Comparing Injection Site Reactions of Aprepitant and Fosaprepitant in Gynecologic Cancer Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The frequency rate of injection site reactions (ISR) due to fosaprepitant meglumine (Fos APR) has been shown to vary depending on the types of combined anticancer drug. This study aimed to elucidate the impact of Fos APR on ISR in patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin, with and without bevacizumab therapy (TC±Bev). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study focused on patients with gynecologic cancer (n=93) who received TC±Bev administration at Fujita Health University Hospital from March 2016 to February 2020, and monitored up to six cycles. The patients were randomly assigned to the Fos APR group (n=47) and the Aprepitant (APR) group (n=46). Using Visual Infusion Phlebitis (VIP) scores, ISR was evaluated by comparing the VIP scores of all cycles using a linear mixed model. The risk factors that contribute to the occurrence of vascular pain throughout all cycles were also examined. RESULTS: The VIP scores of all cycles showed a near significant intergroup difference (p=0.071). Factors that affected the development of vascular pain included Fos APR and age (p=0.027 and 0.049, respectively). Regarding age, patients aged <65 years had a higher risk. Four patients underwent a switch from the originally assigned neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist; in all of these cases, Fos APR was changed to APR for vascular pain. CONCLUSION: Fos APR may increase the risk for ISR associated with TC±Bev therapy for gynecological cancer.

Two doses of fosaprepitant included prophylactic treatment for the three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists included prophylactic treatment was recommended for patients who receive one-day cisplatin chemotherapy. It is unclear whether the prolonged administration of fosaprepitant is effective for three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We aim to explore the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of two doses of fosaprepitant included regimen in the patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy. METHODS: This randomized, parallel-group, open-labelled study was conducted in nine hospitals between February 2021 and February 2023. Patients diagnosed as lung cancer and chemotherapy naive were screened. Eligible participants were scheduled to be treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen which including three days of cisplatin. Then they were randomly divided into the experimental group (two doses of fosaprepitant, Group 2DF) and the control group (one dose of fosaprepitant, Group C). The primary endpoints included the safety and the average none CINV days (NCDs). This study was registered on the website of chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR2100042665. RESULTS: Overall, 204 participants were randomly assigned, and 198 patients were analyzed. No statistical difference in adverse events was found between the two groups. All treatment-related adverse effects for fosaprepitant observed were of grade 1-2. The average NCDs of Group 2DF was significantly more than Group C (18.21 ± 3.40 days vs 16.14 ± 5.20 days, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the better life function score was achieved in Group 2DF according to FLIE questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The administration of two-dose fosaprepitant was safe and more effective than one dose in protecting patients from CINV induced by three-day cisplatin included chemotherapy.

Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, with That of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Existing antiemetic therapy against emetic-risk agents across malignancies 24 h post-dose in the acute period in cisplatin (CDDP)-based regimens yields a satisfactory complete response (CR) rate of ≥90%. However, the control rate after 24 h in the delayed period is unsatisfactory. This study compared the efficacy of fosnetupitant (F-NTP), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, with that of fosaprepitant (F-APR) and aprepitant (APR) in the treatment of patients with cancer at high emetic risk due to chemotherapy. In this retrospective case-control study involving patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, patients were divided into three groups based on prophylactic antiemetic therapy: F-NTP, F-APR, and APR. The CR rate was evaluated for each period up to 168 h and further subdivided into acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and beyond-delayed (120-168 h) periods. Eighty-eight patients were included in the F-NTP group, 66 in the F-APR group, and 268 in the APR group. The CR rates at 0-168 and 120-168 h after cisplatin administration were significantly higher in the F-NTP group than in the F-APR and APR groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, F-NTP use was an independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy, including F-NTP, was effective and well-tolerated during the delayed period. The efficacy of F-NTP in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was superior to those of F-APR and APR during the study period.

Comparison of oral aprepitant and intravenous fosaprepitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric oncology patients: a randomized phase III trial.

