Defining the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in different emetogenic settings-a meta-analysis

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

Background

Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy.

Methods

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75 mg/m2). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5 mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) 1 h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30 min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558.

Findings

Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and 2.

Interpretation

Olanzapine (5 mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies.

Funding

Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.

Evidence for Bell-Shaped Dose-Response Emetic Effects of Temsirolimus and Analogs: The Broad-Spectrum Antiemetic Efficacy of a Large Dose of Temsirolimus Against Diverse Emetogens in the Least Shrew (Cryptotis parva)

Temsirolimus is a prodrug form of sirolimus (rapamycin). With its analogs (everolimus, ridaforolimus, and rapamycin), it forms a group of anticancer agents that block the activity of one of the two mammalian targets of rapamycin (mTOR) complexes, mTORC1. We investigated the emetic potential of varying doses (0, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg/kg, i.p.) of temsirolimus in the least shrew. Temsirolimus caused a bell-shaped and dose-dependent increase in both the mean vomit frequency and the number of shrews vomiting with maximal efficacy at 10 mg/kg (p < 0.05 and p < 0.02, respectively). Its larger doses (20 or 40 mg/kg) had no significant emetic effect. We also evaluated the emetic potential of its analogs (5, 10, and 20 mg/kg, i.p.), all of which exhibited a similar emetic profile. Our observational studies indicated that temsirolimus can reduce the shrew motor activity at 40 mg/kg, and subsequently, we examined the motor effects of its lower doses. At 10 and 20 mg/kg, it did not affect the spontaneous locomotor activity (distance moved) but attenuated the mean rearing frequency in a U-shaped manner at 10 mg/kg (p < 0.05). We then determined the broad-spectrum antiemetic potential of a 20 mg/kg (i.p.) dose of temsirolimus against diverse emetogens, including selective and nonselective agonists of 1) dopaminergic D2/3 receptors (apomorphine and quinpirole); 2) serotonergic 5-HT3 receptors [5-HT (serotonin) and 2-methyl-5-HT]; 3) cholinergic M1 receptors (pilocarpine and McN-A-343); 4) substance P neurokinin NK1 receptors (GR73632); 5) the L-type calcium (Ca2+) channel (LTCC) (FPL64176); 6) the sarcoplasmic endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ ATPase inhibitor, thapsigargin; 7) the CB1 receptor inverse agonist/antagonist, SR141716A; and 8) the chemotherapeutic cisplatin. Temsirolimus prevented vomiting evoked by the aforementioned emetogens with varying degrees. The mechanisms underlying the pro- and antiemetic effects of temsirolimus evaluated by immunochemistry for c-fos expression demonstrated a c-fos induction in the AP and NTS, but not DMNX with the 10 mg/kg emetic dose of temsirolimus, whereas its larger antiemetic dose (20 mg/kg) had no significant effect. Our study is the first to provide preclinical evidence demonstrating the promising antiemetic potential of high doses of temsirolimus and possibly its analogs in least shrews.

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.

Anti-cancer therapy made easier: a 25-year update

In 1993, the Internal Medicine Journal published ‘Chemotherapy made easier’, outlining developments in supportive care of patients undergoing chemotherapy. This described the contemporary state of anti‐emetics, colony stimulating factors, cardiac toxicity, neurotoxicity, development of drug analogues and venous access devices. Twenty‐five years later, we update the measures that improve the tolerability of the plethora of new anti‐cancer therapies, which have extended well beyond traditional chemotherapy agents to include immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Optimisation of supportive care is paramount to allow safe delivery with the least possible impact on quality of life of these new treatments, many of which have resulted dramatically improved outcomes across multiple cancer types. This state of the art update summarises advances in supportive care therapies relating to improving the patient experience during and after anti‐cancer treatment, including new anti‐emetics, hair preservation techniques, bone marrow support and improved venous access devices; the ongoing challenge of neurotoxicity; and the advent of multidisciplinary sub‐specialised fields such as cardio‐oncology and oncofertility. Supportive care medications for immuno‐oncology therapies is a new section; these highly effective (although not universally so) agents were a mere illusion in 1993.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly occurs after chemotherapy, adversely affecting patients' quality of life. Recently, studies have shown inconsistent antiemetic effects of two common 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, namely, palonosetron and granisetron. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing CINV.

