若生智能
Drug Database
FO

fosaprepitant (Focinvez)

✓ Approved

SPES Pharmaceuticals · TACR1 · 小分子

什么是 fosaprepitant？

fosaprepitant 是一种小分子，由SPES Pharmaceuticals研发。该药已获批，用于治疗相关适应症，给药途径：Injectable (Others)、Intravenous (IV)。

药物档案

商品名Focinvez
公司SPES Pharmaceuticals
药物类别小分子
分子靶点TACR1
给药途径Injectable (Others), Intravenous (IV)
状态Approved
来源： ClinicalTrials.gov, SPES Pharmaceuticals

作用机制

分子靶点

fosaprepitant 作用于 1 个分子靶点：

TACR1tachykinin receptor 1 (SPR, TAC1R)
需要更深入的分析？Noah AI 可解释复杂机制并与同类药物比较。

相关研究文献

PubMedJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2026-07-31

Dexamethasone-Free Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Children and Adolescents Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Multicenter, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial (CIVIC POD).

Radhakrishnan Venkatraman V, Srinivasan Prasanth P, Das Gargi G, Bakhshi Sameer S et al.

Dexamethasone combined with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist is the guideline-recommended prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is associated with clinically relevant toxicities. The role of olanzapine as a dexamethasone-sparing agent for pediatric CINV prophylaxis remains uncertain. The Chemotherapy Induced Vomiting in Children-Prophylaxis Omitting Dexamethasone (CIVIC POD) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, phase III, randomized noninferiority (NI) trial (INPHOG-SUPP-22-03) that enrolled patients age 4-18 years scheduled to receive single- or multiday HEC. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to dexamethasone, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant (DEX) or olanzapine, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant (OLANZ) for one chemotherapy cycle. The primary end point was complete response (CR) to vomiting (no vomiting and no rescue antiemetics) during the overall period (0-120 h after last chemotherapy). The prespecified NI margin was -15%. A total of 310 patients were randomly assigned (DEX, n = 156; OLANZ, n = 154). The median age was 13 years, 62.3% were male, and 51.9% received multiday chemotherapy. The per-protocol population included 299 patients (DEX, n = 151; OLANZ, n = 148). The overall-period CR to vomiting was 56.9% with DEX and 63.5% with OLANZ (absolute difference, 6.6% [95% CI, -4.5 to 17.7]), meeting NI criteria. Acute-period CR to vomiting was 64.2% versus 68.9%, and delayed-period CR was 78.8% versus 79.1% (DEX v OLANZ). CR to nausea during the overall, acute, and delayed periods was 54.3% versus 53.4%, 59.6% versus 59.5%, and 69.5% versus 68.9%, respectively. Any-grade somnolence was more frequent with OLANZ (50.7% v 17.2%). A dexamethasone-free regimen using olanzapine demonstrated noninferior control of vomiting compared with standard prophylaxis in children and adolescents receiving HEC, supporting olanzapine as a potential corticosteroid-sparing alternative for pediatric CINV prophylaxis.

PMID 42535876
阅读全文 →
PubMedCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2026-07-27

Aprepitant and Fosaprepitant for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-A Real-World Study.

Ünlü Beyza B, Demir Hacer H, Davarcı Sena Ece SE, Culha Yaşar Y et al.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting substantially impair patients' quality of life despite considerable advances in supportive care. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, including oral aprepitant and intravenous fosaprepitant, constitute essential components of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this prospective, non-randomized observational study, we compared the efficacy of oral aprepitant and intravenous fosaprepitant administered in combination with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone in 136 chemotherapy-naive patients receiving cisplatin- or doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide-based regimens. Complete response rates during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases were comparable between the two groups, with no statistically significant differences in emesis severity. Multivariable analyses further demonstrated similar effectiveness irrespective of age, sex, or chemotherapy regimen. These findings indicate that no statistically significant differences in antiemetic efficacy were observed between aprepitant and fosaprepitant in routine clinical practice. Fosaprepitant may therefore represent a practical alternative when oral administration is not feasible.

