Efficacy and safety of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over multiple cycles of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy

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.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists: review of their role for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults

Introduction: The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK₁RAs) to standard prophylaxis of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT₃RA) plus dexamethasone more effectively prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Areas covered: This review presents the evidence base for the use of oral and intravenous (IV) NK₁RAs, focusing on the pharmacologic and clinical properties as a class, and highlighting differences between agents. A PubMed literature search was conducted from 2000 to 2018. Expert opinion: Adherence to international antiemetic guidelines remains a clinical challenge. Strategies to simplify antiemetic regimens and facilitate their administration may improve compliance and treatment outcomes. The use of fixed-combination antiemetics offers clinical utility, in combining an NK₁RA with a 5-HT₃RA in a single oral dose. The use of long-lasting NK₁RAs and administering CINV prophylaxis closer to the time of chemotherapy may also assist with guideline and treatment compliance, diminishing the need for home-based administration, and potentially reducing resource utilization. The availability of IV and oral formulations of NK₁RAs and NK₁RA-5-HT₃RA fixed combinations offers further utility, particularly for those patients unsuited for oral administration. However, safety considerations with respect to injection site toxicity and hypersensitivity reactions of the new NK₁RA IV formulations deserve close attention.

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.

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.

Getting it right the first time: recent progress in optimizing antiemetic usage

Recent years have witnessed significant improvements in the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), allowing patients to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimens without compromising quality of life. This reduction in the incidence of CINV can be primarily attributed to the emergence of effective, well-tolerated antiemetic therapies, including serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT3) receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, and the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. While 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are highly effective in the prevention of acute CINV, NK-1 receptor antagonists and olanzapine have demonstrated considerable activity against both acute and delayed CINV. Various combinations of these three types of agents, along with dexamethasone and dopamine receptor antagonists, are now becoming the standard of care for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Optimal use of these therapies requires careful assessment of the unique characteristics of each agent and currently available clinical trial data.

Pharmacokinetics of Rolapitant in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hepatic Impairment

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. This was a phase 1 open-label, parallel-group pharmacokinetic and safety study of a single oral dose of 180 mg of rolapitant and its major active metabolite, M19, in subjects with mild and moderate hepatic impairment compared with healthy matched controls. Pharmacokinetics were assessed by a mixed-model analysis of variance of log-transformed values for maximum observed plasma concentration (C_max ), observed time at C_max (t_max ), 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 to 120 hours (AUC_0-120 ), with hepatic group as a fixed effect. Mean rolapitant C_max , AUC_0-t , and AUC_0-120 were similar in the mild hepatic impairment and healthy control groups. In subjects with moderate hepatic impairment, AUC_0-t was similar and C_max was 25% lower than in healthy controls. Mean M19 C_max and AUC_0-t were similar in the mild hepatic impairment group and healthy controls, but <20% lower in those with moderate hepatic impairment versus healthy controls. Fraction of unbound rolapitant was comparable in all groups for rolapitant and M19. Rolapitant was well tolerated in all groups, without serious adverse events. Pharmacokinetic differences between healthy subjects and those with mild or moderate hepatic impairment are unlikely to pose a safety risk and do not warrant predefined dosage adjustment in the presence of hepatic impairment.

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 .

Recent developments in the clinical pharmacology of rolapitant: subanalyses in specific populations

Knowledge of the involvement of the neurokinin substance P in emesis has led to the development of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1 RAs) for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in combination with serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. The NK-1 RA rolapitant, recently approved in oral formulation, has nanomolar affinity for the NK-1 receptor, as do the other commercially available NK-1 RAs, aprepitant and netupitant. Rolapitant is rapidly absorbed and has a long half-life in comparison to aprepitant and netupitant. All three NK-1 RAs undergo metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, necessitating caution with the concomitant use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, but in contrast to aprepitant and netupitant, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce CYP3A4. However, rolapitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, and concomitant use with CYP2D6 substrates with narrow therapeutic indices should be avoided. Aprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant have all demonstrated efficacy in the control of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in randomized controlled trials, including over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. We reviewed recent post hoc analyses of clinical trial data demonstrating that rolapitant is efficacious in the control of CINV in patient populations with specific tumor types, namely, breast cancers, gastrointestinal/colorectal cancers, and lung cancers. In addition, we show that rolapitant has efficacy in the control of CINV in specific age groups of patients receiving chemotherapy (<65 and ≥65 years of age). Overall, the safety profile of rolapitant in these specific patient populations was consistent with that observed in primary analyses of phase 3 trials.

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.

Making decisions about breast reconstruction: A systematic review of patient-reported factors influencing choice

PURPOSE

Many studies have explored women's reasons for choosing or declining a particular type of breast reconstruction (BR) following mastectomy for breast cancer. This systematic review synthesises women's reasons for choosing a range of BR options, including no BR, in different settings and across time.

METHODS

Thirteen databases were systematically searched, with 30 studies (4269 participants), meeting the selection criteria. Information on study aim and time frame, participation rate, design/methods, limitations/bias, reasons and conclusions, as well as participant clinical and demographic information, was reported. An overall quality score was generated for each study. Reasons were grouped into eight domains.

RESULTS

While study methodology and results were heterogeneous, all reported reasons were covered by the eight domains: Feeling/looking normal; Feeling/looking good; Being practical; Influence of others; Relationship expectations; Fear; Timing; and Unnecessary. We found a strong consistency in reasons across studies, ranging from 52% of relevant publications citing relationship expectations as a reason for choosing BR, up to 91% citing fear as a reason for delaying or declining BR. Major thematic findings were a lack of adequate information about BR, lack of genuine choice for women and additional access limitations due to health system barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding women's reasons for wanting or not wanting BR can assist clinicians to help women make choices most aligned with their individual values and needs. Our thematic findings have equity implications and illustrate the need for surgeons to discuss all clinically appropriate BR options with mastectomy patients, even if some options are not available locally.

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.

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.

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.