-
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Jul 2024The ICH E14/S7B Q&As highlighted the need for best practices concerning the design, execution, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the in vivo non-rodent QT assay...
The ICH E14/S7B Q&As highlighted the need for best practices concerning the design, execution, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the in vivo non-rodent QT assay as a component of the integrated risk assessment to potentially support a TQT waiver or substitute. We conducted a dog telemetry study to assess the effects on QTc of six reference compounds (five positive and one negative) previously evaluated by Darpo et al. (2015) in humans. The sensitivity of the assay to detect QTc increases was determined, and exposure-response analysis was performed, as done in clinical practice. By-timepoint analysis showed QTc prolongation induced by moxifloxacin, dofetilide, dolasetron, ondansetron, and quinine within human relevant plasma exposures ranges. Moreover, a hysteresis was observed for quinine. As expected, levocetirizine showed no statistically significant effect on QTc across a range of exposure, well exceeding the therapeutic C. Power analyses confirmed the study ability to detect statistically significant QTc changes of less than 10 milliseconds with 80% probability, even with a sample size as low as n = 4 animals. Finally, concentration-QTc modeling enabled to predict the minimal plasma concentration needed to detect a 10 milliseconds QTc prolongation, including for quinine. The comparison with clinical available data supported the relevance of dogs under these experimental conditions as a robust translational predictor of drug-induced QTc prolongation in humans as a key pillar of the integrated risk assessment.
Topics: Dogs; Animals; Prospective Studies; Long QT Syndrome; Electrocardiography; Male; Female; Telemetry; Risk Assessment; Humans; Heart Rate
PubMed: 38709223
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.3283 -
Toxics Aug 2023Clinical trials of new drugs often face a high failure rate of approximately 45 percent due to safety and toxicity concerns. Repurposing drugs with well-established...
Clinical trials of new drugs often face a high failure rate of approximately 45 percent due to safety and toxicity concerns. Repurposing drugs with well-established safety profiles becomes crucial in addressing this challenge. Colon cancer ranks as the third most prevalent cancer and the second leading cause of cancer related mortality worldwide. This study focuses on the RNA-binding protein pumilio1 (PUM1), a member of the PUF family involved in post-transcriptional gene expression regulation. By utilizing molecular docking techniques and FDA-approved drugs, potential inhibitors against PUM1 were identified. Notably, dolasetron and ketoprofen demonstrated promising results, exhibiting strong binding affinity, hydrophobic interactions, and favorable chemical reactivity according to Conceptual-DFT calculations. Both compounds effectively reduced cell viability, with IC50 values of 150 µM and 175 µM, respectively and shows long term inhibitory effects as seen by reduced in number of colonies. Moreover, they exhibited inhibitory effects on colon cancer stem cells, as indicated by reduced colonospheroid size and numbers. Apoptosis is induced by these compounds and has triggered activation of executioner caspase 3/7 in HCT116 cells which is evident through a caspase 3/7 assay and AO/EB staining, while the non-toxic effect of these compounds was evident from viability against non-cancerous cell line and hemolysis assay. Additionally, the treatment group showed a significant decrease in PUM1 and cancer stem cell markers expression compared to the control group. In conclusion, this study highlights the potential of targeting PUM1 as a novel approach to colon cancer treatment. Dolasetron and ketoprofen demonstrate promise as effective anti-cancer and anti-cancer stem cell drugs, inducing apoptosis in colon cancer cells through inhibition of PUM1.
PubMed: 37624174
DOI: 10.3390/toxics11080669 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Jun 2023Genetic variants may affect drug efficacy on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The understanding of these mechanisms will help to identify the surgical patients... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Genetic variants may affect drug efficacy on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The understanding of these mechanisms will help to identify the surgical patients who might benefit from specific prophylactic and therapeutic antiemetic treatment. The aim of the present review was to investigate gene polymorphisms that influence 5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) type 3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RA) efficacy in PONV.
EVIDENCE AQUISITION
We included articles published from 2005 to 2022, utilizing the electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, COHRANE Library and ScienceDirect. To explore the relationship between genetic variations and 5HT3 receptor antagonist efficacy in PONV we focused on three different gene polymorphisms: the cytochrome P450 mono-oxygenase system gene (CYP2D6), the adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-binding cassette subfamily B gene (ABCB1) as well as the 5HT3 receptor gene (5HT3R). We also explored the relationship between the above genetic variations and their impact on 5HT3RA efficacy in the context of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Our search retrieved a total of 70 articles; 29 of them were included in the present review. Regarding polymorphisms of the CYP2D6 gene and the efficacy of serotonin antagonists in PONV, the ultra-rapid metabolizer genotype was associated with reduced efficacy of ondansetron, dolasetron and tropisetron, with the latter presenting more pronounced failure in these patients, while granisetron's efficacy remained unaffected. Regarding variations in the ABCB1 gene, three polymorphisms ("2677G>T/A" in exon 21; "3435C>T" in exon 27; "C1236T" in exon 12) were associated with a better response to ondansetron and ramosetron, while they did not affect palonosetron's efficacy. Additionally, polymporphisms of the 5-HT3B receptor gene were associated with ondancetron's postoperative efficacy; the "100_-102AAG" deletion variant was associated with reduced efficacy, while the Y129S variant did not show any effect on the drug's antiemetic effect.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights that inefficacy of a specific drug in managing PONV could be attributed to specific genetic profiles and patients would possibly benefit from a drug switch.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Ondansetron; Pharmacogenetics; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Antiemetics
PubMed: 36852569
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16983-X -
The Journal of International Medical... Jun 2022To investigate the occurrence rate and risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in lung cancer patients following lobectomy and application of analgesic...
