Evaluation of Efficacy of Adding Aprepitant to Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in Carboplatin and Etoposide Therapy.

Although carboplatin (CBDCA) is classified as a moderately emetogenic agent, the majority of guidelines recommend the use of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist in addition to a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone (DEX) for CBDCA-containing chemotherapy because of its higher emetogenic risk. However, the additional efficacy of aprepitant (APR) in CBDCA-containing treatment remains controversial, and data on multiple-day treatments are limited. Etoposide (ETP) was administered on days 1-3 in the CBDCA + ETP regimen, and it is important to evaluate suitable antiemetic therapy for the regimen. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of additional APR in CBDCA + ETP. Patients were divided into two groups and retrospectively evaluated. One was the control group, which was prophylactically administered palonosetron (PALO) and DEX, and the other was the APR group, which received APR orally with PALO and DEX. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) between the groups. The overall CR rates were 75.0 and 76.4% in the control and APR groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 1.00). In the acute phase, it was 88.9 and 97.2%, respectively, and 86.1 and 79.2% in the delayed phase, respectively, without significant differences (p = 0.10 and 0.38, respectively). The incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, and anorexia were not significantly different between the two groups in the acute and delayed phases. Our findings suggest that combining APR with PALO and DEX does not improve the CR rate in CBDCA + ETP therapy.

The Efficacy of Aprepitant in Preventing Post-bariatric Surgery Nausea and Vomiting: Evidence from Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of aprepitant in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS). METHODS: Clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases, as well as clinical trials registered at clinicaltrials. gov. These trials compared aprepitant with the control or placebo groups among patients who underwent MBS. Meta-analysis was performed using StataSE 17.0 software to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess the effectiveness of aprepitant in preventing PONV following MBS. RESULTS: A total of five articles comprising six studies including 929 patients undergoing MBS were included. Meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in the incidence of PONV among patients receiving aprepitant (pooled RR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis indicated that aprepitant effectively reduced PONV incidence at 0, 6, and 12 h postoperatively in patients with MBS, but did not decrease PONV occurrence at 24 and 48 h postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant demonstrated significant clinical efficacy in preventing PONV following MBS, effectively reducing patient discomfort, and improving postoperative recovery. Therefore, aprepitant should be considered a preventive measure in patients undergoing MBS to enhance patient satisfaction and recovery rates. Additionally, to maintain an effective drug concentration, aprepitant should be administered within the first 24 h postoperatively. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD 42024528154.

Aprepitant Alleviates Poststroke Pneumonia in a Mouse Model of Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion.

Elevated substance P can be utilized to predict early mortality during the first week of cerebral infarction. Whether aprepitant, a substance P receptor blocker could be utilized to alleviate poststroke pneumonia which is investigated in this study. Intraluminal monofilament model of middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) was constructed in C57BL/6J male mice, and the relative expression of substance P was detected in collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and lung tissue homogenate at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours poststroke. On the other hand, different concentrations of aprepitant (0.5, 1, and 2 mg/kg) were atomized and inhaled into MCAO mice. Inflammation cytokines and bacterial load were detected in collected BALF and lung tissue homogenate at 72-hour poststroke, and lung injury was revealed by histological examination. Aprepitant administration decreased total proteins, total cells, neutrophils, and macrophages in BALF. The concentrations of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1ß, tumor necrosis factor-α, interferon γ, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, and IL-10 in lung tissue homogenates were also diminished by the administration of aprepitant. In conclusion, aprepitant could attenuate poststroke pneumonia in mice suggesting its potential therapeutic use in the clinic.