METHODS

Relevant studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the complete response (CR) rate. Secondary outcomes were headache and constipation events.

RESULTS

In total, 12 randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies were reviewed. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior to granisetron in all phases in terms of the CR rate (acute phases: odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.54; delayed phases: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; and overall phases: OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.17-1.60). Moreover, a non-significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the headache event, but the occurrence of the constipation event was lower in the granisetron group than in the palonosetron group.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron showed a higher protective efficacy in all phases of CINV prevention, especially in delayed phases, and no relatively severe adverse effects were observed.

5HT3 RA plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant for controlling delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in colorectal cancer

Delayed chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is not well controlled in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing oxaliplatin (L‐OHP)‐based chemotherapy. Whether neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist addition to a first‐generation 5HT₃ antagonist (1st 5‐HT₃RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) is beneficial to these patients remains controversial. Furthermore, whether palonosetron (PALO) or aprepitant (APR) is more effective in controlling delayed CINV is unclear. We, therefore, investigated whether PALO+DEX or 1st 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV, and the risk factors for delayed CINV, in CRC patients undergoing L‐OHP–based chemotherapy. Data were pooled from two prospective observational Japanese studies and a phase III trial to compare CINV incidence between the PALO + DEX (PALO) and 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR (APR) groups by propensity score–matched analysis. CINV risk factors were identified using logistic regression models. The CINV incidence was higher in the PALO group than in the APR group. Logistic regression analysis revealed alcohol consumption, motion sickness, and the PALO+DEX regimen as independent risk factors for delayed nausea, and female sex and the PALO+DEX regimen as those for delayed vomiting. Compared with prophylactic PALO + DEX, 1st 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV. Thus, CRC patients receiving L‐OHP–based chemotherapy should be treated with three antiemetics, including APR.

Factors Associated With Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting Control in Pediatric Patients Receiving Moderately or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pooled Analysis

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An individual, patient-level, pooled analysis was performed using data from five clinical trials of aprepitant or fosaprepitant in pediatric patients receiving HEC or MEC. The proportion of individuals who experienced no vomiting (complete CIV control) during the phase of interest was the primary study end point. The association of acute-phase complete CIV control (from first chemotherapy dose to 24 hours after the last chemotherapy dose of the chemotherapy block) with age, sex, race, cancer type, acute-phase duration, and antiemetic regimen was examined. Association of the same factors and acute-phase complete CIV control with complete CIV control in the delayed phase (end of acute phase until ≤ 96 hours later) was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 735 patients (mean age, 8.9 years; range, 0.3 to 17.9 years) were included in the acute-phase analysis. Acute-phase complete CIV control was less likely in older patients (relative risk [RR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98 per year) and longer acute-phase duration (RR, 0.89 per day; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.94 per day). Receipt of ondansetron plus aprepitant or fosaprepitant was associated with a higher likelihood of acute-phase complete CIV control versus ondansetron alone (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.50). Delayed-phase complete CIV control was more likely in patients with acute-phase complete CIV control (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.34) and in those who received aprepitant or fosaprepitant.

CONCLUSION

Younger age, shorter acute-phase duration, and antiemetic regimen were associated with acute-phase complete CIV control in pediatric patients receiving HEC or MEC. Acute-phase complete CIV control and antiemetic regimen were associated with delayed-phase complete CIV control.

