Study of rolapitant, a novel, long-acting, NK-1 receptor antagonist, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)

Randomized, Phase III Trial of Mixed Formulation of Fosrolapitant and Palonosetron (HR20013) in Preventing Cisplatin-Based Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: PROFIT

PURPOSE

Mixed formulation of fosrolapitant and palonosetron (PALO), HR20013, is a novel fixed-dose intravenous antiemetic combination that could simultaneously antagonize neurokinin-1 and 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptors. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HR20013 plus dexamethasone (DEX) versus fosaprepitant (FAPR) plus PALO + DEX for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

This is a noninferiority study. Chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive HR20013 (day 1) or FAPR + PALO (day 1) before each cycle of cisplatin-based HEC (two cycles in total), together with oral DEX (day 1-4). The primary end point was overall (0-120 hours) complete response (CR; no vomiting/no rescue therapy) rate in cycle 1. The key secondary end point was CR rate at the beyond delayed phase (120-168 hours) in cycle 1.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-three patients were enrolled to receive HR20013 + DEX and 377 to FAPR + PALO + DEX. The overall CR rate in cycle 1 was 77.7% for HR20013 + DEX and 78.2% for FAPR + PALO + DEX (difference = -0.9% [95% CI, -6.7 to 5.0]; one-sided P < .01), demonstrating that HR20013 + DEX was noninferior to FAPR + PALO + DEX. The superiority of HR20013 + DEX over FAPR + PALO + DEX in CR rate at the beyond delayed phase in cycle 1 was not met (90.3% v 86.5%; two-sided P = .11). In cycle 2, HR20013 + DEX showed greater proportions of patients reporting no impact on daily life at the delayed (24-120 hours) and beyond delayed phases compared with FAPR + PALO + DEX. The incidences of treatment-related adverse events were 35.7% during cycle 1 and 42.1% during entire study for HR20013 + DEX, versus 38.2% and 44.0% for FAPR + PALO + DEX.

CONCLUSION

HR20013 + DEX was noninferior to FAPR + PALO + DEX for preventing HEC-CINV and well tolerated, with the potential to reduce the impact of CINV on daily life.

Portuguese consensus on the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatments

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) strongly affect the quality of life of patients with cancer. Inadequate antiemetic control leads to the decline of patients' quality of life, increases rescue interventions, and may even compromise adherence to cancer treatment. Although there are international recommendations for controlling CINV and RINV, these recommendations focus mainly on pharmacological management, with scarce information on additional measures that patients may adopt. Moreover, the prophylaxis and management of CINV/RINV are not always applied. Thus, we identified the need to systematize the strategies for preventing and managing CINV/RINV and the associated risk factors to implement and promote effective prophylactic antiemetic regimens therapy in patients with cancer. This review sought to create a set of practical recommendations for managing and controlling CINV/RINV, according to the current international recommendations for antiemetic therapy and the main risk factors. Conclusively, we intended to produce a patient-centered guidance document for health care professionals focused on the awareness, monitoring, and treatment of CINV/RINV.

Efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative data remain insufficient, as many new regimes lack head-to-head comparisons. In this study, through an indirect comparison, we overcome this limit by providing the most up-to-date estimate of the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until June, 30th 2022. We included phase II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was the overall complete response (defined as the absence of vomiting and of the use of rescue drugs from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of vomiting and use of rescue medicine 0-24 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (24-120 hrs) response and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 53 RCTs enrolling 22 228 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 21 different groups. Overall, 3- or 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, 5HT3 antagonists, mirtazapine or olanzapine with or without NK antagonists, yielded the highest probability to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response. Regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist have the lowest probability of being the most effective regimen in terms of complete, acute, and delayed response.

CONCLUSION

In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens with olanzapine displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response. A 3-drug regimen with olanzapine represents a valid option in a limited resource context.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Unscheduled hydrations: redefining complete response in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting studies

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is nausea and/or vomiting occurring within 5 days of chemotherapy administration despite using guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetic agents. It is highly prevalent (30–40%), usually requiring immediate treatment or “rescue” medication. If breakthrough CINV occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend using an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, along with intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. Data supporting these guideline recommendations are limited. Importantly, costs associated with breakthrough CINV can be substantial (i.e., unscheduled hydrations). Two retrospective analyses evaluating guideline-adherent CINV prophylaxis suggest that the initial antiemetic selection may decrease breakthrough CINV. Here we review optimal CINV prophylactic strategies and introduce unscheduled hydration as a potential important surrogate for breakthrough CINV aligning with cost-effective cancer care.

