international guidelines (S group) or standard antiemetic therapy plus oral rikkunshito (R group). The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR)-that is, no emesis and rescue medication in the first 120 h post-chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included CR in the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases and safety. Fifty-seven patients (S group, 28; R group, 29) receiving HEC and sixty-two patients (S group, 30; R group, 32) receiving MEC with comparable characteristics were evaluated. The CR rates were similar across the S and R groups for the HEC study in the overall (67.9% vs. 62.1%), acute (96.4% vs. 89.6%), and delayed (67.9% vs. 62.1%) phases, respectively, and for the MEC study in the overall (83.3% vs. 84.4%), acute (100% vs. 100%), and delayed (83.3% vs. 84.4%) phases, respectively. No severe adverse events were observed. Although rikkunshito was well tolerated, it did not demonstrate an additional preventative effect against CINV in lung cancer patients receiving HEC or MEC. Clinical Trial Registry Information: This study is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trial Registry, identification numbers UMIN 000014239 and UMIN 000014240.

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among published guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication [complete response (CR)] in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication [complete control (CC)].

RESULTS

Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100, 91.9 and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100, 84.4 and 84.4%, respectively. The most common adverse event was mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen.

APF530 (granisetron injection extended-release) in a three-drug regimen for delayed CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Aim: APF530, extended-release granisetron, provides sustained release for ≥5 days for acute- and delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We compared efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron for delayed CINV after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), following a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen. Methods: HEC patients received APF530 500 mg subcutaneously or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously, with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant. Primary end point was delayed-phase complete response (no emesis or rescue medication). Results: A higher percentage of APF530 versus ondansetron patients had delayed-phase complete response (p = 0.014). APF530 was generally well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was similar across arms, mostly mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions. Conclusion: APF530 versus the standard three-drug regimen provided superior control of delayed-phase CINV following HEC. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02106494.

Prevention of cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced delayed nausea and vomiting using triple antiemetic regimens: a mixed treatment comparison

A variety of triple antiemetic regimens are being used to prevent cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced delayed emesis and nausea in cancer patients. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of the different regimens. Electronic searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases were performed to identify randomized controlled trials, and data were analyzed using JAGS, Stata 14.0 and R project. The primary outcome was a complete response (CR). The secondary outcomes were no vomiting (NV) and no nausea (NN). Among the 398 studies identified, 10 were eligible and included, providing data on nine regimens. In the CR analysis, the absolute rank of netupitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone (NEPA) was 0.8579. In the NV and NN analyses, NEPA's absolute ranks were 0.8631 and 0.7902, respectively. The compliance of patients treated with rolapitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (RGD) was the best due to a low incidence of adverse events, and good compliance was also observed with NEPA. It was difficult to achieve good compliance with aprepitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (AGD). Overall, NEPA was the best regimen, and aprepitant + ondansetron + dexamethasone (AOD) is also worthy of recommendation because of its low cost and good effect. For patients with severe constipation, hiccups, asthenia and/or delayed nausea, RGD is worthy of consideration.

Ramosetron Versus Ondansetron in Combination With Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Trial, KCSG PC10-21

BACKGROUND

A combination of serotonin receptor (5-hydroxytryptamine receptor type 3) antagonists, NK-1 receptor antagonist, and steroid improves the complete response (CR) of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. Ramosetron's efficacy in this triple combination regimen has not been investigated. This prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, phase III study compares a combination of ramosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (RAD) with a combination of ondansetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (OAD) to prove the noninferiority of RAD in controlling highly emetogenic CINV.

METHODS

Aprepitant and dexamethasone were orally administered for both arms. Ramosetron and ondansetron were intravenously given to the RAD and OAD groups. The primary endpoint was no vomiting and retching and no need for rescue medication during the acute period (day 1); the noninferiority margin was -15%.