Background: Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists have improved the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but to date there has been no prospective comparison between oral aprepitant and intravenous fosaprepitant in pediatric oncology patients. Methods: Our study was a double-parallel study, and the distribution ratio was 1:1. Children aged 2-12 years who were undergoing moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron and dexamethasone combined with either a single dose of intravenous fosaprepitant (arm A), or 3 days of oral aprepitant (arm B). The primary outcome measure was the rate of complete response (CR) of CINV within the acute phase, defined as from the start through 24 hours after the last chemotherapy dose. Response during the delayed phase, overall response, and use of rescue antiemetics were also assessed. Results: We prospectively evaluated 108 eligible patients, including 55 receiving fosaprepitant. Study observations were made during a single cycle for each patient. The occurrence of CR in the acute phase was statistically higher for patients receiving fosaprepitant (95% vs. 79%, P=0.018<0.05). Modest differences were seen in CR rates during the delayed phase (71% vs. 66%, P=0.586), and overall response rate (69% vs. 57%, P=0.179). The use of antiemetic rescue medicines was similar between arms A (11%) and B (7%). Conclusions: Fosaprepitant produced more CRs of CINV in the acute phase than did aprepitant, although there were no statistical differences in delayed phase response, overall response, or use of rescue antiemetics. This study confirms the safety, efficacy, and potential advantages of fosaprepitant in reducing CINV in pediatric oncology patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04873284.

Impact of fosaprepitant in the prevention of nausea and emesis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemoradiation: a pilot prospective study and a review of literature.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is standard treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, IMRT may increase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV. METHODS: An infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant was given through a 30 min. We assessed acute toxicity using CTCAE v.4 and the incidence of CINV using the FLIE questionnaire. The evaluation of CINV was done at the second and fifth weeks of CRT and 1 week after the end. The EORTC QLQ-HN 43 questionnaire was administered before treatment beginning (baseline), at second (T1) and fifth (T2) weeks. A dosimetric analysis was performed on dorsal nucleus of vagus (DVC) and area postrema (AP). RESULTS: Between March and November 2020, 24 patients were enrolled. No correlation was found between nausea and DVC mean dose (p = 0.573), and AP mean dose (p = 0.869). Based on the FLIE questionnaire, patients reported a mean score of 30.5 for nausea and 30 for vomiting during week 2 and 29.8 for nausea and 29.2 for vomiting during week 5. After treatment ended, the mean scores were 27.4 for nausea and 27.7 for vomiting. All patients completed the EORTC QLQ-HN 43. Significantly higher scores at T2 assessment than baseline were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fosaprepitant in preventing CINV reduced incidence of moderate to severe nausea and vomiting. No correlation has been found between nausea and median dose to DVC and AP.

Safety and tolerability of intravenous aprepitant and fosaprepitant in children with cancer: A retrospective, single-center review.

NK-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) are key agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Current pediatric practice guidelines recommend the use of intravenous fosaprepitant or oral aprepitant. However, there are reports of hypersensitivity reactions with fosaprepitant due to polysorbate 80. Intravenous aprepitant does not contain polysorbate 80, but its use in pediatric patients has not been described. In this retrospective, single-center study, 106 pediatric patients received either fosaprepitant or intravenous aprepitant as part of their antiemetic regimen. Intravenous aprepitant was well tolerated and did not lead to any instances of hypersensitivity reactions requiring discontinuation.

Use of Fosaprepitant for Management of Suspected Antimicrobial-Associated Nausea: A Case Report.

Intractable nausea can occur in numerous settings. We report on a 49-year-old woman with a past medical history of cystic fibrosis (CF) with chronic hypoxia, chronic nausea, complex infection history and frequent hospitalizations who was admitted to an academic medical center with a CF exacerbation. Her chronic nausea worsened with the use of antimicrobials, and she was unable to tolerate dopamine or serotonin antagonist antiemetics. Nausea persisted despite the use of benzodiazepines and antihistamines. She was given a one-time dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg intravenously (IV) with marked improvement of her nausea. During subsequent exacerbations, she again developed severe nausea which continued to respond well to a one-time dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg IV. Fosaprepitant is a substance P/neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist that is FDA-approved for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and has been used to prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting. Its use in other contexts has not been well established. This case suggests a role for fosaprepitant in the management of nausea outside the context of chemotherapy or general anesthesia.