Best Practice Approach to Successful Conversion of Fosaprepitant to Aprepitant IV in a Large Multisite Community Oncology Infusion Center: A Retrospective Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the impact on cost, time, resource use, and clinic workflow of converting the route of drug administration from a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion to aprepitant IV, and more specifically to IV push, within a multicenter community oncology practice.

Methods

This was a retrospective, multicenter time, motion, and resource/cost evaluation study. Conversion to aprepitant IV was determined by calculating number of doses of aprepitant IV versus fosaprepitant administered in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Operational advantages (i.e., supply costs, time saved) of switching from fosaprepitant IV infusion to aprepitant administered as a 2-min IV push were assessed.

Results

A total of 12,908 doses of aprepitant IV 130 mg were administered at 13 Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers clinics over an 18-month period. Conversion from fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV reached 90% after 9 months of aprepitant IV initiation. Supply costs per administration were reduced ($2.51 to $0.52) when aprepitant was prepared as an IV push versus an NK-1 RA infusion. The overall time savings per administration of aprepitant was reduced by 90% (from 36.5 to 3.5 min, 33 min saved) as an IV push rather than an infusion. Most of the time saved per administration (30 min) pertained to the infusion nurse, and 3 min was saved by the pharmacy technician.

Conclusion

Successful conversion to aprepitant, and specifically to a 2-min IV push, provides time, cost, and resource savings, improves operational efficiency, and avoids the negative impact of potential future IV fluid shortages.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a major impact on quality of life for patients receiving chemotherapy. Intravenous (IV) aprepitant is an approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) that has been effective and safe when administered as part of a guideline-recommended regimen in patients receiving chemotherapy. In addition to being approved as a 30-min infusion, aprepitant IV is the only NK-1 RA approved for administration as a 2-min injection. These factors contributed to Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers (RMCC), which is a physician-owned community oncology practice, evaluating the impact on cost, time, and resource use of converting from a 30-min infusion of fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV, and more specifically a 2-min injection. Within 9 months of implementing aprepitant IV at RMCC, the percent utilization compared to fosaprepitant reached over 90%, signifying a successful conversion within the practice. Furthermore, a 2-min injection of aprepitant IV resulted in several operational advantages compared to a 30-min infusion. When accounting for all 13 clinics within RMCC, total monthly time savings to the practice would be over 28,000 min, or approximately 60 workdays per month of saved time. This new workflow is more efficient and allows for pharmacy technicians to complete other necessary tasks in the pharmacy such as cleaning, organizing, managing inventory, drug ordering, and charge/documentation corrections. Time saved by the nurses could be used for enhanced patient care, thoroughly reviewing chemotherapy or other orders, and assisting other nurses.

Aprepitant Intravenous Emulsion Based on Ion Pairing/Phospholipid Complex for Improving Physical and Chemical Stability During Thermal Sterilization

An aprepitant (APT) cholesteryl hemisuccinate (CHEMS) ion pair complex emulsion (AIPE) with high lecithin content was prepared to improve sterilization stability through the film dispersion homogenization method; therefore, it could be a promising delivery system of APT. Medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) was selected as the oil phase to improve the solubility and stability of APT in oil phase. DSC, XRD, FT-IR, and ¹H-NMR spectroscopies confirmed that the APT-CHEMS ion pair (AIP) was formed between CHEMS and APT. The formation of AIP significantly increased the hydrophobicity of APT, allowing it to be completely embedded in the oil phase core to improve chemical stability and decrease hydrolysis of APT in the water phase. Also, CHEMS had a strong affinity with lecithin and could stabilize lipid membranes, forming a stronger and thicker interface membrane to increase the physical stability of AIPE. As a result, AIPE could withstand autoclaving at 120°C for 8 min without any change of particle size or content. Furthermore, AIPE with a potential of - 53.4 mV remained stable through spatial repulsion during sterilization. The encapsulation efficiency of AIPE was over 90% and the particle size was 106.8 ± 65.62 nm(0.286). Pharmacokinetic study in rats was comparable with that of CINVANTI which yielded a relative bioavailability of 114.31% indicating that the AIPE had similar pharmacokinetic processes in vivo with the analog of CINVANTI®. The AUC0-t of the AIPE was 4.31-fold that of the APT solution.