Opioid-induced respiratory depression suspected of drug interaction in a prostate cancer patient: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Many of the drugs used for the treatment and alleviation of symptoms in cancer patients are known to inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 (CYP). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the drug interactions of opioid analgesics that are metabolized by CYPs, because for example when using oxycodone metabolized by CYP3A4, it is possible that the effect will be attenuated or enhanced by the concomitant use of drugs that induce or inhibit CYP3A4. Aprepitant, an antiemetic drug used in many patients receiving anticancer drugs, is known as a moderate competitive inhibitor of CYP3A4. We experienced a case of respiratory depression caused by opioids, which was suspected to be caused by a drug interaction with antiemetics especially aprepitant. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 72-year-old man. He had been treated with continuous oxycodone infusion for perianal pain associated with the rectal invasion of prostate cancer. No comorbidities other than renal dysfunction were observed. Oxycodone treatment was started at 48 mg/day, and was increased to 108 mg/day, and then the pain decreased. Once the pain was controlled, chemotherapy was planned. Antiemetics (dexamethasone, palonosetron, and aprepitant) were administered before anticancer drug administration. Approximately 3 hours after antiemetics administration and before the administration of the anticancer drugs, a ward nurse noticed that oversedation and respiratory depression had occurred. When the patient was called, he immediately woke up and was able to talk normally, so the anticancer drugs were administered as scheduled. About 2 hours after the nurse noticed oversedation, the attending physician reduced the dose of oxycodone infusion to 48 mg/day. After that, his drowsiness persisted, but his respiratory condition improved. Despite reducing the dose of oxycodone to less than half, the pain remained stable at numeric rating scale (NRS) 0-1, without the use of a rescue dose. The patient was discharged from the hospital 36 days after the administration of anticancer drugs, without any problems. CONCLUSIONS: The cause of respiratory depression in this case was thought to be a combination of factors, including drug interactions between oxycodone and antiemetics, and oxycodone accumulation due to renal dysfunction.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant regulates autophagy and apoptosis via ROS/JNK in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) has a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Aprepitant, a selective NK-1R antagonist, can inhibit the growth of various tumours in vitro and in vivo. However, it remains unclear whether aprepitant has cytotoxic effects on iCCA. METHODS: We measured the expression of SP/NK-1R in clinical samples of iCCA by immunohistochemistry. Then, we detected the cytotoxic effects of aprepitant on iCCA cells via MTT, EdU and colony formation assay. We constructed a subcutaneous xenograft model of BALB/c nude mice by using HCCC-9810 and RBE cell lines to explore the effects of aprepitant in vivo. To elucidate the potential mechanisms, we explored the pro-apoptotic effect of aprepitant by flow cytometric, western blotting, ROS detection and JC-1 staining. Furthermore, we detected the autophagic level of HCCC-9810 and RBE by western blotting, mRFP-eGFP-LC3 adenovirus transfection and electron microscope. RESULTS: SP/NK-1R is significantly expressed in iCCA. Aprepitant inhibited human iCCA xenograft growth and dose-dependently decreased the viability of RBE and HCCC-9810 cells. Aprepitant-induced mitochondria-dependent apoptosis through ROS/JNK pathway. Additionally, pretreatment with z-VAD-fmk partly reversed the effect of aprepitant on cell viability, while NAC completely attenuated the cytotoxic effects of aprepitant in vitro. Furthermore, we observed the dynamic changes of autophagosome in RBE and HCCC-9810 cells treated with aprepitant. CONCLUSION: SP/NK-1R signalling is significantly activated in iCCA and promotes the proliferation of iCCA cells. By contrast, aprepitant can induce autophagy and apoptosis in iCCA cells via ROS accumulation and subsequent activation of JNK.

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.

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.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: This review is an update of the MASCC/ESMO 2015 recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed from June 1, 2015, through February 1, 2023. RESULTS: We identified 56 references (16 were duplications or invalid), leaving 40 manuscripts for this search. The panel classified level I evidence (three manuscripts) and level II evidence (14 manuscripts). High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant were discussed in four of these manuscripts, and multiple-day chemotherapy treatment in 15. Some manuscripts covered both topics. Additionally, a search for breakthrough nausea and vomiting resulted in 12 "hits." No new relevant studies were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations for patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplants and patients undergoing multiple-day cisplatin were updated. For patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy for stem cell transplant, a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended. Olanzapine could be considered part of the antiemetic regimen. Patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant plus olanzapine. For patients experiencing breakthrough nausea and vomiting, the available evidence suggests using a single dose of olanzapine daily for 3 days.

