Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a crucial factor in ensuring that patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy can get the full benefit of therapy. Current antiemetic guidelines recommend that the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonist aprepitant should be used as part of a combination regimen with dexamethasone and a serotonin receptor antagonist for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Fosaprepitant is a water-soluble N-phosphoryl derivative of aprepitant that, when infused, is rapidly metabolized back to an active aprepitant. The existing literature in PubMed about fosaprepitant was screened and selected in order to address the emerging data from two randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen. These phase III trials demonstrated that fosaprepitant given as a single intravenous dose of 150 mg was either noninferior to the conventional 3-day aprepitant or significantly superior to placebo for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. In both trials, fosaprepitant was well tolerated although more frequent infusion-site adverse events were observed with fosaprepitant. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant, therefore, would be an option for CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The clinical efficacy is consistent with the findings from a time-on-target, positron-emission tomography study evaluating the NK-1R occupancy in the central nervous system (CNS) over 5 days after a single-dose infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant in healthy participants. The single-dose regimen is capable of blocking more than 90% of the NK-1Rs in the CNS for at least 48 hours after infusion, which is sufficient to control delayed CINV for 2 to 5 days after HEC. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant can provide a simplified treatment option that maintains high protection while ensuring adherence to scheduled antiemetic medication throughout most of the 5-day period encompassing the major risk for CINV.

BACKGROUND:

Chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer containing anthracycline and cyclophosphamide are classified as highly emetogenic. Aprepitant (A), palonosetron (P), granisetron (G), or dexamethasone (D) are recommended antiemetic drugs. However, it is uncertain which combination is most effective. We retrospectively examined the efficacy of these antiemetic drugs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

We reviewed the medical records of 454 patients with breast cancer treated in our facility with regimens containing anthracycline and cyclophosphamide between August 2009 and September 2010.

RESULT:

The number of patients treated with GD, AGD, and APD was 147, 150, and 157, respectively. Complete response (CR) in the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases was 68.7 and 76.2 %, respectively, for GD, 90.0 and 92.7 %, respectively, for AGD, and 89.8 and 90.4 %, respectively, for APD. Complete control (CC) in the acute and delayed phases for each regimen was 60.5 and 64.6 %, respectively, for GD, 62.7 and 88.7 %, respectively, for AGD, and 84.1 and 87.3 %, respectively, for APD. In the acute and delayed phases CR for AGD or APD was significantly superior to that for GD (P < 0.01). It worth noting that CC for APD in the acute phase was significantly superior to that for AGD (P < 0.01). In the delayed phase CC for AGD or APD was significantly superior to that for GD.

CONCLUSION:

A combination of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is an antiemetic treatment of choice for patients treated with regimens containing anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

For patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy, a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist combined with dexamethasone is a standard antiemetic therapy. Despite this prophylactic anti-emetic treatment, many patients still suffer from uncontrollable emesis. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness and safety of aprepitant (a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist) in addition to 5-HT3 antagonist in Japanese patients with hematologic malignancy receiving high-dose chemotherapy prior to autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (auto-PBSCT). Twenty-six patients received aprepitant and granisetron (the aprepitant group), whereas, 22 patients received granisetron alone (the control group). All patients received 3 mg of granisetron intravenously 30 min before chemotherapy administration. Patients in the aprepitant group additionally received 125 mg of aprepitant 60-90 min before administration of the first moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. On the next day or thereafter, 80 mg of aprepitant was administered in the morning until the last administration of moderately to highly emetogenic anticancer drugs. The percentage of patients who achieved complete response (CR), defined as no emesis with only grade 1-2 nausea, in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (42% vs. 5%, p=0.003). Logistic regression analysis showed that non-prophylactic use of aprepitant was significantly associated with non-CR. The frequencies of adverse drug events (ADEs) were not significantly different between two groups. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that the addition of aprepitant to granisetron can improve the antiemetic effect without increasing ADEs in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy prior to auto-PBSCT.