The safety of rolapitant for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a significant clinical issue that affects patients' quality of life as well as treatment decisions. Significant improvements in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have occurred in the past 15 years with the introduction of new antiemetic agents 5-HT3, receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and olanzapine. Oral (aprepitant, 2003; netupitant, 2014; rolapitant, 2015) neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists have been developed along with intravenous formulations (fosaprepitant, NEPA, rolapitant, HTX-019) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Areas covered: This review presents a description of the safety and efficacy of rolapitant along with a comparison to the other oral and intravenous formulations of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.Expert opinion: Oral rolapitant has been demonstrated in clinical trials to be safe and effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant has a longer half-life (180 h) than other commercially available NK-1 receptor antagonists and does not induce or inhibit CYP34A, unlike the other NK-1 receptor antagonists. Future studies may determine if these may be important clinical issues.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Rolapitant in Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Population pharmacokinetics of rolapitant and its active metabolite M19 were studied in 482 patients receiving this neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients received a single dose of rolapitant (range, 9-180 mg) before administration of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed via nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Rolapitant pharmacokinetics was best characterized by a 2-compartment model. Population typical values were estimated to be 0.962 L/h for apparent oral clearance and 214 L for central compartment volume of distribution. The intercompartment clearance and peripheral compartment volume of distribution was estimated to be 2.79 L/h and 164 L, respectively. Metabolite M19 pharmacokinetics was described by a 1-compartment model with an apparent metabolite clearance of 1.83 L/h. Intersubject variability was moderate for pharmacokinetics parameters. Weight positively correlated with central compartment volume of distribution and peripheral compartment volume of distribution but not with apparent oral clearance. No other demographic, clinical, or pathophysiologic covariates, including liver and renal function, influenced rolapitant pharmacokinetics. A slight positive trend was observed between rolapitant exposure and efficacy (ie, complete response defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase of CINV (>24-120 hours after chemotherapy). This further supports the 180-mg dose of rolapitant in CINV patients. In summary, this validated population pharmacokinetic model satisfactorily describes pharmacokinetics of rolapitant and M19 in patients with CINV. These results support the recommendation that no dose adjustment for patient variables investigated is necessary.

Fixed combination of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron) for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy: Efficacy data from 2 randomized, double-blind phase III studies

AIM

To assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles.

METHODS

Two randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1-4 in each study were evaluated.

RESULTS

In Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P < 0.05), no emesis (all P < 0.05), and NSN (delayed phase P < 0.05 cycles 1, 2, and 4) reported across 4 cycles. In Study 2, oral NEPA had numerically higher CR and NSN rates in the acute and delayed phases than aprepitant-palonosetron in MEC/HEC patients.

CONCLUSION

Oral NEPA was highly effective in preventing both acute and delayed CINV over multiple chemotherapy cycles of HEC, AC, and MEC regimens.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

Study 1, NCT01339260; Study 2, NCT01376297.

The latest consensus on antiemetics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review summarizes and discuss the most recent updated antiemetic consensus.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two new neurokinin (NK)1-receptor antagonists, netupitant and rolapitant, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency and incorporated in the latest versions of the MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines. Guidelines all recommend a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a NK1-receptor antagonist in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) with the addition of the multireceptor targeting agent, olanzapine, as an option in cisplatin or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. A combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a NK1-receptor antagonist is also recommended in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy, although based on a lower level of evidence. In spite of the development of new antiemetics, nausea has remained a significant adverse effect. Olanzapine is an effective antinausea agent, but sedation can be a problem. Therefore, the effect and tolerability of multitargeting, nonsedative agents like amisulpride, should be explored.

SUMMARY

Guidelines recommend a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK1-receptor antagonist in HEC and carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The addition of olanzapine can be useful in cisplatin-based and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in particular if the main problem is nausea.

An Open-Label, Randomized, Pivotal Bioequivalence Study of Oral Rolapitant

Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is approved in an oral formulation for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults. This pivotal open-label, randomized, single-dose, multicenter, parallel-group study assessed the bioequivalence of a single oral dose of 180 mg of rolapitant administered in tablet (2 × 90-mg tablets) or capsule (4 × 45-mg capsules) form in healthy male and female subjects. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected predose and at times up to 912 hours postdose. The rolapitant tablet was considered bioequivalent to the rolapitant capsule if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of the geometric means for rolapitant, observed maximum plasma concentration (C_max ), and area under the curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC_0-∞ ) were within the 0.80-1.25 range. The pharmacokinetic profiles of the capsule group (n = 43) and tablet group (n = 44) were similar. The geometric mean ratios of C_max and AUC_0-∞ were 0.99 (0.89-1.11) and 1.05 (0.92-1.19), respectively, establishing bioequivalence of the rolapitant tablet and capsule formulations. Both formulations were well tolerated, with a similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events in the 2 groups.