Intracellular emetic signaling cascades by which the selective neurokinin type 1 receptor (NK1R) agonist GR73632 evokes vomiting in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva)

To characterize mechanisms involved in neurokinin type 1 receptor (NK₁R)-mediated emesis, we investigated the brainstem emetic signaling pathways following treating least shrews with the selective NK₁R agonist GR73632. In addition to episodes of vomiting over a 30-min observation period, a significant increase in substance P-immunoreactivity in the emetic brainstem dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus (DMNX) occurred at 15 min post an intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection GR73632 (5 mg/kg). In addition, time-dependent upregulation of phosphorylation of several emesis -associated protein kinases occurred in the brainstem. In fact, Western blots demonstrated significant phosphorylations of Ca²⁺/calmodulin kinase IIα (CaMKIIα), extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase1/2 (ERK1/2), protein kinase B (Akt) as well as α and βII isoforms of protein kinase C (PKCα/βII). Moreover, enhanced phospho-ERK1/2 immunoreactivity was also observed in both brainstem slices containing the dorsal vagal complex emetic nuclei as well as in jejunal sections from the shrew small intestine. Furthermore, our behavioral findings demonstrated that the following agents suppressed vomiting evoked by GR73632 in a dose-dependent manner: i) the NK₁R antagonist netupitant (i.p.); ii) the L-type Ca²⁺ channel (LTCC) antagonist nifedipine (subcutaneous, s.c.); iii) the inositol trisphosphate receptor (IP₃R) antagonist 2-APB (i.p.); iv) store-operated Ca²⁺ entry inhibitors YM-58483 and MRS-1845, (i.p.); v) the ERK1/2 pathway inhibitor U0126 (i.p.); vi) the PKC inhibitor GF109203X (i.p.); and vii) the inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-Akt pathway LY294002 (i.p.). Moreover, NK₁R, LTCC, and IP₃R are required for GR73632-evoked CaMKIIα, ERK1/2, Akt and PKCα/βII phosphorylation. In addition, evoked ERK1/2 phosphorylation was sensitive to inhibitors of PKC and PI3K. These findings indicate that the LTCC/IP₃R-dependent PI3K/PKCα/βII-ERK1/2 signaling pathways are involved in NK₁R-mediated vomiting.

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 History of Drug Discovery for Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting and the Implications for Future Research

The origins of the major classes of current anti-emetics are examined. Serendipity is a recurrent theme in discovery of their anti-emetic properties and repurposing from one indication to another is a continuing trend. Notably, the discoveries have occurred against a background of company mergers and changing anti-emetic requirements. Major drug classes include: (i) Muscarinic receptor antagonists-originated from historical accounts of plant extracts containing atropine and hyoscine with development stimulated by the need to prevent sea-sickness among soldiers during beach landings; (ii) Histamine receptor antagonists-searching for replacements for the anti-malaria drug quinine, in short supply because of wartime shipping blockade, facilitated the discovery of histamine (H1) antagonists (e.g., dimenhydrinate), followed by serendipitous discovery of anti-emetic activity against motion sickness in a patient undergoing treatment for urticaria; (iii) Phenothiazines and dopamine receptor antagonists-investigations of their pharmacology as "sedatives" (e.g., chlorpromazine) implicated dopamine receptors in emesis, leading to development of selective dopamine (D2) receptor antagonists (e.g., domperidone with poor ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier) as anti-emetics in chemotherapy and surgery; (iv) Metoclopramide and selective 5-hydroxytryptamine3(5-HT3) receptor antagonists-metoclopramide was initially assumed to act only via D2 receptor antagonism but subsequently its gastric motility stimulant effect (proposed to contribute to the anti-emetic action) was shown to be due to 5-hydroxytryptamine4 receptor agonism. Pre-clinical studies showed that anti-emetic efficacy against the newly-introduced, highly emetic, chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin was due to antagonism at 5-HT3 receptors. The latter led to identification of selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (e.g., granisetron), a major breakthrough in treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis; (v) Neurokinin1receptor antagonists-antagonists of the actions of substance P were developed as analgesics but pre-clinical studies identified broad-spectrum anti-emetic effects; clinical studies showed particular efficacy in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Finally, the repurposing of different drugs for treatment of nausea and vomiting is examined, particularly during palliative care, and also the challenges in identifying novel anti-emetic drugs, particularly for treatment of nausea as compared to vomiting. We consider the lessons from the past for the future and ask why there has not been a major breakthrough in the last 20 years.