The Repurposing of Non-Peptide Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists as Antitumor Drugs: An Urgent Challenge for Aprepitant.

The substance P (SP)/neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) system is involved in cancer progression. NK-1R, activated by SP, promotes tumor cell proliferation and migration, angiogenesis, the Warburg effect, and the prevention of apoptosis. Tumor cells overexpress NK-1R, which influences their viability. A typical specific anticancer strategy using NK-1R antagonists, irrespective of the tumor type, is possible because these antagonists block all the effects mentioned above mediated by SP on cancer cells. This review will update the information regarding using NK-1R antagonists, particularly Aprepitant, as an anticancer drug. Aprepitant shows a broad-spectrum anticancer effect against many tumor types. Aprepitant alone or in combination therapy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy could reduce the sequelae and increase the cure rate and quality of life of patients with cancer. Current data open the door to new cancer research aimed at antitumor therapeutic strategies using Aprepitant. To achieve this goal, reprofiling the antiemetic Aprepitant as an anticancer drug is urgently needed.

Efficacy of 3-day versus 5-day aprepitant regimens for long-delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an ongoing problem. While effectiveness of triplet antiemetic regimens in the delayed CINV phase (24-120 hours after administration of chemotherapy) has been studied, their effectiveness in the long-delayed phase (120-168 hours post-administration) is unknown. We compared the efficacy of 3- and 5-day courses of a triplet antiemetic prophylaxis containing aprepitant (APR) in controlling long-delayed CINV after cisplatin (CDDP)-based chemotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We obtained patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study in Japan. The incidence and timing of CINV after 3- and 5-day APR-containing regimens were compared using inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: The analysis included 380 patients. The incidence rates of long-delayed nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced for the 5-day compared with the 3-day regimen (29.1% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0042; 6.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Among those without CINV, vomiting was not reported after day 2 in the 5-day APR group but increased after day 4 in the 3-day APR group. CONCLUSION: A 5-day regimen triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with APR decreased long-delayed vomiting compared with a 3-day regimen in patients receiving CDDP-based chemotherapy. However, the 5-day regimen showed no advantage over the 3-day regimen against long-delayed nausea.

Efficacy and safety of Aprepitant-containing triple therapy for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most cancer patients suffer from the pain of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a regimen consisting of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prevention and treatment of CINV. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, HEED, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of triple therapy (aprepitant, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone) to prevent and treat CINV. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata17 software, employing either a fixed-effect or random-effect model based on statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 7956 patients was conducted. Efficacy: Results showed significantly improved complete responses (CRs) for CINV in the test group versus the control group in the overall, acute, and delayed phases. Furthermore, in the test group, substantial alleviation of nausea symptoms was observed in the delayed and overall phases but not in the acute phase. Safety: There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, anorexia, and headache between the 2 groups. The incidence of fatigue and hiccups in the test group was higher than that in the control group; however, the incidence of constipation was significantly lower. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant-containing triple therapy is highly effective in the prevention and treatment of CINV, with reliable medication safety.