Rolapitant: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Oral rolapitant (Varubi™; Varuby^®), a long-acting neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonist (RA), is indicated in the USA and EU as part of an antiemetic regimen to prevent delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). In randomized, phase III trials, a single oral dose of rolapitant 180 mg was effective in preventing delayed CINV compared with placebo, when each was used in combination with a 5-HT₃ RA plus dexamethasone, in adults receiving their first course of HEC or MEC. The benefits of rolapitant were maintained over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. The tolerability profile of rolapitant is similar to that of placebo and consistent with that of other NK₁ RAs. However, rolapitant differs from other existing NK₁ RAs in that it does not interact with CYP3A4, thereby negating the need for dexamethasone dose adjustments and potentially making rolapitant a more suitable option for patients receiving CYP3A4 substrates. Thus, oral rolapitant is an effective and well tolerated NK₁ RA that expands the treatment options for preventing delayed CINV in adults receiving HEC or MEC.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions of Rolapitant With Cytochrome P450 3A Substrates in Healthy Subjects

Rolapitant (Varubi) is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Rolapitant is primarily metabolized by the cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) enzyme. Unlike other neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, rolapitant is neither an inhibitor nor an inducer of CYP3A4 in vitro. The objective of this analysis was to examine the pharmacokinetics of rolapitant in healthy subjects and assess drug-drug interactions between rolapitant and midazolam (a CYP3A substrate), ketoconazole (a CYP3A inhibitor), or rifampin (a CYP3A4 inducer). Three phase 1, open-label, drug-drug interaction studies were conducted to examine the pharmacokinetic interactions of orally administered rolapitant with midazolam, rolapitant with ketoconazole, and rolapitant with rifampin. The pharmacokinetic profiles of midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam metabolites were essentially unchanged when coadministered with rolapitant, indicating the lack of a clinically relevant inhibition or induction of CYP3A by rolapitant. Coadministration of ketoconazole with rolapitant had no effects on rolapitant maximum concentration and resulted in an approximately 20% increase in the area under the concentration-time curve of rolapitant, suggesting that strong CYP3A inhibitors have minimal inhibitory effects on rolapitant exposure. Repeated administrations of rifampin appeared to reduce rolapitant exposure, resulting in a 33% decrease in maximum concentration and 87% decrease in area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity. Coadministration of rolapitant did not affect the exposure of midazolam. Rifampin coadministration resulted in lower concentrations of rolapitant, and ketoconazole coadministration had no or minimal effects on rolapitant exposure. Rolapitant was safe and well tolerated when coadministered with ketoconazole, rifampin, or midazolam. No new safety signals were reported compared with previous studies of rolapitant.

Effectiveness of Antiemetic Regimens for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed.

HTX-019: polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may occur during the acute (0-24 h) or delayed (25-120 h) phase following chemotherapy administration. The addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic regimens containing a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone has resulted in improved CINV prophylaxis. Due to numerous adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions associated with fosaprepitant, a commonly used neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, there remains an unmet need for better-tolerated formulations. HTX-019, the US FDA-approved polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free aprepitant injectable emulsion, is bioequivalent to and better tolerated (fewer treatment-emergent adverse events) than fosaprepitant. HTX-019 represents a valuable alternative to fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis.

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

A Phase 1 Assessment of the QT Interval in Healthy Adults Following Exposure to Rolapitant, a Cancer Supportive Care Antiemetic

This 2-part study evaluated the QT/QTc prolongation potential and safety and pharmacokinetics of the antiemetic rolapitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist. Part 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled single-dose-escalation study assessing the safety of a single high dose of rolapitant. Part 2 was a randomized, placebo- and positive-controlled, double-blind parallel-group study including 4 treatment arms: rolapitant at the highest safe dose established in part 1, placebo, moxifloxacin 400 mg (positive control), and rolapitant at the presumed therapeutic dose (180 mg). Among 184 adults, rolapitant was absorbed following oral administration under fasting conditions, with a median T_max of 4 to 6 hours (range, 2-8 hours) and was safe at all doses up to 720 mg. No differences in mean change in QTcF were observed between placebo and rolapitant from baseline or at any point. At any point, the upper bound of the confidence interval for the mean difference between placebo and rolapitant was no greater than 4.4 milliseconds, and the mean difference between placebo and rolapitant was no greater than 1.7 milliseconds, suggesting an insignificant change in QTc with rolapitant. Rolapitant is safe and does not prolong the QT interval at doses up to 720 mg relative to placebo in healthy adults.

Effects of rolapitant administered orally on the pharmacokinetics of dextromethorphan (CYP2D6), tolbutamide (CYP2C9), omeprazole (CYP2C19), efavirenz (CYP2B6), and repaglinide (CYP2C8) in healthy subjects

Purpose

Rolapitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist indicated in combination with other antiemetic agents in adults for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We evaluated the effects of rolapitant oral on the pharmacokinetics of probe substrates for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 (dextromethorphan), 2C9 (tolbutamide), 2C19 (omeprazole), 2B6 (efavirenz), and 2C8 (repaglinide) in healthy subjects.