Intracellular emetic signaling evoked by the L-type Ca2+ channel agonist FPL64176 in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva)

Ca²⁺ plays a major role in maintaining cellular homeostasis and regulates processes including apoptotic cell death and side-effects of cancer chemotherapy including vomiting. Currently we explored the emetic mechanisms of FPL64176, an L-type Ca²⁺ channel (LTCC) agonist with maximal emetogenic effect at its 10 mg/kg dose. FPL64176 evoked c-Fos immunoreactivity in shrew brainstem sections containing the vomit-associated nuclei, nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS) and dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus. FPL64176 also increased phosphorylation of proteins ERK1/2, PKCα/βII and Akt in the brainstem. Moreover, their corresponding inhibitors (PD98059, GF 109203X and LY294002, respectively) reduced FPL64176-evoked vomiting. A 30 min subcutaneous (s.c.) pretreatment with the LTCC antagonist nifedipine (10 mg/kg) abolished FPL64176-elicited vomiting, c-Fos expression, and emetic effector phosphorylation. Ryanodine receptors (RyRs) and inositol trisphosphate receptors (IP₃Rs) mediate intracellular Ca²⁺ release from the sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum. The RyR antagonist dantrolene (i.p.), or a combination of low doses of nifedipine and dantrolene, but not the IP₃R antagonist 2-APB, significantly attenuated FPL64176-induced vomiting. The serotonin type 3 receptor (5-HT₃R) antagonist palonosetron (s.c.), the neurokinin 1 receptor (NK₁R) antagonist netupitant (i.p.) or a combination of non-effective doses of netupitant and palonosetron showed antiemetic potential against FPL64176-evoked vomiting. Serotonin (5-HT) and substance P immunostaining revealed FPL64176-induced emesis was accompanied by an increase in 5-HT but not SP-immunoreactivity in the dorsomedial subdivision of the NTS. These findings demonstrate that Ca²⁺ mobilization through LTCCs and RyRs, and subsequent emetic effector phosphorylation and 5-HT release play important roles in FPL64176-induced emesis which can be prevented by 5-HT₃R and NK₁R antagonists.

Efficacy of Thalidomide in Preventing Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial (CLOG1302 study)

Purpose

We examined the efficacy and safety of thalidomide (THD) for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Patients and Methods

In a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC that contained cisplatin or cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin/epirubincin ≥ 50 mg/m2 regimens were randomly assigned to a THD group (100 mg twice daily on days 1 to 5) or placebo group, both with palonosetron (0.25 mg on day 1) and dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1; 8 mg on days 2 to 4). Primary end point was complete response to vomiting—no emesis or use of rescue medication—in the delayed phase (25 to 120 h). Nausea and anorexia on days 1 to 5 were evaluated by the 4-point Likert scale (0, no symptoms; 3, severe). Quality of life was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3 questionnaire on days −1 and 6.

Results

Of 656 patients, 638 were evaluable: 317 in the THD group and 321 in the control group. Compared with placebo, delayed and overall (0 to 120 h) complete response rates to vomiting were significantly higher with THD: 76.9% versus 61.7% ( P < .001) and 66.1% versus 53.3% ( P = .001), respectively. Rates of no nausea were also higher in the THD group (delayed: 47.3% v 33.3%; P < .001; overall: 41% v 29.6%; P = .003), and mean scores of anorexia were lower overall (0.44 ± 0.717 v 0.64 ± 0.844; P = .003). Adverse effects were mild to moderate. The THD group had increased sedation, dizziness, constipation, and dry mouth, but experienced better quality of life after chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Thalidomide combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved HEC-induced delayed nausea and vomiting prevention in chemotherapy-naive patients.

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 .