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the occurrence rate and risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in lung cancer patients following lobectomy and application of analgesic pumps.
METHODS
This retrospective study reviewed clinical data from patients that had undergone lobectomy for lung cancer under general anaesthesia. The risk factors of PONV were analysed using binary logistic regression models.
RESULTS
A total of 203 patients (97 females) were enrolled. The rate of PONV was 29.6% (60 of 203 patients) for all patients, 42.3% (41 of 97 patients) for female patients and 17.9% (19 of 106 patients) for male patients. Female patients undergoing thoracotomy (odds ratio [OR] 7.770, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.747, 34.568) or having surgery durations ≥120 min (OR 4.493, 95% CI 1.502, 12.851) were significantly more susceptible to PONV. The risk of PONV in female patients that received postoperative dolasetron (100 mg, once a day) was significantly lower (OR 0.075, 95% CI 0.007, 0.834). For male patients, the risk of PONV was significantly lower in those with a body mass index ≥24 kg/m (OR 0.166; 95% CI 0.035, 0.782).
CONCLUSION
Female and male patients have different risk factors for PONV following lobectomy for lung cancer and application of analgesic pumps.
Topics: Analgesics; Antiemetics; Female; Humans; Incidence; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35735025
DOI: 10.1177/03000605221105343 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another. OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.
MAIN RESULTS
Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98 to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty). Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively. We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty). Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV. When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Palonosetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 34784425
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012775.pub2 -
Current Medicinal Chemistry 2021An important group of antiemetic drugs used in the treatment of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy containing an indole moiety in their structures, working as 5-...
An important group of antiemetic drugs used in the treatment of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy containing an indole moiety in their structures, working as 5- hydroxytryptamine type 3 serotonin receptor antagonist (5-HT3). This study focuses on compounds bearing an indole core that present a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist activity, which have been successfully used as antiemetic drugs for reducing chemotherapy adverse secondary effects during cancer treatment. Their synthesis, biological activities, and some outstanding characteristics are discussed, providing a general outlook towards the development of more efficient antiemetic drugs.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Indoles; Nausea; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3
PubMed: 34238146
DOI: 10.2174/0929867328666210708091134 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2021The organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1 (MATE1) mediate the renal secretion of drugs. Recent studies suggest that...
The organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1 (MATE1) mediate the renal secretion of drugs. Recent studies suggest that ondansetron, a 5-HT antagonist drug used to prevent nausea and vomiting, can inhibit OCT2- and MATE1-mediated transport. The purpose of this study was to test the ability of five 5-HT antagonist drugs to inhibit the OCT2 and MATE1 transporters. The transport of the OCT2/MATE1 probe substrate ASP was assessed using two models: (1) HEK293 kidney cells overexpressing human OCT2 or MATE1, and (2) MDCK cells transfected with human OCT2 and MATE1. In HEK293 cells, the inhibition of ASP uptake by OCT2 listed in order of potency was palonosetron (IC: 2.6 μM) > ondansetron > granisetron > tropisetron > dolasetron (IC: 85.4 μM) and the inhibition of ASP uptake by MATE1 in order of potency was ondansetron (IC: 0.1 μM) > palonosetron = tropisetron > granisetron > dolasetron (IC: 27.4 μM). Ondansetron (0.5-20 μM) inhibited the basolateral-to-apical transcellular transport of ASP up to 64%. Higher concentrations (10 and 20 μM) of palonosetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron similarly reduced the transcellular transport of ASP. In double-transfected OCT2-MATE1 MDCK cells, ondansetron at concentrations of 0.5 and 2.5 μM caused significant intracellular accumulation of ASP. Taken together, these data suggest that 5-HT antagonist drugs may inhibit the renal secretion of cationic drugs by interfering with OCT2 and/or MATE1 function.
Topics: Animals; Antiemetics; Biological Transport; Cell Line; Cells, Cultured; Dogs; Gene Expression; HEK293 Cells; Humans; Kidney; Madin Darby Canine Kidney Cells; Molecular Structure; Organic Cation Transport Proteins; Organic Cation Transporter 2; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 34208557
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22126439 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2021Our aim was to compare the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination of aprepitant, dolasetron and dexamethasone with the combination of dolasetron and dexamethasone...
PURPOSE
Our aim was to compare the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination of aprepitant, dolasetron and dexamethasone with the combination of dolasetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients receiving hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This was a retrospective study. In the dolasetron plus dexamethasone group (D group), the patients received dolasetron (100 mg, i.v., on day 1) and dexamethasone (10 mg, i.v., on day 1) 30 min before starting administration of chemotherapeutic drugs. In the aprepitant plus dolasetron and dexamethasone group (AD group), the patients received dolasetron and dexamethasone as described above, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (CR, defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) during the first cycle of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy.
RESULTS
Between January 2018 and August 2019, 302 eligible patients were included: 197 in AD group and 105 in D group. Patients in AD group had significantly higher complete response rates than those in D group during the first cycle (85.8% vs 71.4%, P = 0.003) and all cycles (73.6% vs 49.5%, P<0.001). Patients in AD group had lower rescue therapy (1.5% vs 26.7%, P<0.001) and lower incidence of disruption related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (0.5% vs 6.7%, P = 0.002) than patients in D group.
CONCLUSION
Aprepitant, dolasetron plus dexamethasone is more effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with FOLFOX-HAIC therapy than dolasetron plus dexamethasone.
PubMed: 33519205
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S283192