Methods

This open-label, multipart, randomized, phase 1 study assessed cohorts of 20–26 healthy subjects administered dextromethorphan, tolbutamide plus omeprazole, efavirenz, or repaglinide with and without single, oral doses of rolapitant. Maximum plasma analyte concentrations (C_max) and area under the plasma analyte concentration–time curves (AUC) were estimated using noncompartmental analysis, and geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of test (rolapitant plus probe substrate) to reference (probe substrate alone) treatment were calculated.

Results

Rolapitant significantly increased the systemic exposure of dextromethorphan in terms of C_max and AUC_0–inf by 2.2- to 3.3-fold as observed in GMRs on days 7 and 14. Rolapitant did not affect systemic exposure of tolbutamide, and minor excursions outside of the 80–125% no effect limits were detected for omeprazole, efavirenz, and repaglinide.

Conclusions

Inhibition of dextromethorphan by a single oral dose of rolapitant 180 mg is clinically significant and can last at least 7 days. No clinically significant interaction was observed between rolapitant and substrates of CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2B6, or CYP2C8. CYP2D6 substrate drugs with a narrow therapeutic index may require monitoring for adverse reactions if given concomitantly with rolapitant.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Rolapitant Administered Intravenously Following Single Ascending and Multiple Ascending Doses in Healthy Subjects

Rolapitant is a selective and long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved in an oral formulation in combination with dexamethasone and a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults. The pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of intravenous (IV) rolapitant were evaluated in two open-label, phase 1 trials in healthy subjects. Single ascending dose (SAD) and multiple ascending dose studies were conducted in one trial (PR-11-5012-C), and a supratherapeutic SAD study was conducted in a separate trial (PR-11-5022-C). In the SAD and supratherapeutic studies, rolapitant maximum plasma concentration, area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to time of last measured concentration, and AUC from time zero to infinity increased dose-proportionally following single IV infusions of 18 to 270 mg. In the multiple ascending dose study, following 10 daily IV infusions of rolapitant 18, 36, or 54 mg, the mean day 10:day 1 maximum concentration ratio was 1.97, 1.52, and 2.07, respectively, and the mean day 10:day 1 ratio of AUC from 0 to 24 hours was 4.30, 4.59, and 5.38, respectively, indicating drug accumulation over time. Across all studies, rolapitant was gradually eliminated from plasma, with a half-life of 135-231 hours. Rolapitant was safe and well tolerated across all studies, with no serious or severe rolapitant-related treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common rolapitant-related treatment-emergent adverse events were headache, dry mouth, and dizziness, which were predominantly mild in severity. Overall, the pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of IV rolapitant were consistent with those of the oral formulation.

Olanzapine-Based Triple Regimens Versus Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting : Current recommendations for prophylaxis]

The chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent side effects in cytostatic therapy and a profound challenge during the therapy of cancer patients. Therefore, standardized guideline-orientated prophylaxis is essential and a fundamental contribution for the success of treatment. This review summarizes the current recommendations for CINV of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the S3-guideline Supportive Therapie of the Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie and shall facilitate its use in the daily routine.

Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of rolapitant, NK-1 receptor antagonist for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Although chemotherapeutic agents represent a cornerstone of cancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) affect the patients' quality of life and basic daily activities. Rolapitant is a novel selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA), which was clinically approved for prevention of CINV. The aim of the present study is to synthesize evidence about the safety and efficacy of rolapitant in combination with other antiemetic agents for prophylaxis against CINV. We performed a web-based literature search of six authentic databases to identify eligible studies. Safety and efficacy endpoints were extracted and pooled as odds ratios (ORs) in a fixed-effect meta-analysis model, using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software for windows. Five randomized controlled trials (n = 2984) were pooled in the final analysis. Rolapitant (180mg) in combination with a serotonin-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone was superior to placebo plus 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in term of complete response rate in the acute (OR = 1.4, 95% CI [1.16, 1.7]) and the delayed phases (OR = 1.68, 95% CI [1.44, 1.96]). Moreover, rates of complete protection were significantly higher with rolapitant 180mg than with placebo in the overall, acute, and delayed phases (OR = 1.52, 95% CI [1.3, 1.76]), OR = 1.24, 95% CI [1.04, 1.49], and OR = 1.5, 95% CI [1.29, 1.75]), respectively. In conclusion, rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and more effective than 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Purpose

To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

Methods

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to June 2016.

Results

Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy.

