Study on the method to avoid infusion‑site adverse events following chemotherapeutic treatment with epirubicin and fosaprepitant using immortalized human umbilical vein endothelial cells
- Authors:
- Published online on: September 16, 2022 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2022.13506
- Article Number: 386
-
Copyright: © Yamasaki et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
In chemotherapy for breast cancer patients, FEC or EC regimen is widely used, and these regimens contain epirubicin (EPI), an anthracycline-based antineoplastic drug, as follows: FEC regimen consists of fluorouracil, EPI and cyclophosphamide, and EC regimen consists of EPI and cyclophosphamide. Oral aprepitant (AP), which is a neurokinin 1 (NK1) antagonist, is ingested once before and twice after EPI treatment, once/day for 3 days, mostly for inpatients, and intravenous Proemend® containing fosaprepitant (FAP) meglumine, a phosphoryl prodrug for AP, and Tween 80, a non-ionic surfactant, is administered intravenously through an intravenous (IV) tube once by the constant-rate infusion of more than 30 min just before the EPI treatment mostly for outpatients (1). The combined use of FAP and EPI, however, can cause infusion-site adverse events such as primarily edema/swelling, erythema or dermatitis, in addition to individual hypersensitivity systemic reactions (2–5). The risk for the incidence of infusion-site reactions with intravenous FAP before the administration of chemotherapy drugs involves the following three factors: age, location of IV line, and simultaneous maintenance IV fluid rate of <100 ml/h (6). The incidence of infusion-site reactions decreased to 5.74% from 28.7% when the intravenous FAP vial was diluted to FAP 150 mg/250 ml from FAP 150 mg/150 ml, and it was infused for more than 30 min (7). Additionally, the use of HTX-019 130 mg was reported as an alternative to FAP 150 mg. HTX-019 130 mg is a polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free AP injectable emulsion. It was reported that the number of treatment-emergent adverse events was lower with HTX-019 130 mg (30-min infusion) than with FAP 150 mg (20- or 30-min infusion) (8,9). We also studied the method to avoid adverse events induced by the combined use of intravenous FAP followed by EPI based on the viewpoint of the perivascular tissue distribution of EPI, because the infusion-site adverse events in breast cancer chemotherapy with the FEC regimen combined with Proemend® for I.V. Infusion containing FAP and Tween 80 were sometimes observed in the hospital (Chugoku Rosai Hospital) (10). In rats, the administration of FAP and EPI using the same IV tube exhibited significantly higher perivascular tissue distribution of EPI compared to that administered from different peripheral veins, and the higher EPI distribution caused more severe infusion-site adverse events. Based on these findings, we suggested that the infusion of FAP and EPI from different peripheral veins (right and left) can avoid the infusion-site adverse events greatly (10). In the present study, we further studied the method to avoid infusion-site adverse events in the chemotherapy with FEC or EC regimen combined with the intravenous infusion of FAP by employing immortalized human umbilical vein endothelial (HUEhT-1) cells.
Materials and methods
Materials
AP, FAP and EPI were obtained from Combi-Blocks (San Diego, USA), Sigma-Aldrich Japan (Tokyo, Japan), and Toronto Research Chemicals (Toronto, Canada), respectively. Separately, Proemend I.V. Infusion containing FAP meglumine 243.3 mg (corresponding to FAP 150 mg) and Tween 80 (polysorbate 80) 78.8 mg was obtained from Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Osaka, Japan) and used by diluting with culture medium appropriately. The diluted Proemend solution containing FAP meglumine and Tween 80 was described as FAP (Proemend) to distinguish it from FAP alone, and the concentration of FAP (Proemend) shown in the figures refers to the concentration of FAP within Proemend. Tween 80 was obtained from MP Biochemicals, LLC (Santa Ana, USA). Regents used for cell culture were obtained as follows: culture medium, Endothelial Cell Growth Medium (EGM) from Takara Bio (Siga, Japan), fetal bovine serum (FBS) from Moregate Biotech (Bulimba, Australia), and Endothelial cell growth SupplementMix from Takara Bio (Siga, Japan). Other chemicals such as acetic acid and acetonitrile used for high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis were of the highest grade available.