A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I.

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.

Topical fosaprepitant for the treatment of ocular pain and inflammation.

Purpose: To assess whether topical administration of fosaprepitant improves intractable chronic ocular pain and inflammation. Methods: We report three clinical cases of female patients with drug-resistant ocular pain associated with inflammatory diseases of the ocular surface. The patients were treated for 3 (case 1) and 4 (cases 2-3) weeks with fosaprepitant eyedrops (0.1 mg/mL for case 1; 10 mg/mL for case 2-3). Patients were then followed up for at least 3 weeks. We measured ocular pain with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), and corneal sensitivity with the Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometry. Slit-lamp photography and corneal confocal imaging were used to assess ocular surface integrity/conjunctival hyperemia and corneal nerve morphology, respectively. Results: All three patients had severe ocular pain (score higher than 6/10 VAS scale). All patients reported a significant improvement in ocular pain after 1 week of treatment. We also observed reduced corneal epitheliopathy (case 1) and conjunctival hyperemia (cases 1-2). In two patients (cases 2-3) the treatment was repeated after 1 year and 9 weeks, respectively, and pain reduction was similar in magnitude to what we observed after the first administration. Conclusions: Topical administration of fosaprepitant ameliorates ocular pain and clinical symptoms in three patients with intractable ocular pain associated with inflammatory diseases of the ocular surface, without adverse effects. Importance: Fosaprepitant instillation holds promise as a treatment of chronic ocular pain, an area of unmet medical need.

Polysorbate 80 as a possible allergenic component in cross-allergy to docetaxel and fosaprepitant: A literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Patients had allergies to both fosaprepitant and docetaxel with similar signs and symptoms. To explore the possible causes of allergy and whether there is cross-allergy between fosaprepitant and docetaxel, we conducted a literature review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was performed: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Taylor & Francis. The final search was on 12 November 2022. Two investigators independently selected eligible studies and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by a third researcher. RESULTS: The main cause of fosaprepitant and docetaxel allergy is polysorbate 80. Fosaprepitant and docetaxel have similar allergic symptoms, mainly facial flushing (19.0%, 18.5%); erythema/dermatitis (17.2%, 1.9%); fluid retention (17.2%, 22.2%); and dyspnea, bronchospasm, shortness of breath and coughing (15.5%, 16.7%). Hypotension (1.7%, 7.4%) and decreased oxygen saturation (1.7%, 1.9%) are rare. The treatments for both allergies are similar: stop injection, oxygen, glucocorticoid, antihistamines and symptomatic treatments. CONCLUSION: Polysorbate 80 is the same allergenic component of docetaxel and fosaprepitant. The symptoms and treatments caused by the two drugs are similar. Most allergic reactions are not serious. Medications containing the same allergy ingredient need to be used with caution for patients with severe allergies to polysorbate 80.

Efficacy of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron plus dexamethasone in preventing nausea and emesis during fractionated radiotherapy with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy: interim analysis of a randomized, prospective, clinical trial using competing risk analysis.

PURPOSE: There are no well-recognized guidelines for antiemesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for cervical cancer (CC) and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) until now. The study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly low-dose cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with CC or NPC. METHODS: Patients with CC or NPC were scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin (25-40 mg/m2) chemotherapy for at least 5 weeks. Patients stratified by tumor type and induction chemotherapy were 1:1 randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone or tropisetron plus dexamethasone as an antiemetic regimen. Efficacy was assessed primarily by the cumulative incidence of emesis after 5 weeks of treatment, and safety by adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Between July 2020 and July 2022, 116 patients consented to the study of whom 103 were included in this interim analysis (fosaprepitant group [N = 52] vs control group [N = 51]). The cumulative incidence of emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 25% (95% CI 14.2-37.4) for the fosaprepitant group compared with 59% (95% CI 43.9-71.0) for the control group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group (HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.19-0.64]; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant was well tolerated as the incidences of adverse events in the two groups were comparable. CONCLUSION: The addition of fosaprepitant to tropisetron plus dexamethasone significantly reduced the risk of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of CCRT in patients with CC or NPC, and fosaprepitant was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on October 3, 2022, number NCT05564286.

