-
The efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis.Medicine Jul 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common adverse reactions after surgery. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antiemetic drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common adverse reactions after surgery. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antiemetic drugs suggest that aprepitant has the strongest antiemetic effect of any single drug. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of aprepitant for preventing PONV based on the existing literature.
METHODS
To identify RCTs investigating the use of aprepitant for PONV prevention, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published prior to March 20, 2022. Seventeen RCTs were identified, with 3299 patients, meeting the inclusion criteria. PONV incidence, complete response, 80 mg aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and ondansetron, vomiting, nausea, and analgesic dose-response were the main outcomes measured.
RESULTS
Compared with the control group, PONV incidence was significantly reduced among those receiving aprepitant (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26, 0.44; P < .0001), with a more complete response (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.59; P = .0004). Supplementation of 80 mg aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron substantially improved the effects of PONV (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.82; P = .01). Further, administration of 80 mg aprepitant was better at preventing vomiting than nausea (OR: 8.6; 95% CI: 3.84, 19. 29; P < .00001). No statistically significant difference between the dose-response of analgesics was identified (mean difference: -1.09; 95% CI: -6.48, 4.30; P = .69). The risk of bias was assessed independently by paired evaluators.
CONCLUSION
Aprepitant effectively reduces the incidence of PONV; however, the effects of postoperative analgesia require further exploration.
Topics: Humans; Aprepitant; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Ondansetron; Morpholines; Antiemetics; Vomiting; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37478247
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034385 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This 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,... (Review)
Review
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-HT 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-HT 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.
Topics: Humans; Aprepitant; Olanzapine; Cisplatin; Consensus; Serotonin; Antineoplastic Agents; Vomiting; Nausea; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38105286
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08224-1 -
European Journal of Pharmacology Sep 2023Capsaicin and allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) activate transient receptor potential (TRP) vanilloid-1 (TRPV1) and TRP ankyrin-1 (TRPA1), respectively. TRPV1 and TRPA1...
Capsaicin and allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) activate transient receptor potential (TRP) vanilloid-1 (TRPV1) and TRP ankyrin-1 (TRPA1), respectively. TRPV1 and TRPA1 expression have been identified in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. GI mucosal functions remain largely undefined for TRPV1 and TRPA1 with side-dependence and regional differences in signalling unclear. Here we investigated TRPV1- and TRPA1-induced vectorial ion transport as changes in short-circuit current (ΔI), in defined segments of mouse colon mucosa (ascending, transverse and descending) under voltage-clamp conditions in Ussing chambers. Drugs were applied basolaterally (bl) or apically (ap). Capsaicin responses were biphasic, with primary secretory and secondary anti-secretory phases, observed with bl application only, which predominated in descending colon. AITC responses were monophasic and secretory, with ΔI dependent on colonic region (ascending vs. descending) and sidedness (bl vs. ap). Aprepitant (neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonist, bl) and tetrodotoxin (Na channel blocker, bl) significantly inhibited capsaicin primary responses in descending colon, while GW627368 (EP4 receptor antagonist, bl) and piroxicam (cyclooxygenase inhibitor, bl) inhibited AITC responses in ascending and descending colonic mucosae. Antagonism of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor had no effect on mucosal TRPV1 signalling, while tetrodotoxin and antagonists of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 and 4 receptors, CGRP receptor, and EP1/2/3 receptors had no effect on mucosal TRPA1 signalling. Our data demonstrates the regional-specificity and side-dependence of colonic TRPV1 and TRPA1 signalling, with involvement of submucosal neurons and mediation by epithelial NK1 receptor activation for TRPV1, and endogenous prostaglandins and EP4 receptor activation for TRPA1 mucosal responses.
Topics: Mice; Animals; Transient Receptor Potential Channels; TRPA1 Cation Channel; Capsaicin; Tetrodotoxin; Colon; Mucous Membrane; TRPV Cation Channels
PubMed: 37394028
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2023.175897 -
Medicine Nov 2023Most 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... (Meta-Analysis)
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.
Topics: Humans; Aprepitant; Antiemetics; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Morpholines; Antineoplastic Agents; Vomiting; Nausea; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38013306
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035952 -
BMC Anesthesiology Dec 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common side effect associated with general anesthesia. Both ondansetron and aprepitant been effectively used to prevent... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common side effect associated with general anesthesia. Both ondansetron and aprepitant been effectively used to prevent PONV. However, there is a disagreement of opinions regarding the superiority of these two drugs. This study aims to compare the efficacy of aprepitant with ondansetron in preventing PONV following orthognathic surgeries.
