Search

Abstract Purpose This study aims to investigate whether adding fosaprepitant to palonosetron and dexamethasone is effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. Methods Eligible patients undergoing gynecological surgery were randomized into two groups (1:1). One group received fosaprepitant (150 mg) and the other (control) received a placebo infusion. Both groups received a single dose of palonosetron (0.25 mg) and dexamethasone (5 mg) together with therapeutic medication. The primary endpoint was the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue antiemetics during the first 24 h after surgery; complete response rate (CRR). Results CRR was significantly higher in the fosaprepitant group compared to the control group 0–24 h after surgery (P = 0.037; relative risk [RR], 1.116; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.007 to 1.235). Moreover, CRR was also significantly higher during the 24–48 h (P = 0.004; RR, 1.148; 95% CI, 1.045 to 1.261) and 48–72 h (P = 0.039; RR, 1.083; 95% CI, 1.005 to 1.168) observation periods respectively. The complete control rate was higher in the fosaprepitant group than in the control group during the 0–24 h observation period (P = 0.012; RR, 1.367; 95% CI, 1.067 to 1.751). Nausea and rescue antiemetic use were comparable between the two groups. The severity of vomiting was significantly higher in the fosaprepitant group than in the control group on the second day (P = 0.016). Dynamic pain visual analog scale score was lower in the fosaprepitant group and quality of recovery-15 scores were significantly higher in the same group during 0–24 h observation period (P = 0.018 and 0.005, respectively). Conclusions The triple combination of fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone was superior in the prevention of PONV after gynecologic surgery in high-risk patients. We suggest that for high-risk patients, a triple combination therapy may be a better choice. Trial registration Registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=171741 ) with No. ChiCTR2200060890 on June 13, 2022. Principal investigator: Jingdun Xie.

Purpose: This study aims to investigate whether adding fosaprepitant to palonosetron and dexamethasone is effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. Methods: Eligible patients undergoing gynecological surgery were randomized into two groups (1:1). One group received fosaprepitant (150 mg) and the other (control) received a placebo infusion. Both groups received a single dose of palonosetron (0.25 mg) and dexamethasone (5 mg) together with therapeutic medication. The primary endpoint was the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue antiemetics during the first 24 h after surgery; complete response rate (CRR). Results: CRR was significantly higher in the fosaprepitant group compared to the control group 0–24 h after surgery (P = 0.037; relative risk [RR], 1.116; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.007 to 1.235). Moreover, CRR was also significantly higher during the 24–48 h (P = 0.004; RR, 1.148; 95% CI, 1.045 to 1.261) and 48–72 h (P = 0.039; RR, 1.083; 95% CI, 1.005 to 1.168) observation periods respectively. The complete control rate was higher in the fosaprepitant group than in the control group during the 0–24 h observation period (P = 0.012; RR, 1.367; 95% CI, 1.067 to 1.751). Nausea and rescue antiemetic use were comparable between the two groups. The severity of vomiting was significantly higher in the fosaprepitant group than in the control group on the second day (P = 0.016). Dynamic pain visual analog scale score was lower in the fosaprepitant group and quality of recovery-15 scores were significantly higher in the same group during 0–24 h observation period (P = 0.018 and 0.005, respectively). Conclusions: The triple combination of fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone was superior in the prevention of PONV after gynecologic surgery in high-risk patients. We suggest that for high-risk patients, a triple combination therapy may be a better choice. Trial registration: Registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry () with No. ChiCTR2200060890 on June 13, 2022. Principal investigator: Jingdun Xie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Chemotherapy (CT) is a mainstay of treatment for malignant tumors. CT-induced nausea and vomiting are observed in 3090% of patients within 0120 h after moderate and highly emetogenic CT administration. These adverse events can severely impact the quality of treatment, daily life, and adherence to treatment, thus reducing the effectiveness of therapy and survival. Materials and methods. The author provides the results of a systematic review of research papers, including clinical studies, on the efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist fosaprepitant to prevent CT-induced nausea and vomiting. Data from the PubMed database were reviewed. Results. The prevention and treatment of CT-associated nausea and vomiting are vital during special therapy, including symptomatic therapy. International organizations recommend using a triple combination with antagonists of neurokinin-1 and 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptors and dexamethasone. According to the data obtained, the efficacy of fosaprepitant has been proven in delayed and general phases in several large, well-planned studies; the drug reduces the incidence of adverse events by 2.74.4 times compared with aprepitant. Conclusion. Fosaprepitant is an antagonist of neurokinin-1 receptors; when administered intravenously, it rapidly converts into aprepitant. When used as part of a triple combination with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone in patients receiving moderate and highly emetogenic CT leads to a higher rate of complete response when controlling nausea and vomiting. In general, fosaprepitant is well tolerated.

Abstract 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.