RESULTS

A total of 299 modified intention-to-treat cancer patients who received RAD (144 patients) and OAD (155 patients) were eligible for the efficacy analysis. The CR rates of RAD versus OAD were 97.2% versus 93.6% during the acute period, 77.8% versus 73.6% during the delayed period (day 2-5), and 77.1% versus 71.6% during the overall period. Furthermore, RAD was noninferior to OAD in subgroups stratified by age, cancer type, chemotherapeutic agents, and schedule. Repeated measures analysis showed that in male patients, RAD was superior to OAD. Profiles of adverse events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RAD is as effective and tolerable as OAD for CINV prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Ramosetron could be considered one of the best partners for aprepitant.

Phase II randomized, controlled trial of 1 day versus 3 days of dexamethasone combined with palonosetron and aprepitant to prevent nausea and vomiting in Japanese breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone, plus a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist are recommended for controlling the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Several days of dexamethasone are effective for CINV; however, dexamethasone also has side effects. The purpose of this trial was to investigate whether the use of a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist could allow a reduced dose of dexamethasone for breast cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Eighty breast cancer patients who received an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination regimen were enrolled. The patients were randomized to arm A (dexamethasone days 1-3) and arm B (dexamethasone day 1). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). The secondary endpoints were the CR during the delayed phase (days 2-5), complete control (CC) (no emetic episodes, no rescue medication, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase, and the safety of this antiemetic therapy.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the rates of CR and CC between arm A and B as follows: CR overall phase--arm A: 82.9%, 90% confidence interval [CI] 71.3-90.5% vs arm B: 82.1%, 90% CI 70.0-90.0%; p = 1.00; CR delayed phase--arm A: 87.8%, 90% CI 77.0-93.9% vs arm B: 94.9%, 90% CI 85.6-98.3%; p = 0.43; CC overall phase--arm A: 48.8%, 90% CI 36.4-61.3% vs arm B: 61.5%, 90% CI 48.4-73.2%; p = 0.27. There were very few adverse events and no severe adverse events associated with this antiemetic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the antiemetic effect provided by dexamethasone administered for 3 days can be obtained by dexamethasone administered for 1 day.

Reviewing current and emerging antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

This review provides background information on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) classification and pathophysiology and reviews various antiemetic agents for CINV prophylaxis, including corticosteroids, serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RAs), and olanzapine. Other less commonly used agents are briefly discussed. Practical considerations are reviewed as well, including emetogenicity of chemotherapeutic regimens, patient-specific risk factors for CINV, principles of CINV management, health economics outcome research, and quality of life. Available data on the newly FDA-approved antiemetic combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is also reviewed. Prevention of CINV is an important goal in managing patients with cancer and is especially difficult with respect to nausea and delayed CINV. Corticosteroids are a mainstay of CINV prophylaxis and are usually given in combination with other therapies. The 5-HT3 RA palonosetron has shown increased efficacy over other agents in the same class for prevention of delayed emesis with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NK1 RAs improve emesis prevention in combination with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone. Olanzapine has shown efficacy for CINV prophylaxis and the treatment of breakthrough CINV. The new combination therapy, NEPA, has been shown to be efficacious for the prevention of acute, delayed, and overall CINV. Risk factors that have been identified for CINV include gender, age, and alcohol intake. It is important to assess the emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens as well as the potential impact of patient risk factors in order to provide adequate prophylaxis. Acute and delayed CINV are severe, burdensome side effects of chemotherapy; however, new data on prevention and the discovery of new agents can further improve CINV control.

Comparative evaluation of triplet antiemetic schedule versus doublet antiemetic schedule in chemotherapy-induced emesis in head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

To compare the antiemetic combination of palonosetron, dexamethasone, and aprepitant (PDA) with antiemetic combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone (OD) in head and neck cancer patients receiving docetaxel, carboplatin, and 5-FU based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Sixty previously untreated patients were randomly divided into two groups of thirty patients each. The PDA group received a combination of palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously (IV), dexamethasone 12 mg IV, and capsule aprepitant per oral. OD group received ondansetron 16 mg IV, and dexamethasone 12 mg IV for emesis control. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of two antiemetic schedules for preventing acute and delayed CINV (chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR).