A randomized trial evaluating the association between related gene polymorphism and nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We aim to investigate the correlation between gene polymorphisms and cisplatin chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), which was prevented by olanzapine or aprepitant triple antiemetic regimen. METHODS: Before chemotherapy, the blood samples of 89 malignant tumor patients who received multi-day chemotherapy with cisplatin were collected for sequencing and typing. As there were duplicate patients enrolled in different chemotherapy cycles, there were a total of 190 cases. The patients were divided into two groups randomly, who received the triple antiemetic regimen of olanzapine or aprepitant combined with 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone. The main evaluation indicators were the total protection (TP) rate in the acute phase (0-24 h), the delayed phase (25-120 h) and the overall phase (0-120 h). RESULTS: Univariate analysis was performed on genetic loci that reached H-W balance with TP. In the olanzapine group, increased TP in the acute phase was associated with HTR3A rs1176719 non-GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. Increased TP in the delayed phase was associated with HTR3A rs1176719 non-GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. In the aprepitant group, increased TP in the acute phase was associated with the MTHFR rs1801131 TT (P < 0.05) genotype etc. Increased TP in the delayed phase was associated with HTR3A rs1062613 CC (P < 0.05) genetype ect. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that HTR3B rs7943062GG (P < 0.05) genotype etc. were correlated with increased TP in the delayed phase. MTHFR rs1801131TT genotype was associated with increased TP in the acute phase (P < 0.05) and delayed phase (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study found that gene polymorphisms, including HTR3B (rs1062613, rs1176719, rs2276303), HTR3B (rs45460698, rs7943062), HTR3C (rs6766410), ERCC1 (rs3212986), ERCC4 (rs744154) and MTHFR(rs1801131), may be independent prognostic factors for CINV.

Single-dose NEPA versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0-120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long-lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post-chemotherapy. In this post-hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1-3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1-4. Patients were chemotherapy-naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0-144 h) phase. RESULTS: The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors.

Olanzapine With or Without Fosaprepitant for Preventing Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (ALLIANCE A221602).

PURPOSE: A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 -olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%. RESULTS: A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist. CONCLUSION: This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).

The use of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are adverse effects after surgery, which may increase the risk of complications. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor blocker and has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and PONV. However, its role in endoscopic skull base surgery remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of aprepitant in reducing PONV in endoscopic transsphenoidal (TSA) pituitary surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review between July 2021 and January 2023 of 127 consecutive patients who underwent TSA was performed at a tertiary academic institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on preoperative aprepitant use. Two groups were matched based on known risk factors of PONV (age, sex, nonsmoking, and history of PONV). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcome measures included the number of anti-emetic use, length of stay, and postoperative cererebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. RESULTS: After matching, 48 patients were included in each group. The aprepitant group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of vomiting than the non-aprepitant group (2.1% vs 22.9%, p = 0.002). The number of nausea episodes and anti-emetic use decreased with aprepitant use (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of nausea, length of stay, or postoperative CSF leak. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that aprepitant decreased the incidence of postoperative vomiting with odds ratio of 0.107. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant may serve as a useful preoperative treatment to reduce PONV in patients undergoing TSA. Further studies are needed to evaluate its impact in other arenas of endoscopic skull base surgery.

The in vitro anti-cancer synergy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and 5-aminolevulinic acid in glioblastoma.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most malignant type of cerebral neoplasm in adults with a poor prognosis. Currently, combination therapy with different anti-cancer agents is at the forefront of GBM research. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the potential anti-cancer synergy of a clinically approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA), a prodrug that elicits fluorescent porphyrins in gliomas on U-87 human GBM cells. We found that aprepitant and 5-ALA effectively inhibited GBM cell viability. The combinatorial treatment of these drugs exerted potent synergistic growth inhibitory effects on GBM cells. Moreover, aprepitant and 5-ALA induced apoptosis and altered the levels of apoptotic genes (up-regulation of Bax and P53 along with downregulation of Bcl-2). Furthermore, aprepitant and 5-ALA increased the accumulation of protoporphyrin IX, a highly pro-apoptotic and fluorescent photosensitizer. Aprepitant and 5-ALA significantly inhibited GBM cell migration and reduced matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-2 and MMP-9) activities. Importantly, all these effects were more prominent following aprepitant-5-ALA combination treatment than either drug alone. Collectively, the combination of aprepitant and 5-ALA leads to considerable synergistic anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, and anti-migratory effects on GBM cells and provides a firm basis for further evaluation of this combination as a novel therapeutic approach for GBM.

The In Vitro Pro-inflammatory Functions of the SP/NK1R System in Prostate Cancer: a Focus on Nuclear Factor-Kappa B (NF-κB) and Its Pro-inflammatory Target Genes.