BACKGROUND:

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

METHODS:

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

RESULTS:

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

CONCLUSIONS:

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

To improve prognosis in recurrent glioblastoma we developed a treatment protocol based on a combination of drugs not traditionally thought of as cytotoxic chemotherapy agents but that have a robust history of being well-tolerated and are already marketed and used for other non-cancer indications. Focus was on adding drugs which met these criteria: a) were pharmacologically well characterized, b) had low likelihood of adding to patient side effect burden, c) had evidence for interfering with a recognized, well-characterized growth promoting element of glioblastoma, and d) were coordinated, as an ensemble had reasonable likelihood of concerted activity against key biological features of glioblastoma growth. We found nine drugs meeting these criteria and propose adding them to continuous low dose temozolomide, a currently accepted treatment for relapsed glioblastoma, in patients with recurrent disease after primary treatment with the Stupp Protocol. The nine adjuvant drug regimen, Coordinated Undermining of Survival Paths, CUSP9, then are aprepitant, artesunate, auranofin, captopril, copper gluconate, disulfiram, ketoconazole, nelfinavir, sertraline, to be added to continuous low dose temozolomide. We discuss each drug in turn and the specific rationale for use- how each drug is expected to retard glioblastoma growth and undermine glioblastoma's compensatory mechanisms engaged during temozolomide treatment. The risks of pharmacological interactions and why we believe this drug mix will increase both quality of life and overall survival are reviewed.

5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and droperidol were used for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Recently, neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonist has been used for PONV. We evaluated the effect of oral aprepitant premedication in addition to ondansetron.A total 90 patients scheduled for elective rhinolaryngological surgery were allocated to three groups (Control, Ap80, Ap125), each of 30 at random. Ondansetron 4 mg was injected intravenously to all patients just before the end of surgery. On the morning of surgery, 80 mg and 125 mg aprepitant were additionally administered into the Ap80 group and Ap125 group, respectively. The rhodes index of nausea, vomiting and retching (RINVR) was checked at 6 hr and 24 hr after surgery.Twelve patients who used steroids unexpectedly were excluded. Finally 78 patients (control : Ap80 : Ap125 = 24 : 28 : 26) were enrolled. Overall PONV occurrence rate of Ap125 group (1/26, 3.9%) was lower (P = 0.015) than the control group (7/24, 29.2%) at 6 hr after surgery. The nausea distress score of Ap125 group (0.04 ± 0.20) was lower (P = 0.032) than the control group (0.67 ± 1.24) at 6 hr after surgery. No evident side effect of aprepitant was observed.Oral aprepitant 125 mg can be used as combination therapy for the prevention of PONV.

This guideline provides an approach to the prevention of acute antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting (AINV) in children. It was developed by an international, inter-professional panel using AGREE and CAN-IMPLEMENT methods. Evidence-based interventions that provide optimal AINV control in children receiving antineoplastic agents of high, moderate, low, and minimal emetogenicity are recommended. Recommendations are also made regarding selection of antiemetic agents for children who are unable to receive corticosteroids for AINV control, the role of aprepitant and optimal doses of antiemetic agents. Gaps in the evidence used to support the recommendations were identified. The contribution of this guideline to AINV control in children requires prospective evaluation. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013;9999:1-10. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The present study was designed to evaluate the incidence ofchemotherapy -induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)in patients receiving carboplatin. Chemo-naÏve patients with thoracic and gynecological malignancy, who were intended to be given carboplatin-including chemotherapy without aprepitant as antiemesis, were enrolled. CINV was assessed using a visual analog scale for a week after the final chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients were evaluated, and 6.5% and 48.4% of them developed vomiting and nausea after chemotherapy, respectively. Nausea in the delayed phase tended to be increased compared with that in the acute phase. The higher incidence of CINV was significantly correlated with younger ages(odds ratio= 0.355, 95% CI: 0.132-0.951, p=0.039). Our results indicate that further intensive antiemetic prophylaxis, such as using aprepitant or palonosetron, should be considered in patients receiving carboplatin.

(R)-[3,5-Bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl] ethanol is a key chiral intermediate for the synthesis of aprepitant. In this paper, an efficient synthetic process for (R)-[3,5- bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl] ethanol was developed via the asymmetric reduction of 3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl) acetophenone, catalyzed by Leifsonia xyli CCTCC M 2010241 cells using isopropanol as the co-substrate for cofactor recycling. Firstly, the substrate and product solubility and cell membrane permeability of biocatalysts were evaluated with different co-substrate additions into the reaction system, in which isopropanol manifested as the best hydrogen donor of coupled NADH regeneration during the bioreduction of 3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl) acetophenone. Subsequently, the optimization of parameters for the bioreduction were undertaken to improve the effectiveness of the process. The determined efficient reaction system contained 200 mM of 3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl) acetophenone, 20% (v/v) of isopropanol, and 300 g/l of wet cells. The bioreduction was executed at 30°C and 200 rpm for 30 h, and 91.8% of product yield with 99.9% of enantiometric excess (e.e.) was obtained. The established bioreduction reaction system could tolerate higher substrate concentrations of 3,5- bis(trifluoromethyl) acetophenone, and afforded a satisfactory yield and excellent product e.e. for the desired (R)-chiral alcohol, thus providing an alternative to the chemical synthesis of (R)-[3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl] ethanol.