RESULTS

All the patients tolerated both schedules well. The antiemetic response for acute emesis (first 24 hours) in PDA versus OD group was: CR was 86.7 versus 60%. For delayed emesis (from day 2-5) in PDA versus OD group CR was 83.3 versus 53.3%. The intensity of acute nausea (first 24 hours) in PDA versus OD group was: no nausea-70 versus 46.6%. The intensity of delayed nausea (from day 2-5) in PDA versus OD was: no nausea-76.6 versus 43.3%. The CR to both acute and delayed emesis (no vomiting from day 1-5) in PDA versus OD group was 83.3 versus 53.3% (p < 0.05, significant). The CR to nausea (no nausea from day 1-5) in PDA versus OD group was 70 versus 43.3% (p < 0.05, significant).

CONCLUSION

Although both the schedules were tolerated well, the PDA schedule (palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone) was significantly better than the OD schedule (ondansetron and dexamethasone) in controlling cancer CINV in the acute as well as delayed phases.

Palonosetron with aprepitant plus dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during gemcitabine/cisplatin in urothelial cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the appearance of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and to compare the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination of palonosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone with that of our old regimen using first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists and dexamethasone during gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial cancer.

METHODS

We carried out a multi-institutional study including 122 patients who received gemcitabine and cisplatin for advanced urothelial cancer between February 2005 and January 2012. Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting events were identified through records of nausea and vomiting, additional infusion, rescue medications, and/or records of food intake.

RESULTS

First-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists (ondansetron or granisetron) plus dexamethasone were used for 75 patients (cohort 1), and palonosetron with dexamethasone plus aprepitant for 47 patients (cohort 2). Patients in cohort 2 had significantly higher complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) rates than those in cohort 1 during the overall phase in the first cycle (85.7% vs 65.3%, P = 0.012), and all cycles (78.7% vs 50.7%, P = 0.0019) of gemcitabine and cisplatin. Patients in cohort 2 were more likely to achieve more favorable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control; that is, a lower grade of nausea, vomiting or anorexia, lower incidence of rescue therapy required, and shorter time to become chemotherapy-induced nausea- and vomiting-free than patients in cohort 1.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results show that palonosetron in combination with aprepitant and dexamethasone is more effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in urothelial cancer patients treated with gemcitabine and cisplatin than first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone.

Update on the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - focus on palonosetron

Purpose

Nausea and vomiting are major adverse effects of chemotherapy and can greatly impact patients’ quality of life. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevalence is high, treatment remains difficult. Palonosetron is a 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) approved for treatment of CINV. The purpose of this review is to discuss existing and emerging therapeutic options, and examine studies focusing on palonosetron with regards to efficacy, pharmacology, tolerability, safety, and patient-derived outcomes.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify relevant studies using palonosetron alone or in combination with other antiemetics. Studies were extracted if they included complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no nausea, no vomiting, and no rescue medications as an endpoint. Studies were also included if safety endpoints were examined.

Results

Palonosetron alone has been shown to improve CR and CC rates for patients receiving low, moderate, or high emetogenic chemotherapy. Rates were further improved with the addition of dexamethasone, a corticosteroid. Furthermore, the addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, such as netupitant markedly improved efficacy profiles compared to palonosetron alone. Aprepitant is an antiemetic that has exhibited positive results in combination with palonosetron. Recently, a new drug consisting of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) has demonstrated significantly more efficacious prevention of CINV. Regardless of the combination, palonosetron has been well tolerated. The most common adverse events were constipation, headache, fatigue, and dizziness, with the majority of patients describing them as only mild or moderate.