Cell culture
HUEhT-1 cells, an immortalized human umbilical vein endothelial cell line (HUVEC) with cell No. JCRB1458 established by electroporation of pIRES-hTERT-hygr, between passages 6 and 20 were obtained from JCRB Cell Bank, National Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition (Osaka, Japan). For cytotoxicity experiments, HUEhT-1 cells were seeded at a density of 10×104 cells/100 µl/well in a 96-well plate (Corning Japan KK, Tokyo, Japan). For the intracellular accumulation study of EPI, HUEhT-1 cells were seeded at a density of 5×104 cells/well on 12 well collagen I coated plates (Corning Japan KK, Tokyo, Japan). These cells were cultured for 72 h in EGM medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 2% EGM SupplementMix under 5% CO2−95% air at 37°C according to the indication by JCRB Cell Bank of cells as preincubation before experiments. Cell culture experiments were repeated four times for each test sample independently.
Cytotoxicity of AP, FAP, FAP (Proemend), Tween 80, and EPI alone (evaluated by viability)
HUEhT-1 cells were incubated with a culture medium containing either AP, FAP, FAP (Proemend), Tween 80, or EPI with different concentrations (AP: 0, 1, 3, 10, 30, 50, 100 µg/ml; FAP: 0, 1, 3, 10, 30, 50, 100 µg/ml; FAP (Proemend): 0, 1.5, 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 75, 150 µg/ml; Tween 80: 0, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1,000 µg/ml; EPI: 0, 0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10, 30, 50, 100 µg/ml) to evaluate the cytotoxicity of each test compound. After 24 h-incubation at 37°C, the cell viability was estimated by WST-1 assay according to the manufacturer's protocol (Dojindo, Kumamoto, Japan) in the same manner as reported previously (11). Briefly, each culture medium containing the test compound was discarded and WST-1 reaction mixture (100 µl) containing WST-1 [2-(4-Iodophenyl)-3-(4-nitrophenyl)-5-(2,4-disulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium, monosodium salt, a cell proliferation reagent] and 1-methoxy phenazinium methylsulfate was added according to the manufacture's protocol (Dojindo, Kumamoto, Japan). After 60 min-incubation, the ultraviolet (UV) absorbance at 450 nm was measured with a microplate reader (SpectraMax Plus 384, Molecular Devices Japan). The UV absorbance of samples that were cultured with a culture medium alone was regarded as a control (100%).
Cytotoxicity of FAP and FAP (Proemend) (evaluated by LDH leakage)
HUEhT-1 cells were incubated for 24 h with a culture medium containing FAP or FAP (Proemend) at different concentrations at follows: FAP; 0, 1, 3, 10, 30, 50, 100 µg/ml; FAP (Proemend); 0, 1.5, 4.5, 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 150 µg/ml. After 24 h-incubation, the concentrations of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) leaked from the cells into the incubation medium were determined using LDH Cytotoxicity Assay Kit (Nacalai Tesque, Kyoto, Japan). Separately, cells incubated with a culture medium alone were mixed with Triton-X (final concentration, 1%) to estimate the maximal leakage of LDH (100%).
Cytotoxicity of combined use of FAP and EPI (evaluated by viability)
HUEhT-1 cells were incubated for 24 h with a culture medium containing EPI alone at different concentrations (0, 0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10, 30, 50, 100 µg/ml) or a combination of EPI at different concentrations and FAP (Proemend) 15 µg/ml (a non-cytotoxic concentration). Similarly, HUEhT-1 cells were incubated for 24 h with a culture medium containing FAP (Proemend) alone at different concentrations (0, 1.5, 4.5, 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 75, 150 µg/ml) or a combination of FAP (Proemend) at different concentrations and EPI 1.0 µg/ml (a non-cytotoxic concentration). Cell viability was estimated after 24 h-incubation by WST-1 assay. In this study, the values of half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) of each compound (EPI, FAP (Proemend) and combinations of EPI and FAP (Proemend) for the viability of HUEhT-1 cell were estimated to evaluate the synergic cytotoxicity of EPI and FAP (Proemend) in a quantitative manner. Estimation of IC50 values for isobolographic analysis was made by using concentration-viability curves and ImageJ, a Java program inspired by NIH Image that runs on Windows <https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/> in the same manner as reported previously (12–14).