PMID 42505183
阅读全文 →
PubMedCancer management and research2026-06-11

Comparative Efficacy of Fosnetupitant and Fosaprepitant for Delayed Vomiting in Patients Receiving Irinotecan-Oxaliplatin Combination Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Maeda Kazuki K, Kawada Kei K, Hayashi Toshinobu T, Koyama Sota S et al.

Appropriate prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is essential for improving patients' quality of life; however, no studies have compared neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in regimens combining oxaliplatin and irinotecan. We aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant in patients receiving FOLFIRINOX or FOLFOXIRI regimens. We reviewed records of patients receiving FOLFIRINOX or FOLFOXIRI between April 1, 2018 and September 30, 2024 at Tokushima University Hospital. Eligible patients completed the first chemotherapy cycle, received standard triple antiemetic prophylaxis, and had complete nursing-recorded CINV follow-up data for days 1-7. Patients were matched 1:1 using propensity scores for age, sex, alcohol consumption history, prior treatment, regimen, and chemotherapy doses. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of vomiting during the long-delayed phase (days 6-7) between the fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant groups. The no-vomiting and no-nausea rates were compared using Fisher's exact test, and the time to first vomiting using the Log rank test. After matching, data from 68 balanced patient pairs were analyzed. The fosnetupitant group had higher no-vomiting rates in the long-delayed phase (100% vs. 91.2%, p=0.028) and overall period (95.6% vs. 83.8%, p=0.045), compared with the fosaprepitant group. No significant intergroup difference was observed in the overall no-nausea rate (26.5% vs. 32.3%, p=0.573). With fosnetupitant, the time to first vomiting was longer (3/68 vs. 11/68, hazard ratio: 0.20, p=0.045), injection site reactions were fewer (0.0% vs. 19.1%, p<0.001), and constipation and hiccup incidences were fewer (p>0.05). Despite the retrospective design, possible calendar-time confounding, and limited number of events, our results suggest that fosnetupitant offers better control of long-delayed and overall vomiting and a favorable safety profile, compared with fosaprepitant, in patients receiving FOLFIRINOX/FOLFOXIRI regimens.

PMID 42273006
阅读全文 →
PubMedEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026-06-10

Efficacy of NEPA for prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in head and neck cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Hwang Tzer-Zen TZ, Wang Chih-Chun CC, Yang Chuan-Chien CC, Lien Ching-Feng CF et al.

A 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) in combination with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1RA) are effective for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. We investigated the efficacy between oral netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) and intravenous fosaprepitant and palonosetron (FOPA) in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. R/M HNSCC patients who were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment were enrolled in our study. All patients were stratified according to anti-emetic agents, classifying into NEPA group and FOPA group. Anti-emetic efficacy, patients self-report scores and hospitalization days were compared between NEPA and FOPA. A total of 425 R/M HNSCC patients were recruited into our study, with 211 patients in NEPA and 214 patients in FOPA. Anti-emetic efficacy were all significantly better with NEPA than with FOPA across cycle 1 to 5. The mean nausea score were 2.9 vs. 3.4 (p = 0.004) and the mean vomiting score were 1.4 vs. 2.7 (P = 0.001) in cycle 1 for NEPA group and FOPA group, respectively. The mean satisfaction scores were 8.5 vs. 8.2 ( P = 0.032) in cycle1 for NEPA group and FOPA group, respectively. Furthermore, the mean hospitalization days were shorter in NEPA than those in FOPA across cycle 1 to 5, with mean hospitalization days 6.0 versus 7.0 days in cycle 1, respectively. Oral NEPA exhibited a superior anti-emetic efficacy than intravenous FOPA, as well as shorter hospitalization days for R/M HNSCC patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

PMID 42268415
阅读全文 →
PubMedAnticancer research2026-05-28

Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Delayed Vomiting Upon Irinotecan-Oxaliplatin Combination Chemotherapy for Pancreatic/Colorectal Cancer.