Recommendation

Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient’s emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Bioequivalence of Intravenous and Oral Rolapitant: Results From a Randomized, Open-Label Pivotal Study

Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is approved in an oral formulation for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults. The objective of this pivotal study was to assess the bioequivalence of a single intravenous infusion of rolapitant versus a single oral dose of rolapitant. In this randomized, open-label phase 1 study, healthy volunteers were administered rolapitant as a 180-mg oral dose or a 30-minute 166.5-mg intravenous infusion. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected predose and at points up to 912 hours postdose. Criteria for bioequivalence of the intravenous dose versus the oral dose were met if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric least-squares means (GLSMs) for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t ) and AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC_0-∞ ) for rolapitant were within 0.80-1.25. Mean rolapitant systemic exposure and half-lives were similar in the oral (n = 62) and intravenous (n = 61) rolapitant groups. The 90%CIs of the ratio of GLSMs were within the 0.80-1.25 range for AUC_0-t (0.94-1.09) and AUC_0-∞ (0.93-1.10). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, all mild or moderate in severity, was similar in the intravenous and oral groups. A 166.5-mg intravenous infusion of rolapitant met the bioequivalence criteria based on AUC to a 180-mg oral dose and was well tolerated.

Effects of Rolapitant Administered Intravenously or Orally on the Pharmacokinetics of Digoxin (P-glycoprotein Substrate) and Sulfasalazine (Breast Cancer Resistance Protein Substrate) in Healthy Volunteers

Rolapitant is a selective and long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved in an oral formulation in combination with other antiemetic agents for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults. Four open-label phase 1 studies evaluated the safety and drug-drug interactions of a single dose of rolapitant given intravenously (166.5 mg) or orally (180 mg) with oral digoxin (0.5 mg) or sulfasalazine (500 mg), probe substrates for the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), respectively. Administration of intravenous rolapitant with the substrates did not result in clinically significant effects on digoxin and sulfasalazine pharmacokinetics. In contrast, peak concentration and area under the curve for last quantifiable plasma concentrations increased by 71% (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 1.71; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.95) and 30% (GMR, 1.30; 90%CI, 1.19-1.42), respectively, when rolapitant was coadministered orally with digoxin compared with digoxin alone; they increased by 140% (GMR, 2.40; 90%CI, 2.02-2.86) and 127% (GMR, 2.27; 90%CI, 1.94-2.65), respectively, when rolapitant was given orally with sulfasalazine compared with sulfasalazine alone. Adverse events were mild to moderate in severity in the absence or presence of rolapitant. There were no abnormal clinical laboratory or electrocardiogram findings. Thus, whether administered orally or intravenously, rolapitant was safe and well tolerated. Patients taking oral rolapitant with P-gp and BCRP substrates with a narrow therapeutic index should be monitored for potential adverse events; although increased plasma concentrations of these substrates may raise the risk of toxicity, they are not contraindicated.

Integrated safety analysis of rolapitant with coadministered drugs from phase II/III trials: an assessment of CYP2D6 or BCRP inhibition by rolapitant

BACKGROUND

Rolapitant, a long-acting neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist (RA), has demonstrated efficacy in prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients administered moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Unlike other NK1 RAs, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, but it does inhibit CYP2D6 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP). To analyze potential drug-drug interactions between rolapitant and concomitant medications, this integrated safety analysis of four double-blind, randomized phase II or III studies of rolapitant examined adverse events (AEs) by use versus non-use of drug substrates of CYP2D6 or BCRP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo ∼1-2 h before chemotherapy in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Data for treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-emergent serious AEs (TESAEs) during cycle 1 were pooled across the four studies and summarized in the overall population and by concomitant use/non-use of CYP2D6 or BCRP substrate drugs.

RESULTS

In the integrated safety population, 828 of 1294 patients (64%) in the rolapitant group and 840 of 1301 patients (65%) in the control group experienced at least one TEAE. Frequencies of common TEAEs were similar in the rolapitant and control populations. Overall, 53% of patients received CYP2D6 substrate drugs, none of which had a narrow therapeutic index (like thioridazine or pimozide), and 63% received BCRP substrate drugs. When grouped by concomitant use versus non-use of CYP2D6 or BCRP substrate drugs, TEAEs and TESAEs occurred with similar frequency in the rolapitant and control populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the safety of rolapitant as part of an antiemetic triple-drug regimen in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, including those administered concomitant medications that are substrates of CYP2D6 or BCRP, such as ondansetron, docetaxel, or irinotecan.

