-
BioMed Research International 2017Chronic pruritus is a difficult condition to treat and is associated with several comorbidities, including insomnia, depression, and decreased quality of life. Treatment... (Review)
Review
Chronic pruritus is a difficult condition to treat and is associated with several comorbidities, including insomnia, depression, and decreased quality of life. Treatment for chronic itch includes corticosteroids, antihistamines, and systemic therapies such as naltrexone, gabapentin, UV light therapy, and immunomodulatory treatments, including azathioprine, methotrexate, and cellcept. However, some patients still remain refractory to conventional therapy. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting (CINV, PONV). Recently, aprepitant has demonstrated effectiveness in several case series and open label trials in relieving pruritus for patients refractory to other treatments. Patients with pruritus associated with Sézary syndrome, mycosis fungoides, lung adenocarcinoma, breast carcinoma, sarcomas, metastatic solid tumors, chronic kidney disease, hyperuricemia, iron deficiency, brachioradial pruritus, and Hodgkin's lymphoma have experienced considerable symptom relief with short-term use of aprepitant (up to two weeks). Due to differences in reporting and evaluation of drug effects, the mechanism of aprepitant's role is difficult to understand based on the current literature. Herein, we evaluate aprepitant's antipruritic effects and discuss its mechanism of action and adverse effects. We propose that aprepitant is an alternative for patients suffering from pruritus who do not obtain enough symptom relief from conventional therapy.
Topics: Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Chronic Disease; Humans; Morpholines; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Pruritus; Quality of Life
PubMed: 29057261
DOI: 10.1155/2017/4790810 -
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 -
ACS Omega Nov 2022This study focused on improving the physicochemical characteristics of aprepitant with poor water solubility by preparing solid dispersion (SD). To prepare the SD with...
This study focused on improving the physicochemical characteristics of aprepitant with poor water solubility by preparing solid dispersion (SD). To prepare the SD with HPMCAS-LF, the solvent evaporation method was applied. Based on dissolution analysis, the dissolution rate of SD increased by five times compared with aprepitant. In addition, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results suggested the presence of amorphous-form aprepitant inside SD. According to Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, intermolecular hydrogen bonds were detected between polymer and aprepitant. The Caco-2 cell experiment proved that SD did not lower the transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) values but improved the permeation amount of aprepitant. Additionally, the SD of aprepitant displayed excellent stability.
PubMed: 36385804
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c04021 -
Recent developments in the clinical pharmacology of rolapitant: subanalyses in specific populations.Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2017Knowledge of the involvement of the neurokinin substance P in emesis has led to the development of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1 RAs) for control of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Knowledge of the involvement of the neurokinin substance P in emesis has led to the development of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1 RAs) for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in combination with serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. The NK-1 RA rolapitant, recently approved in oral formulation, has nanomolar affinity for the NK-1 receptor, as do the other commercially available NK-1 RAs, aprepitant and netupitant. Rolapitant is rapidly absorbed and has a long half-life in comparison to aprepitant and netupitant. All three NK-1 RAs undergo metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, necessitating caution with the concomitant use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, but in contrast to aprepitant and netupitant, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce CYP3A4. However, rolapitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, and concomitant use with CYP2D6 substrates with narrow therapeutic indices should be avoided. Aprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant have all demonstrated efficacy in the control of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in randomized controlled trials, including over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. We reviewed recent post hoc analyses of clinical trial data demonstrating that rolapitant is efficacious in the control of CINV in patient populations with specific tumor types, namely, breast cancers, gastrointestinal/colorectal cancers, and lung cancers. In addition, we show that rolapitant has efficacy in the control of CINV in specific age groups of patients receiving chemotherapy (<65 and ≥65 years of age). Overall, the safety profile of rolapitant in these specific patient populations was consistent with that observed in primary analyses of phase 3 trials.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Half-Life; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spiro Compounds; Vomiting
PubMed: 28919712
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S133943 -
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Jun 2019This evidence review was conducted to inform the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the management of cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) in adults. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This evidence review was conducted to inform the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the management of cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) in adults.
METHODS
We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and focused on interventions aimed at prophylactic management and abortive treatment of adults with CVS. Specifically, this evidence review addresses the following clinical questions: (a) Should the following pharmacologic agents be used for prophylaxis of CVS: amitriptyline, topiramate, aprepitant, zonisamide/levetiracetam, or mitochondrial supplements? (b) Should the following pharmacologic agents be used for abortive treatment: triptans or aprepitant?