METHODS
In this double-blinded clinical trial, 80 patients scheduled for orthognathic surgery at Imam Hossein Hospital, Tehran, Iran, were randomly assigned to two groups. A standardized anesthesia protocol was used for all patients. The first group received a placebo capsule administered one hour before the surgical procedure along with 4 mg (2 ml) of ondansetron intravenously after anesthesia induction. The second group was given 80 mg aprepitant capsules one hour before the surgery, followed by an injection of 2 ml intravenous distilled water after anesthesia induction. The occurrence and severity of PONV, the amount of rescue medication required, and the complete response of patients assessed within 24 h after the surgery.
RESULTS
There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. Patients in the aprepitant group had a significantly lower incidence and severity of nausea (2.5% versus 27.5%), vomiting (5% versus 25%), and required fewer rescue medications (7.5% versus 62.5%) compared to the ondansetron group. Additionally, the aprepitant group showed a higher complete response rate (90% versus 67.5%) in the 0-2 and 12-24 postoperative hours.
CONCLUSION
According to the findings of this study, aprepitant has demonstrated a greater efficacy in preventing PONV following orthognathic surgery, when compared to ondansetron.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT code: IRCT20211205053279N3), date of registration: 16/12/2022.
Topics: Humans; Ondansetron; Aprepitant; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Antiemetics; Orthognathic Surgery; Iran; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 38093201
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02371-y -
BMC Medical Genomics Nov 2023We aim to investigate the correlation between gene polymorphisms and cisplatin chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), which was prevented by olanzapine or... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
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.
Topics: Humans; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Nausea; Olanzapine; Polymorphism, Genetic; Vomiting
PubMed: 37924126
DOI: 10.1186/s12920-023-01719-0 -
Cancer Medicine Aug 2023Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT 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.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Aprepitant; Antiemetics; Vomiting; Prospective Studies; Isoquinolines; Quinuclidines; Drug Combinations; Nausea; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37537943
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6121 -
Translational Vision Science &... Feb 2024This study aims to assess the efficacy of two aprepitant formulations (X1 and X2), in a preclinical model of dry eye disease (DED) induced by benzalkonium chloride (BAK).
PURPOSE
This study aims to assess the efficacy of two aprepitant formulations (X1 and X2), in a preclinical model of dry eye disease (DED) induced by benzalkonium chloride (BAK).
METHODS
Two aprepitant formulations were tested on 7 to 8-week-old male mice for their efficacy. In vivo corneal fluorescein staining assessed epithelial damage as the primary end point on days 0, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 14 using slit-lamp microscopy. The DED model was induced with 0.2% BAK twice daily for the first week and once daily for the next week. Mice were randomly assigned to 5 treatment groups: Aprepitant X1 (n = 10) and X2 (n = 10) formulation, 2 mg/mL dexamethasone (n = 10), control vehicle X (n = 10), 0.2% hyaluronic acid (n = 10), or no treatment (n = 10). Eye wiping, phenol red, and Cochet Bonnet tests assessed ocular pain, tear fluid secretion, and nerve function. After 7 days, the mice were euthanized to quantify leukocyte infiltration and corneal nerve density.
RESULTS
Topical aprepitant X1 reduced BAK-induced corneal damage and pain compared to gel vehicle X (P = 0.007) and dexamethasone (P = 0.021). Aprepitant X1 and X2 improved corneal sensitivity versus gel vehicle X and dexamethasone (P < 0.001). Aprepitant X1 reduced leukocyte infiltration (P < 0.05) and enhanced corneal nerve density (P < 0.001). Tear fluid secretion remained statistically unchanged in both the X1 and X2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Aprepitant formulation X1 reduced pain, improved corneal sensitivity and nerve density, ameliorated epitheliopathy, and reduced leukocyte infiltration in male mouse corneas.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
Aprepitant emerges as a safe, promising therapeutic prospect for the amelioration of DED's associated symptoms.
Topics: Male; Mice; Animals; Aprepitant; Cornea; Fluorescein; Pain; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38345550
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.13.2.9