Differential clinical pharmacology of rolapitant in delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

Rolapitant is a highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, orally administered for a single dose of 180 mg before chemotherapy with granisetron D1, dexamethasone 8 mg BID on day 2-4. It has a unique pharmacological characteristic of a long plasma half-life (between 163 and 183 hours); this long half-life makes a single use sufficient to cover the delayed emesis risk period. No major drug-drug interactions between rolapitant and dexamethasone or other cytochrome P450 inducers or inhibitors were observed. The clinical efficacy of rolapitant was studied in two phase III trials in highly emetogenic chemotherapy and in one clinical trial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 hours after chemotherapy). In comparison to granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4 and placebo, rolapitant showed superior efficacy in the control of delayed and overall emesis. This review aims at revising the pharmacological characteristics of rolapitant, offering an updated review of the available clinical efficacy and safety data of rolapitant in different clinical settings, highlighting the place of rolapitant in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among currently available guidelines, and exploring the future directions of CINV management.

Differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. CINV typically manifests during two well-defined time periods (acute and delayed phases). The acute phase is the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and is largely managed with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists. The delayed phase, a 5-day at-risk period during which patients are not often in direct contact with their health care provider, remains a significant unmet medical need. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists have demonstrated protection against acute and delayed CINV in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy when used in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Furthermore, recent data indicate that this protection is maintained over multiple treatment cycles. Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved as oral formulation for the prevention of delayed CINV in adults. This review discusses the differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in preventing CINV compared with other NK-1 receptor antagonists.

Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) are widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Whether the efficacy and toxicity of antiemesis are different among various NK-1RA-based triple regimens is unknown.

Methods

Data of complete responses (CRs) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted from electronic databases. Efficacy and toxicity were integrated by pairwise and network meta-analyses.

Results

Thirty-six trials involving 18 889 patients using triple regimens (NK-1RA+serotonin receptor antagonists [5HT3RA] + dexamethasone) or duplex regimen (5HT3RA+dexamethasone) to control CINV were included in the analysis. Different NK-1RA-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CRs. In patients with HEC, almost all triple regimens showed statistically significantly higher CRs than duplex regimen (odds ratio [OR]duplex/triple = 0.47-0.66). However, in patients with MEC, only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better effect than duplex regimen statistically significantly in CRs (ORduplex/triple = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34 to 0.68). No statistically significant difference of TRAEs was found among different triple regimens. Palonosetron-based triple regimens were equivalent to first-generation 5HT3RAs-based triple regimens for CRs. Moreover, different doses of dexamethasone plus NK-1RA and 5HT3RA showed no statistically significant difference in CRs.

Conclusions

Different NK-1RAs-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CINV control. Various triple regimens had superior antiemetic effect than duplex regimen in patients with HEC. Only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better CINV control compared with duplex regimen in patients receiving MEC. Palonosetron and first-generation 5HT3RAs might share equivalent CINV control in the combination of NK-1RAs and dexamethasone. Lower doses of dexamethasone might be applied when used with NK-1RAs and 5HT3RAs.

Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Incidence, and Current Management

Even when chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be effectively controlled in the acute phase, it may still occur in the delayed phase. Identifying at-risk patients is complex and requires consideration of clinical, personal, demographic, and behavioral factors. Delayed CINV has a significant detrimental effect on patients' daily life and is responsible for significant healthcare resource utilization. Patients who do not experience acute CINV are not necessarily exempt from delayed CINV, and healthcare professionals have been shown to underestimate the incidence of delayed CINV. Failure to protect against CINV during the first cycle of chemotherapy is the most significant independent risk factor for delayed CINV during subsequent cycles. Addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic prophylactic regimens involving a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid helps to ameliorate delayed CINV, particularly vomiting. Netupitant and rolapitant are second-generation neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists that provide effective prophylaxis against delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting and also have an antinausea benefit. All of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with the exception of rolapitant inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), and a reduced dose of dexamethasone (a CYP3A4 substrate) should be administered with aprepitant or netupitant; by contrast, this is not necessary with rolapitant. Here we review specific challenges associated with delayed CINV, its pathophysiology, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes relative to acute CINV, and its management within the larger context of overall CINV.

Newest Drugs for Chronic Unexplained Nausea and Vomiting

OPINION STATEMENT

Chronic unexplained nausea and vomiting (CUNV) refers to a symptom complex defined by nausea and/or vomiting with normal diagnostic testing, including anatomic assessments (including upper endoscopy) and measures of upper gut function (e.g., gastric emptying testing). Nausea and vomiting in this condition are postulated to result from aberrant peripheral or central neurohumoral activity. A substantial subset of patients satisfies this diagnosis as more than half of individuals referred for scintigraphic testing exhibit normal gastric emptying rates. No randomized, placebo-controlled trials of any medication treatment have been performed in CUNV. However, agents with potential therapeutic benefits in CUNV include antiemetic drugs, neuromodulatory treatments which are proposed to act by reducing gastric sensitivity, and medications with prokinetic action to stimulate upper gut propulsion. Recently approved drugs with antiemetic capability include serotonin antagonists with novel modes of delivery and neurokinin antagonists with or without additional serotonergic blocking capabilities. Existing neuroleptics and pain-modifying neuromodulatory therapies with fortuitous antiemetic benefits are being considered for their benefits in this disorder. Furthermore, current investigations will define potential therapeutic actions of agents that stimulate gastric emptying via action on gastroduodenal serotonin, motilin, and ghrelin receptors. This current research may broaden the treatment options for refractory cases of unexplained nausea and vomiting.