Prolonged usage of fosaprepitant for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Even though chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be well controlled in the acute phase, the incidence of delayed CINV remains high. In this study, we intend to investigate whether prolonged use of NK-1 receptor antagonist (RA) in addition to 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone (DEX) was more effective in preventing delayed CINV. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant 150 mg given on days 1,3 (prolonged group) versus on day 1 (regular group) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All patients also treated with palonosetron on day 1 and DEX on days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting. The second endpoint was AEs. All the above endpoints were defined according to CTCAE 5.0. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned to prolonged group and seventy-nine to regular group. Prolonged group demonstrated superiority in controlling delayed CINV to regular group, with statistically significant lower incidence of nausea (6.17% vs 12.66%, P = 0.0056), and slightly lower incidence of grade 1 vomiting (1.62% vs 3.80%, P = 0.0953) in the delayed phase. In addition, prolonged use of fosaprepitant was safe. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding constipation, diarrhea, hiccough, fatigue, palpitation and headache in delayed phase. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged use of fosaprepitant can effectively and safely prevent delayed CINV in patients receiving HEC.

A pharmacological overview of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

INTRODUCTION: Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 30% of all patients undergoing surgery and up to 80% of high-risk patients. Antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis target a variety of receptor systems, with varying degrees of efficacy and side effect profile. Neurokinin -1 receptor antagonists are the most recent class of compounds investigated for PONV prophylaxis, with aprepitant being the only one currently approved for this indication. AREAS COVERED: This review covers the pathophysiology of PONV, current recommendations for PONV prophylaxis, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of aprepitant, and the evidence for its efficacy in the management of PONV as a single agent and in combination therapy. EXPERT OPINION: Aprepitant is effective for PONV prophylaxis. It has superior antivomiting efficacy, long half-life, and favorable side effect profile. Data on antiemetic combinations involving aprepitant are limited, and it is not clear if the addition of other antiemetics to aprepitant results in improved PONV prophylaxis. The oral route of administration of aprepitant is a potential limitation in a busy clinical practice. However, the recent approval of an intravenous formulation could provide a more convenient route of administration. Aprepitant remains more expensive than other antiemetics, and there are no studies assessing the cost effectiveness of its use.

Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. RESULTS: NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The clinical research study for fosaprepitant to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A review.

In recent years, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has become the most common adverse effect of chemotherapy in oncology patients. The CINV may reduce the quality of life in mild cases, or even make the patients resist or delay further treatment. Fosaprepitant is a newly marketed neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1RA), which can be combined with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced vomiting. The dimeglumine salt form of fosaprepitant can be utilized as an intravenous injectable drug, which surpasses aprepitant's oral admistration limits. Fosaprepitant is effective and safe in the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and may be an alternative option for antiemetic therapy. In general, fosaprepitant is worthy of clinical promotion and has a large market potential. This article reviews the clinical studies on fosaprepitant conducted in recent years, with the aim of providing a basis for the rational clinical selection of antiemetic drugs.

Validation of different personalized risk models of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of fosaprepitant for cancer patients treated with high-dose cisplatin.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in cancer patients without prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fosaprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid malignant tumors, determine risk factors and externally validate different personalized risk models for CINV. METHODS: This phase III trial was designed to test the non-inferiority of fosaprepitant toward aprepitant in cancer patients who were to receive the first cycle of single-day cisplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the overall phase (OP) with a non-inferiority margin of 10.0%. Logistic regression models were used to assess the risk factors of CR and no nausea. To validate the personalized risk models, the accuracy of the risk scoring systems was determined by measuring the specificity, sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), while the predictive accuracy of the nomogram was measured using concordance index (C-index). RESULTS: A total of 720 patients were randomly assigned. CR during the OP in the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that in the aprepitant group (78.1% vs. 77.7%, P = 0.765) with a between-group difference of 0.4% (95% CI, -5.7% to 6.6%). Female sex, higher cisplatin dose (≥ 70 mg/m2 ), no history of drinking and larger body surface area (BSA) were significantly associated with nausea. The AUC for the acute and delayed CINV risk indexes was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.70), respectively, and the C-index for nomogram CINV prediction was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64). Using appropriate cutoff points, the three models could stratify patients with high- or low-risk CINV. No nausea and CR rate were significantly higher in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Fosaprepitant-based triple prophylaxis demonstrated non-inferior control for preventing CINV in patients treated with cisplatin-base chemotherapy. Female cancer patients without a history of alcohol consumption, with larger BSA and received high-dose cisplatin might be more vulnerable to CINV. Three personalized prediction models were well-validated and could be used to optimize antiemetic therapy for individual patients.