RESULTS
We found very low-quality evidence to support the use of the following agents for prophylactic and abortive treatment of CVS: amitriptyline, topiramate, aprepitant, zonisamide/levetiracetam, and mitochondrial supplements. We have moderate certainty of evidence for the use of triptans as abortive therapy. We found limited evidence to support the use of ondansetron and the treatment of co-morbid conditions and complementary therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
This evidence review helps inform the accompanying guideline for the management of adults with CVS which is aimed at helping clinicians, patients, and policymakers, and should improve patient outcomes.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 31241818
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13605 -
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 -
Pharmaceutics Apr 2020This study aimed to improve the solubility and dissolution of aprepitant, a drug with poor aqueous solubility, using a phosphatidylcholine (PC)-based solid dispersion...
This study aimed to improve the solubility and dissolution of aprepitant, a drug with poor aqueous solubility, using a phosphatidylcholine (PC)-based solid dispersion system. When fabricating the PC-based solid dispersion, we employed mesoporous microparticles, as an adsorbent, and disintegrants to improve the sticky nature of PC and dissolution of aprepitant, respectively. The solid dispersions were prepared by a solvent evaporation technique and characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), differential scanning calorimetry, and X-ray powder diffraction. The FTIR results showed that aprepitant interacted with the PC carrier by both hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces that can also be observed in the interaction between aprepitant and polymer carriers. The solid dispersions fabricated with only PC were not sufficient to convert the crystallinity of aprepitant to an amorphous state, whereas the formulations that included adsorbent and disintegrant successfully changed that of aprepitant to an amorphous state. Both the solubility and dissolution of aprepitant were considerably enhanced in the PC-based solid dispersions containing adsorbent and disintegrant compared with those of pure aprepitant and polymer-based solid dispersions. Therefore, these results suggest that our PC-based solid dispersion system is a promising alternative to conventional formulations for poorly water-soluble drugs, such as aprepitant.
PubMed: 32365589
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12050407 -
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 -
The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology... Apr 2014To describe the use of aprepitant and fosaprepitant, a neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor inhibitor, in children and adolescents at a large academic medical center, for the...
OBJECTIVE
To describe the use of aprepitant and fosaprepitant, a neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor inhibitor, in children and adolescents at a large academic medical center, for the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).
METHODS
A retrospective chart review was conducted using an electronic medical record system to evaluate the use of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in all pediatric patients that were discharged from a single academic medical center between February 25, 2009 and May 25, 2012.
RESULTS
Twenty-six patients were included in this review and received a total of 287 doses over the span of 114 cycles. Mean age was 10.1 years, with a range of 11 months to 17 years old. In 16 of 26 patients, aprepitant was used as the primary prophylaxis. Of those patients who received primary prophylaxis, 6 of 16 received it for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and 10 of 16 received it for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Intravenous fosaprepitant was used in 7 of 26 patients, ages 13 to 17 (median 14) years old. No adverse effects attributable to aprepitant were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients appeared to be well tolerated. No currently published reports data using aprepitant in a patient younger than 32 months old, whereas we reported its use in patients as young as 11 months old.
PubMed: 25024673
DOI: 10.5863/1551-6776-19.2.127 -
Indian Pediatrics Feb 2010Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem in the treatment of children with cancer. The last decade has seen a variety of newer... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem in the treatment of children with cancer. The last decade has seen a variety of newer antiemetics being evaluated for CINV; their efficacy and side effects need to be assessed in children. This article attempts to highlight this revised management of CINV.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Online search; journals. Search period: 6 months.
RESULTS
Newer drugs (aprepitant, fosapritant and newer 5HT3 antagonists) have been found to be effective in CINV: both acute and delayed phases. Most of the available literature is, however, based on adult oncology patients, with a few trials on adolescent patients.
CONCLUSION
Every child receiving treatment for cancer should be evaluated for possible CINV. Their treatment should take into account the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic drugs. Newer antiemetic drugs have good efficacy and can be tried in pediatric patients, especially in children > 11 years of age.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Male; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 20228428
DOI: 10.1007/s13312-010-0023-4