Rolapitant for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting over initial and repeat courses of emetogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Although sustained antiemetic control across repeated chemotherapy cycles is important for cancer treatment continuation, few studies have investigated the efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis over multiple chemotherapy cycles. Areas covered: Here we discuss the use of antiemetic hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor and neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor antagonists for prevention of CINV, limiting our review to clinical trials in the context of multiple-cycle chemotherapy, with a focus on the NK-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists may be effective in controlling CINV over repeated chemotherapy cycles, but evidence comes primarily from noncomparative studies. NK-1 receptor antagonists provide increased protection against CINV but differences in endpoint selection and methods of analysis preclude meaningful comparisons between agents. Rolapitant shows sustained control of emesis and nausea over multiple cycles of chemotherapy, and compared to other NK-1 receptor antagonists, has a longer half-life and reduced potential for cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated drug-drug interactions. Expert commentary: Trial design should be a key consideration in future studies of CINV therapies, including analytical methods utilized, choice of endpoints, and methods for accounting for nonresponders and patient attrition over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Neurokinin-1 inhibitors in the prevention of nausea and vomiting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

A network meta-analysis of the comparative effectiveness of neurokinin 1 (NK-1) inhibitors in the prophylaxis of highly emetogenic chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting has been conducted. Eligible studies included randomized trials evaluating aprepitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant (NEPA), casopitant and rolapitant containing regimens in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest include complete response (CR) and rate of no significant nausea. After preclusion of ineligible studies, 19 studies were included in the final analysis. The majority of the regimens containing NK-1 inhibitors (including NEPA, aprepitant/palonosetron (palono)/dexamethasone (dexa), casopitant/granisetron (grani) or ondansetron (ondan)/dexa, aprepitant/ondan/dexa) are better than regimens not containing them (palono/dexa, ondan/dexa, grani/dexa) in terms of achieving a CR in the overall phase. Moreover, casopitant/grani or ondan/dexa and aprepitant/grani or ondan/dexa are better than rolapitant/ondan or grani/dexa in terms of CR achievement [odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% credible interval (CrI) 1.14-2.23, and OR 1.28, 95% CrI 1.01-1.59, respectively]. Taking into consideration the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, regimens containing neurokinin inhibitors are associated with higher CR rates than regimens not containing them. Moreover, casopitant and aprepitant regimens seem to be more effective than rolapitant regimens.

Safety of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA): Pooled Data From the Phase II/III Clinical Program

BACKGROUND

Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures.

RESULTS

Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare.

CONCLUSION

NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity.

Rolapitant for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a review of the clinical evidence

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), both acute and delayed, has a dramatic effect on the well-being and quality of life of patients with cancer. Improved understanding of the mechanisms involved in CINV has led to the development of agents targeting the 5-HT3 receptor as well as the NK-1 receptor. Antiemetic prophylaxis given to patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy combines agents blocking the 5-HT3 and NK-1 receptors along with corticosteroids given regularly and repeatedly. Rolapitant is a long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist with proven efficacy in controlling CINV as part of the prophylaxis regimen. This review will detail the clinical efficacy and safety of rolapitant in the treatment of patients with cancer receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Rolapitant: a pooled analysis of its efficacy and safety in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

We conducted a pooled analysis of rolapitant-containing regimens versus control in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

METHODOLOGY

Eligible studies included randomized studies evaluating rolapitant-containing regimens in the settings of highly emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The pooled relative risk for complete response in the overall phase was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.18-1.33; p < 0.00001), the pooled relative risk for no significant nausea in the overall phase was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.04-1.32; p = 0.008) and the pooled RR for no emesis in the overall phase was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.18-1.31; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Rolapitant-based regimens are associated with higher rates of complete response, no significant nausea and no emesis with highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy compared with control regimens.

Rolapitant

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433. The February 2016 monograph topics are mepolizumab, cobimetinib, glycopyrrolate, indacaterol/glycopyrrolate, and coagulation factor X (human). The Safety MUE is on mepolizumab.