Prostate cancer is one of the main global health threats for men which is in close association with chronic inflammation. Neuropeptide substance P (SP), acting through neurokinin receptor (NK-1R), induces various pro-inflammatory responses which are strongly involved in the pathogenesis of several diseases as well as cancer. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the pro-inflammatory functions of the SP/NK1R complex in prostate cancer and the therapeutic effects of its inhibition by NK-1R antagonist, aprepitant, in vitro. MTT assay was conducted for the cytotoxicity assessment of aprepitant in prostate cancer cells. The protein expression levels were evaluated by Western blot assay. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) was applied to measure mRNA expression levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Concurrently, the protein concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines were also analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. We observed that SP increased the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1ß, IL-6, and TNF-α), while treatment with aprepitant reduced the effects of SP. We also indicated that SP increased the protein levels of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), as the main regulator of inflammatory processes, and also an NF-κB target gene, cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) in prostate cancer cells, while treatment with aprepitant reversed these effects. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of the SP/NK1R system in the modulation of pro-inflammatory responses in prostate cancer cells and suggest that aprepitant may be developed as a novel anti-inflammatory agent for the management of cancer-associated inflammation.

The Role of Substance P Receptor Antagonists in Allergic Rhinitis: Ovalbumin-Induced Rat Model.

OBJECTIVE: Substance P is a peptide from the tachykinin family, which is found in peripheral and central nervous systems, causing vasodilation and increased secretion in the nasal mucosa. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether the experimental model of allergic rhinitis will cause allergic changes in the larynx and to compare the effects of aprepitant, a substance P antagonist, on nasal symptoms in allergic rhinitis, and histopathological changes in the nasal and laryngeal mucosa with antihistamine and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA). STUDY DESIGN: An experimental animal study. METHOD: The study was carried out on 34 healthy 8-12 weeks old female Sprague Dawley rats in 5 groups. The rats in which an experimental allergic rhinitis model was created with ovalbumin were scored by observing their nasal symptoms, and nasal and laryngeal mucous membranes included in the study were evaluated histopathologically after medications. RESULTS: As a result of the analysis of the data obtained from the study, antihistamine and LTRA significantly reduced the symptoms of nose scratching and sneezing, while aprepitant did not affect nasal symptoms. In the histopathological examination of the larynx, effects that would make a significant difference were found in the allergy group when compared to the control group. On the larynx, aprepitant reduced pseudostratification significantly compared to the allergy group. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant provides histopathological changes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, but does not have sufficient effect on nasal symptoms. The effect of aprepitant on the larynx has not been clearly demonstrated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 133:2891-2897, 2023.

Efficacy of aprepitant as a prophylactic medication in adults with cyclic vomiting syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and recent guidelines by the American Neurogastoenterology and Motility Society recommend its use as prophylaxis in moderate-to severe cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS). Data are limited to small studies in children. We aimed to determine its efficacy in adults with CVS. METHODS: A retrospective review of CVS patients diagnosed using Rome criteria at a tertiary referral center was conducted. Drug response was defined as >50% reduction in symptoms and/or healthcare utilization. An intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted. KEY RESULTS: Of 96 patients prescribed aprepitant, 26 (27%) were unable to start due to cost/lack of insurance coverage. Of 70 receiving therapy, mean age was 33 ± 11 years; 51 (73%) were female and 56 (80%) Caucasian. The majority (93%) were refractory to other prophylactic medications. Aprepitant was taken thrice weekly in 51 (73%), daily in 16 (23%) and a few times a month in 3 (4%) due to cost. Fifty (71.4%) had a global symptom response to aprepitant. There was significant reduction in the number of CVS episodes (14.5 ± 11.7 to 6.2 ± 8.0, p < 0.0001), emergency department visits (4.2 ± 7.7 to 1.8 ± 3.4, p = 0.006), and hospital admissions (1.6 ± 3.9 to 0.8 ± 2.1, p = 0.02) in patients treated with aprepitant. Seven (10%) discontinued the drug due to minor side effects. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Aprepitant is a safe and effective prophylactic medication in adults with refractory CVS. Adequate insurance coverage is a major barrier preventing its use.