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

A phase II trial of netupitant/palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting in patients receiving BEAM prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients receiving BEAM therapy. Study Design: This phase II, prospective, intention-to-treat, single-center, single-arm study involved 43 adult patients who received NEPA and dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV due to BEAM conditioning chemotherapy. An interim analysis, performed after 13 patients, determined utility versus futility, and supported continuation to full enrollment. Descriptive statistics were used to report complete response (CR), complete protection, incidence of emesis, and administration of rescue agents. A Kaplan-Meier curve depicted time to first emesis and first rescue medication. Patients self-reported levels of daily nausea descriptively via a CINV Questionnaire. Results: By study end, 13 of 43 patients achieved a CR with an average of 10.6 emesis-free days (SD 0.95) over the 11-day observation period, with no emetic events in any patient during the acute/chemotherapy phase. Nausea was well-controlled throughout the acute therapy phase (Day 1-6) and increased during the delayed phase (Day 7-11) with a peak mean level of 2.79/10 at Day 10. Aside from lower grade (≤2), headaches, constipation, and diarrhea were the most widely reported adverse effects. Conclusion: The combination of NEPA and dexamethasone is safe and effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving BEAM conditioning therapy prior to HCT. The regimen demonstrated greater effectiveness in the acute phase versus the delayed phase, with low levels of nausea throughout the study period and complete emesis prevention during chemotherapy.

Switching indication of PEGylated lipid nanocapsules-loaded with rolapitant and deferasirox against breast cancer: Enhanced in-vitro and in-vivo cytotoxicity

Breast cancer (BC) is considered the leading cause of mortality and morbidity among adult women worldwide, and it is associated with many genetic or hormonal factors. Despite the advanced therapeutic and theranostic strategies for BC treatment, cancer metastasis and relapse are often observed among patients which lead to therapeutic failure. Accordingly, among the repositioned medication against BC proliferation is neurokinin receptor antagonists and iron chelating agents especially rolapitant HCl (RP) and deferasirox (DFO). However, RP and DFO are classified as class II with low aqueous solubility. Both drugs were nanoformulated into PEGylated lipid nanocapsules (LNCs) for enhancing their aqueous solubility and augmenting their efficacy. RP-LNCs, DFO-LNCs and their combinations were evaluated according to particle size (PS), zeta potential, polydispersity index (PDI) and surface morphology. Importantly, the antitumor effect of these novel molecules and their nanoforms was evaluated against the suppression of Ehrlich Ascites tumor model using female mice. Results revealed that RP-LNCs, DFO-LNCs and RP/DFO-LNCs exerted PS from 45.23 ± 3.54 to 60.1 ± 3.32 nm with PDI around 0.20 which indicates homogenous particles distribution. Also, RP-LNCs, DFO-LNCs and RP/DFO-LNCs displayed surface charges of +16.6 ± 6.9, -13.3 ± 5.82 and - 20.2 ± 5.40 mV, respectively. The obtained LNCs conferred a high potent cytotoxic effect against MCF7 cancer cells as compared to parent drugs, with IC₅₀ of 10.86 ± 0.89, 3.34 ± 0.99 and 2.24 ± 0.97 μg/mL for RP-LNCs, DFO-LNCs and RP/DFO-LNCs, respectively. The in-vivo pharmacodynamics effect of the developed nano-formulations showed superior antitumor effect for the individual drugs rather than their combinations as compared to the control group. The current study confirmed the potential of RP and DFO nanoforms as promising therapeutic agents for BC treatment.

Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial of response in subjects by cancer type

Background

Results from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, parallel-group trial evaluating fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) found that a single-day, triple-antiemetic fosaprepitant regimen resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR; no vomiting or rescue medication use) in the delayed phase (25–120 h after chemotherapy initiation), compared with a 3-day control regimen (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01594749). As the risk for CINV is dependent on chemotherapy regimen and generally guided by tumor type, this post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of this regimen by cancer subpopulations (gastrointestinal [GI] or colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancers).