Conclusion

Palonosetron, alone or with other antiemetics, has improved CINV treatment due to its ability to significantly reduce delayed phases of CINV, compared to similar 5-HT₃RAs. Palonosetron is both more effective than first generation 5-HT₃RAs and safer, as it results in a smaller prolongation of the QTc interval, compared to other 5-HT₃RAs.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Newly developed neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonists have been recently tried in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore whether NK-1R antagonists were effective in preventing PONV.The PRISMA statement guidelines were followed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that tested the preventive effects of NK-1R antagonists on PONV were identified by searching EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases followed by screening. Data extraction was performed using a predefined form and trial quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PONV. Meta-analysis was performed for studies using similar interventions. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the anti-vomiting effects of placebo, ondansetron, and aprepitant at different doses.Fourteen RCTs were included. Meta-analysis found that 80 mg of aprepitant could reduce the incidences of nausea (3 RCTs with 224 patients, pooled risk ratio (RR) = 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.47 to 0.75), and vomiting (3 RCTs with 224 patients, pooled RR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.37) compared with placebo. Neither 40 mg (3 RCTs with 1171 patients, RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.60) nor 125 mg (2 RCTs with 1058 patients, RR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.78) of aprepitant showed superiority over 4 mg of ondansetron in preventing postoperative vomiting. NMA did not find a dose-dependent effect of aprepitant on preventing postoperative vomiting.Limited data suggested that NK-1R antagonists, especially aprepitant were effective in preventing PONV compared with placebo. More large-sampled high-quality RCTs are needed.

Addressing the value of novel therapies in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troubling side effect of cancer treatment and is often poorly controlled. As a consequence, CINV is associated with substantially increased costs of care and significant interference with patients' lives. Inadequate control over CINV results from factors that include failure to provide guideline-adherent prophylactic medication and limitations in available therapies. Newer serotonin receptor antagonists, such as palonosetron, and addition of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists to treatment have significantly decreased both acute and delayed CINV. A fixed-dose combination of palonosetron and a new NK-1 receptor, netupitant, is significantly superior to palonosetron alone and has small, but consistent, numerical advantages over aprepitant plus palonosetron for prevention of CINV. The combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist plus an NK-1 receptor antagonist has been shown to be cost-effective for prevention of CINV and the availability of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron may enhance this benefit.

Analysis of aprepitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Aim: This study aimed to determine how aprepitant affects the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on daily activities during highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Patients & methods: Patients received aprepitant plus standard antiemetic therapy (ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or standard antiemetic therapy alone. Data were analyzed from pooled data of two Phase III randomized, double-blind HEC trials and one MEC trial. Patients completed the Functional Living Index–Emesis questionnaire. Results: A significantly greater percentage of patients receiving aprepitant reported no or minimal CINV impact on daily life (overall total Functional Living Index–Emesis score >6) compared with those receiving standard therapy alone (HEC: 74.4 vs 63.9%, respectively; p < 0.01; MEC: 73.4 vs 66.3%; p < 0.05). In HEC, favorable responses to aprepitant treatment persisted in nausea (70.2 vs 60.9%) and vomiting domains (84.6 vs 68.7%; both p < 0.01). Similar results were seen in MEC. Conclusion: Addition of aprepitant reduced CINV impact on daily life compared with standard antiemetic therapy.

A Phase II Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Ramosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone in Preventing Cisplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Chemotherapy-Naïve Cancer Patients

Purpose

Combination therapy with aprepitant, serotonin receptor antagonist, and steroids improves the complete response rate of both acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, it is not known whether ramosetron is suitable for administration in combination with aprepitant. Therefore, we conducted a multicenter, open-label, prospective, phase II study in order to assess the efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with ramosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (RAD) for prevention of cisplatin-based CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid cancers.

Materials and Methods

Forty-one patients with various solid cancers (31 male and 10 female; median age, 59 years) who received treatment with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (median cisplatin dose, 70 mg/m²; range 50 to 75 mg/m²) were enrolled in this study. Oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1; 80 mg on days 2 and 3), intravenous ramosetron (0.6 mg on day 1), and oral dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1; 8 mg on days 2-4) were administered for prevention of CINV.

Results

The complete response (no emesisand retching and no rescue medication) rate was 94.9% in the acute period (24 hours post-chemotherapy), 92.3% in the delayed period (24-120 hours post-chemotherapy), and 92.3% in the overall period (0-120 hours). The absolute complete response (complete response plus no nausea) rate was 74.4% in the acute period, 51.3% in the delayed period, and 46.2% in the overall period. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities related to these antiemetic combinations.

Conclusion

RAD regimen is a safe and effective antiemetic treatment for prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

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.