Maeda Kazuki K, Koyama Sota S, Kawada Kei K, Hayashi Toshinobu T et al.

Real-world comparative data on neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are needed among patients receiving FOLFOXIRI or FOLFIRINOX. We aimed to evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness of fosnetupitant versus that of fosaprepitant in patients treated with FOLFOXIRI/FOLFIRINOX regimens for pancreatic/colorectal cancer. This single-center retrospective study included patients treated from April 2018 to September 2024. Patients were matched 1:1 between treatment groups via propensity scores based on age, sex, alcohol history, prior treatment, and regimen dose, as appropriate. Antiemetic effectiveness was assessed as no vomiting/no nausea during days 1-7; safety outcomes were also evaluated. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was conducted to validate the robustness of the results. Between-group comparisons were performed using Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U-tests for continuous variables. After matching, 43 patient pairs in the pancreatic cancer cohort and 28 pairs in the colorectal cancer cohort were analyzed; the groups had generally comparable baseline characteristics. In the pancreatic cancer cohort, fosnetupitant was associated with higher no-vomiting rates during the long-delayed phase (100% vs. 81%, p=0.006) and overall period (95% vs. 74%, p=0.014) than fosaprepitant. No significant differences in effectiveness were observed in the colorectal cancer cohort. Injection site reactions were significantly less frequent with fosnetupitant in the colorectal cancer cohort (4% vs. 29%, p=0.025). These findings remained consistent in the IPTW sensitivity analysis. The effectiveness of fosnetupitant may vary according to cancer type, suggesting the need to tailor antiemetic strategies for patients receiving irinotecan-oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy.

PMID 42203343
阅读全文 →
PubMedCancers2026-05-27

Efficacy and Safety of Oral NEPA Versus Fosaprepitant Plus Palonosetron for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Propensity-Score-Matched Retrospective Study.

Cai Yilin Y, Zeng Ying Y, Li Qihang Q, Yi Guihua G et al.

Objectives: This study compared the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) with an intravenous regimen of fosaprepitant (FosAPR, 150 mg) plus palonosetron (PALO, 0.25 mg) in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients with stage III-IVa NPC who received cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) from January 2020 to October 2025. Propensity score matching (PSM) generated 214 patients per group. All patients also received olanzapine and dexamethasone. Complete response (CR, defined as no emesis and no rescue medication), nausea control, adverse events, and nutritional status changes were assessed across the acute, delayed, overall, and extended (0-168 h) phases. Results: After PSM, 214 patients were included in each group. During the first IC cycle, the oral NEPA group achieved a higher CR rate in the extended overall phase (0-168 h) than the FosAPR + PALO group (80.0% vs. 70.1%, p = 0.019). A similar difference was seen in the first CCRT cycle (74.8% vs. 64.5%, p = 0.021). The advantage persisted across subsequent cycles, with no between-group difference in the acute phase. Nausea control also favored oral NEPA: rates of no significant nausea (visual analog scale < 25 mm) during the extended overall phase were 77.1% versus 65.9% in the first IC cycle (p= 0.010) and 72.9% versus 60.3% in the first CCRT cycle (p = 0.006). Fewer patients in the NEPA group required rescue antiemetics (14.5% vs. 22.0% in the first IC cycle, p = 0.045), and the median time to first rescue was longer (58.3 vs. 51.3 h, p < 0.001). Adverse event profiles were similar between groups, with constipation being the most common. Nutritional outcomes, including weight loss ≥ 5% and severe malnutrition, did not differ significantly. Conclusions: For patients with LA-NPC receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), oral NEPA appears to offer superior and sustained chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxi with a simplified administration schedule compared with the intravenous FosAPR plus PALO regimen. These findings warrant confirmation in prospective studies.

PMID 42192892
阅读全文 →

注册免费账户还可查看另外 254 篇文献

免费注册查看全部文献 →

了解更多fosaprepitant