Is the addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist beneficial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) excluding anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed and OVID) and Central databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT₃ RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy endpoints were complete response (CR), no emesis and no nausea rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials (3848 patients) were identified. Results were separately analyzed for (a) pure MEC regimens (excluding regimens containing carboplatin or oxaliplatin), (b) carboplatin-based regimens, and (c) oxaliplatin-based regimens. (a) Two trials (abstracts) enrolled 715 patients. The odds ratio for overall CR with the addition of an NK1-RA was 1.46 (95% 1.06-2.02; p = 0.02) with an absolute risk difference (RD) of 8%. (b) Nine trials (1790 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.96 (95% CI 1.57-2.45; p < 0.00001) in favor of the NK1RA containing regimen with an RD of 15%. (c) Three trials (1190 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.34 (95% CI 0.88-2.04; p = 0.17) not reaching statistical significance with a RD of 4%.

CONCLUSION

Clear clinically significant benefit was seen with the addition of NK1RAs in carboplatin-based chemotherapy. A global benefit of an NK1RA containing regimen for the whole MEC category cannot be attested yet and warrants more randomized trials exclusively testing pure MEC regimens without carboplatin.

Estimation of body surface area in the musk shrew ( Suncus murinus): a small animal for testing chemotherapy-induced emesis

Several cancer chemotherapies cause nausea and vomiting, which can be dose-limiting. Musk shrews are used as preclinical models for chemotherapy-induced emesis and for antiemetic effectiveness. Unlike rats and mice, shrews possess a vomiting reflex and demonstrate an emetic profile similar to humans, including acute and delayed phases. As with most animals, dosing of shrews is based on body weight, while translation of such doses to clinically equivalent exposure requires doses based on body surface area. In the current study body surface area in musk shrews was directly assessed to determine the Meeh constant (K_m) conversion factor (female = 9.97, male = 9.10), allowing estimation of body surface area based on body weight. These parameters can be used to determine dosing strategies for shrew studies that model human drug exposures, particularly for investigating the emetic liability of cancer chemotherapeutic agents.

Concise review of the management of iatrogenic emesis using cannabinoids: emphasis on nabilone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent, distressing, and burdensome side effect of cancer chemotherapy. It is estimated to affect the majority of patients receiving certain anti-cancer drug regimens and can be treatment-limiting, even for life-saving medications. Despite seemingly numerous options, such as antimuscarinic anticholinergics, antihistamines, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, preventative therapies are often inadequately effective, particularly for "delayed CINV"-leaving an important unmet clinical need. Cannabinoid receptor agonists, by virtue of their unique mechanism of action and efficacy and safety data reported in clinical trials, appear to offer a useful additional option. The mechanistic value of cannabinoids has been well known for many years, but these agents may have been underutilized in the past because of the notoriety and legal status of marijuana. While botanical marijuana contains nearly 500 components, including the psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), nabilone is an established, single-entity synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist that has become the focus of renewed interest. We review the basic pharmacology and clinical trial data of nabilone for use in prophylaxis and treatment of CINV.

Investigational drug therapies for the treatment of gastroparesis

INTRODUCTION

Gastroparesis is defined by nausea, vomiting, pain, early satiety and bloating, and characterized by delayed gastric emptying without obvious structural abnormalities. Metoclopramide is widely used, increasing gastric emptying and inhibiting nausea and vomiting. Other drugs are available in certain countries and some are used 'off-label' because they increase gastric emptying or inhibit emesis. However, correlation between gastroparesis symptoms and rates of gastric emptying is poor. For anti-emetic drugs, dose-ranging and Phase III trials in gastroparesis are lacking. Areas covered: Gastric motility may still be disordered, leading to nausea, even though gastric emptying is unchanged. One hypothesis is that interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC) are damaged by diabetes leading to gastric dysrhythmia and nausea. Novel approaches to treatment of nausea also include the use of ghrelin receptor agonists, highlighting a link between appetite and nausea. Expert opinion: There is an urgent need to diversify away from historical drug targets. In particular, there is a need to control nausea by regulating ICC functions and/or by facilitating appetite via ghrelin receptor agonists. It is also important to note that different upper gastrointestinal disorders (gastroparesis, chronic unexplained nausea and vomiting, functional dyspepsia) are difficult to distinguish apart, suggesting wider therapeutic opportunity.