Involvement of neurokinin-1 receptors in the autonomic nervous system in colorectal distension-induced cardiovascular suppression in rats.

Situational syncope, which includes rectally mediated reflexes, is defined as syncope induced by a specific situation. Its pathogenesis generally involves disorders of the autonomic nervous system. However, the mechanisms and preventive strategies are not yet well understood. Therefore, we hypothesized that a tachykinin neurokinin-1 receptor might be involved in the autonomic nervous system, and that a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist could mitigate reflex syncope. This study used a rat model in which the reflex was induced by afferent vagal stimulation with colorectal distension (CRD). In the study, the rats were divided into three groups: non-CRD, CRD, and CRD with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist. First, we examined the effect of fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, on the circulatory response in this model. We then determined the brain regions that showed increased numbers of c-Fos immunoreactive cells in the respective groups. Our results suggest that the colorectal distension procedure reduced blood pressure and that fosaprepitant lowered this response. In addition, the number of c-Fos immunoreactive cells was increased in the caudal ventrolateral medullary region with colorectal distension, and this number was decreased by the administration of fosaprepitant. In conclusion, fosaprepitant might be involved in the vagal reflex pathway and potentially suppress the circulatory response to colorectal distension.

Economic Value of Fosaprepitant-Containing Regimen in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in China: Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of fosaprepitant (FosAPR)-containing regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) from the Chinese payer's perspective. Methods: A decision tree model was established to measure the 5-day costs and health outcomes between the APR-containing regimen (aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone) and FosAPR-containing regimen (fosaprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone). Clinical data were derived from a randomized, double-blind controlled trial on Chinese inpatients who received HEC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to estimate the utility outcomes and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to assess the economics of FosAPR. A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of FosAPR as a new addition to the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) on the medical insurance fund within 3 years in Nanjing, China. Results: Compared with APR, FosAPR had a mean health-care savings of ¥121.56 but got a reduction of 0.0001815 QALY, resulting in an ICER of ¥669926.19 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of APR was the most influential factor to the ICER. The cost of FosAPR and the complete control rate of the delayed period also had a high impact on the results. According to the probabilistic analysis, the acceptability of FosAPR was more than 80% when the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) was ¥215,999. FosAPR would lead to a 3-year medical insurance payment increase of ¥1.84 million compared with ¥1.49 million before FosAPR entered NRDL in Nanjing. The total budget increased with a cumulative cost of ¥694,829 and covered an additional 341 patients who benefited from FosAPR in Nanjing. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the model of budget impact analysis was stable. Conclusion: FosAPR had a similar treatment effect to APR but was cost-effective in China at the current WTP threshold. The total budget of medical insurance payments of Nanjing slightly increased year by year after the inclusion of FosAPR. Its inclusion in the NRDL would be acceptable and also expand the coverage of patients who benefited from FosAPR.

Comparative Study Between Fosaprepitant and Palonosetron in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Prospective, Randomized and Double-Blind Study.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the single use of fosaprepitant is not inferior to the use of palonosetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Method: Eighty-eight nonsmoking women (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II) aged between 18 and 60 years who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy received 150 mg of fosaprepitant or 75 µg of palonosetron, administered intravenously after the induction of general anesthesia. Results: In the fosaprepitant group and in the palonosetron group, 13.6 and 18.2% of the patients, respectively, vomited in the first 48 h after surgery (p = 0.560). There were no differences between groups in the total frequency and intensity of nausea, number of complete responders, need for rescue medication, time required for the first rescue medication dose or number of adverse events. Conclusion: The administration of a single dose of fosaprepitant after the induction of anesthesia was as effective as the administration of a single dose of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of vomiting in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.