The efficacy of triplet antiemetic therapy with 0.75 mg of palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are some of the most problematic symptoms for cancer patients. Triplet therapy consisting of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and dexamethasone is a guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The efficacy and safety of triplet therapy using a 0.75-mg dose of palonosetron have not yet been investigated. We performed a prospective phase II study using triplet antiemetic therapy with 0.75 mg of palonosetron.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve lung cancer patients scheduled to receive HEC were enrolled. The eligible patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy consisting of the intravenous administration of 0.75 mg of palonosetron, and 9.9 mg of dexamethasone and the oral administration of 125 mg of aprepitant on day 1, followed by the oral administration of 80 mg of aprepitant on days 2-3 and the oral administration of 8 mg of dexamethasone on days 2-4. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (the CR rate; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120 h).

RESULTS

The efficacy analysis was performed in 63 patients. The CR rates during the overall, acute and delayed phases were 81.0, 96.8, and 81.0%, respectively. The no nausea and no significant nausea rate during the overall phase were 54.0 and 66.7%, respectively. The most common adverse event was grade 1 or 2 constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Triplet antiemetic therapy using a 0.75-mg dose of palonosetron shows a promising antiemetic effect in preventing CINV in lung cancer patients receiving HEC.

An update on palonosetron hydrochloride for the treatment of radio/chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are well recognized in different clinical situations, suggesting that no single mechanism is likely to be responsible for their production. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a negative impact on quality of life and this may lead to a refusal of curative therapy or to a decline in palliative benefits offered by cytotoxic treatment. Palonosetron is a new agent in the class of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), and differs from the other agents by its higher receptor-binding affinity and longer half-life. These pharmacological properties have resulted in improved antiemetic activity in clinical trials, particularly in the treatment of delayed CINV following moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

AREA COVERED

A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library and meeting materials from ASCO and MASCC were all searched.

EXPERT OPINION

Palonosetron was the only serotonin receptor antagonist approved for prevention of delayed CINV caused by MEC and its use was incorporated in guideline recommendations. To date, several treatment settings such as multiple day chemotherapy require further studies to improve emesis related to therapy.

The effect of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery with intravenous patient controlled analgesia using fentanyl: aprepitant plus ramosetron vs ramosetron alone

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of an aprepitant, neurokinin-1(NK1) receptor antagonist, for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for up to 24 hours in patients regarded as high risk undergoing gynecological surgery with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) using fentanyl.

METHODS

In this randomized, open label, case-control study 84 gynecological surgical patients receiving a standardized general anesthesia were investigated. Patients were randomly allocated to receive aprepitant 80 mg P.O. approximately 2-3 hours before operation (aprepitant group) or none (control group). All patients received ramosetron 0.3 mg IV after induction of anesthesia. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, and use of rescue antiemetics were evaluated for up to 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in the aprepitant group (50.0%) compared to the control group (80.9%) during the first 24 hours following surgery. The incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the aprepitant group (4.7%) compared to the control group (42.8%) during the first 24 hours following surgery. In addition, the severity of nausea was less among those in the aprepitant group compared with the control group over a period of 24 hours post-surgery (P < 0.05). Use of rescue antiemetics was lower in the aprepitant group than in the control group during 24 hours postoperatively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients regarded as high risk undergoing gynecological surgery with IV PCA using fentanyl, the aprepitant plus ramosetron ware more effective than ramosetron alone to decrease the incidence of PONV, use of rescue antiemetics and nausea severity for up to 24 hours postoperatively.

Combination of aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in lung cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy

Introduction:  With repeated courses of chemotherapy, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) becomes progressively more difficult to control. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone could be sustained for up to six cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) (cisplatin ≥ 50 mg/m(2) ). Methods:  Chemotherapy-naive patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC, were treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg/i.v., dexamethasone 20 mg/i.v. and aprepitant 125 mg/p.o. 1 h before chemotherapy. Aprepitant 80 mg/p.o. and dexamethasone 4 mg/p.o. were administered on days 2-3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR, no vomiting and no use of rescue medication), over 5 days following HEC in up to six cycles. Secondary endpoints were emesis-free and nausea-free rates. Safety was also evaluated. Results:  One hundred and fifty six lung cancer patients were included in the study; the median age was 64 years and 76.9% were men. The minimum cisplatin dosage was 75 mg/m(2) , and in most patients was combined with another drug (87.4%). CR ranged from 74.4% (first cycle) to 82% (sixth cycle). More than 90% and 60% of patients were emesis-free and nausea-free during all chemotherapy cycles. The most commonly reported side effects were constipation and headache. Conclusions:  The triple combination of aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone enhanced not only the antiemetic protection during the first cycle, but its efficacy was also sustained for up to six cycles of cisplatin-based HEC in lung cancer patients.