Methods

Subjects with confirmed cancer who were naive to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC) and were scheduled to receive intravenous (IV) anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)–based MEC on the first day of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ondansetron and oral dexamethasone plus either a single IV dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg (fosaprepitant regimen) or placebo (control regimen). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects achieving CR in the delayed phase. CR rates in the overall and acute phases (0–120 h and 0–24 h after MEC initiation, respectively) were assessed as secondary end points. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

Results

CR rates in the delayed phase favored the fosaprepitant regimen over the control regimen across the GI/colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancer subgroups (range, 6.2–22%); similar findings were observed for CR in the overall phase. CR in the acute phase was high for all groups (≥87%). The fosaprepitant regimen was well tolerated in all cancer subgroups.

Conclusions

This post hoc analysis indicated that a single-day fosaprepitant regimen was effective in preventing CINV in patients receiving MEC, regardless of cancer type.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT01594749, registered May 9, 2012.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Short Review on the Role of Netupitant-Palonosetron (NEPA)

Introduction

Antineoplastic drugs may induce several side effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Two neurotransmitters play a central role in mediating the emetic response: serotonin acting on the 5HT3 receptor and the substance P targeting the NK1 receptor. Indeed, a combination of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) and a NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) together with dexamethasone has been shown to be very effective. In fact, this combination is actually widely used and recommended for CINV prophylaxis for highly emetogenic cisplatin-based adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and carboplatin-based regimens. NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) is the only fixed combination antiemetic available and it is composed by the long-lasting second-generation 5HT3-RA palonosetron and the highly selective NK1-RA netupitant.

Aim

The aims of this short review were to analyze the role of NEPA in CINV prophylaxis and management taking in account the risk factors related to the patient and to the antineoplastic treatment.

Evidence Review

CINV development is not only correlated to the emetogenic potential of the antineoplastic drugs but is also very influenced by the patient characteristics and history, such as gender, age, alcohol intake, nausea during pregnancy and motion sickness. In pivotal and post-registration studies, NEPA has demonstrated to be effective and safe in both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Conclusion

A proper assessment of both chemotherapy- and patient-related risk factors is paramount to properly evaluate an appropriate prophylaxis of CINV and NEPA by simplifying the therapy, guarantees fully adherence to antiemetic guidelines, and consequently improves the control of CINV, especially in high risk patients.

New insight into the role of substance P/neurokinin-1 receptor system in breast cancer progression and its crosstalk with microRNAs

The neuropeptide substance P (SP) triggers a variety of tumor-promoting signaling pathways through the activation of neurokinin-1receptor (NK1R), a class of neurokinin G protein-coupled receptors superfamily. Recent researches in our and other laboratories have shown the overexpression of both SP and NK1R in breast cancer (BC) patients. SP/NK1R signaling is strongly implicated in the pathogenesis of BC through affecting cell proliferation, migration, metastasis, angiogenesis, and resistance. Therefore, SP/NK1R signaling responses must be rigorously regulated; otherwise, they would contribute to a more aggressive BC phenotype. Recently, microRNAs (miRNAs) as a specific class of epigenetic regulators have been shown to regulate NK1R and thus, controlling SP/NK1R signaling responses in BC. This review summarizes the current knowledge of the role of SP/NK1R signaling and its therapeutic potentials in BC. We also provide an overview regarding the effects of miRNA-mediated NK1R regulatory mechanisms in controlling BC tumorigenesis to gain a clearer view and thus better management of cancer.

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.

Intracellular vomit signals and cascades downstream of emetic receptors: Evidence from the least shrew (Cryptotis parva) model of vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are often considered as stressful symptoms of many diseases and drugs. In fact they are the most feared and debilitating side-effects of many cancer chemotherapeutics and the main cause of patient noncompliance. Despite years of substantial research, the intracellular emetic signals are at best poorly understood or remain unknown. Among different receptor-mediated emetic signaling cascades, one potential converging signal appears to be changes in the cytosolic concentration of Ca²⁺. In this editorial, we focus on Ca²⁺-related intracellular signals underlying emesis mediated by various emetogens. This strategy will help us understand common signaling mechanisms downstream of diverse emetogens and should therefore promote development of new antiemetics for the treatment nausea and vomiting caused by diverse diseases, drugs, as well as viruses and bacterial infections.