Inhibition of substance P-mediated responses in NG108-15 cells by netupitant and palonosetron exhibit synergistic effects

Netupitant is a potent and selective NK(1) receptor antagonist under development in combination with a fixed dose of palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. Palonosetron is a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist approved for both the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Accumulating evidence suggests that substance P (SP), a ligand acting largely on tachykinin (NK(1)) receptors, is the dominant mediator of delayed emesis. Interestingly, palonosetron does not bind to the NK(1) receptor so that the mechanism behind palonosetron's unique efficacy against delayed emesis is not clear. Palonosetron exhibits a distinct ability among 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists to inhibit crosstalk between NK(1) and 5-HT(3) receptor signaling pathways. The objective of the current work was to determine if palonosetron's ability to inhibit receptor signaling crosstalk would influence netupitant's inhibition of the SP-mediated response when the two drugs are dosed together. We first studied the inhibition of SP-induced Ca(2+) mobilization in NG108-15 cells by palonosetron, ondansetron and granisetron. Unexpectedly, in the absence of serotonin, palonosetron inhibited the SP-mediated dose response 15-fold; ondansetron and granisetron had no effect. Netupitant also dose-dependently inhibited the SP response as expected from an NK1 receptor antagonist. Importantly, when both palonosetron and netupitant were present, they exhibited an enhanced inhibition of the SP response compared to either of the two antagonists alone. The results further confirm palonosetron's unique pharmacology among 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists and suggest that it can enhance the prevention of delayed emesis provided by NK(1) receptor antagonists.

Medroxyprogesterone acetate for refractory emesis in cisplatin-treated patients

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing side effects in systemic chemotherapies. Recently, several effective agents have been developed to prevent CINV, and CINV can be prevented in 70%-80% of patients receiving chemotherapies. Conversely, 20%-30% of patients still suffer from CINV despite recommended optimal antiemetic preventions. Refractory emesis is defined as emesis occuring despite the use of antiemetic prophylaxis during the previous cycle of chemotherapy. Salvage treatments for refractory emesis are necessary, but there are few effective treatments at present. We consider medroxyprogesterone acetate to be a potentially promising agent for refractory emesis. We encountered three cases in which medroxyprogesterone acetate was extremely effective for refractory emesis induced by cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.

Rikkunshito, a traditional Japanese medicine, suppresses cisplatin-induced anorexia in humans

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of Rikkunshito on ghrelin secretion and on cisplatin-induced anorexia in humans.

METHODS

The study was performed as a crossover design, and ten unresectable or relapsed gastric cancer patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group A (n = 5) was started on Rikkunshito (2.5 g three times daily, orally) from the first course of chemotherapy and followed by a second course without Rikkunshito. A treatment with reversed order was performed for Group B (n = 5). All patients received combined chemotherapy with S-1 plus cisplatin. The primary endpoint was the amount of oral intake, and the categories of scales of anorexia, nausea, and vomiting; secondary endpoints included the plasma concentration of acylated ghrelin.

RESULTS

In the Rikkunshito-on period, no decrease of the plasma concentration of acylated ghrelin induced by cisplatin was observed. The average oral intake in the Rikkunshito-on period was significantly larger than that in the Rikkunshito-off period, and the grade of anorexia was significantly lower in the Rikkunshito-on period than in the Rikkunshito-off period.

CONCLUSION

Rikkunshito appeared to prevent anorexia induced by cisplatin, resulting in effective prophylactic administration of chemotherapy with cisplatin, and patients could continue their treatments on schedule.