Effect of FAP, FAP (Proemend) and Tween 80 on the intracellular accumulation of EPI
HUEhT-1 cells precultured on 12 well collagen I coated plates were washed with 1 ml of isotonic, pH 7.4 phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) twice and incubated with PBS for 10 min at 37°C (preincubation) to remove the culture medium. Then, to evaluate the effects of FAP, FAP (Proemend) and Tween 80 on the intracellular accumulation of EPI, cells were incubated for 10 min at 37°C with PBS containing a mixture of EPI 20 µg/ml and FAP (0, 1.5, 15 or 150 µg/ml), a mixture of EPI 20 µg/ml and FAP (Proemend) (0, 1.5, 15 or 150 µg/ml), or a mixture of EPI 20 µg/ml and Tween 80 at a concentration of 0, 7.88, or 78.8 µg/ml, respectively. Solutions of FAP (Proemend) (1.5, 15 or 150 µg/ml) contain 0.788, 7.88, or 78.8 µg/ml of Tween 80, respectively. After 10-min incubation of cells with a medium containing the above compound(s), the culture medium was discarded, cells were washed 3 times with 1-ml PBS and were dissolved with PBS containing 0.1% Triton-X. The concentrations of EPI and protein in cell lysates were determined fluorometrically at 458 nm for excitation and 538 nm for emission and photometrically at 562 nm using the TaKaRa BCA protein assay kit (Takara Bio, Siga, Japan), respectively.
Effect of cell washing on cytotoxicity of combined use of FAP and EPI (evaluated by viability)
The effect of cell washing on the cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) alone at different concentrations (0, 1.5, 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 75, 150 µg/ml) was evaluated. HUEhT-1 cells were incubated with a culture medium containing FAP at different concentrations for 30 min, the medium was discarded, and then cells were incubated with a fresh culture medium alone for 24 h (cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend), without washing). For comparison, HUEhT-1 cells were incubated with a culture medium containing FAP (Proemend) at different concentrations (0, 1.5, 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 75, 150 µg/ml) for 30 min, the medium was discarded, the cell surface was washed with culture medium (100 µl each), and then incubated for 24 h with fresh culture medium (cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend), with washing). Separately, the effect of cell washing on the cytotoxicity of a combination of FAP (Proemend) at different concentrations (0, 1.5, 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 75, 150 µg/ml) and EPI 1.0 µg/ml was evaluated. After HUEhT-1 cells were incubated with FAP (Proemend) at different concentrations (0, 1.5, 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 75, 150 µg/ml) for 30 min, the culture medium was discarded. Then, cells were cultured with fresh medium containing EPI 1.0 µg/ml (a non-cytotoxic concentration) for 24 h (cytotoxicity of combined use, without washing). For comparison, the cell surface was washed with a culture medium (100 µl each) after 30-min incubation of cells with FAP (Proemend) at different concentrations (0, 1.5, 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 75, 150 µg/ml) and then incubated for 24 h with a culture medium containing EPI 1.0 µg/ml (cytotoxicity of combined use, with washing). Cell viability was estimated after 24 h-incubation by WST-1 assay.
Analysis of EPI in cells
The concentrations of EPI accumulated in HUEhT-1 cells after incubation were determined in the same manner as reported previously by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (10). Briefly, the HPLC column used was a YMC-Triart C18 column (YMC Inc., Kyoto, Japan). The mobile phase was a mixture of 1% acetic acid and acetonitrile in a ratio of 7:3 (v/v%), and the flow rate was set at 1.0 ml/min. EPI was detected fluorometrically at an excitation wavelength of 470 nm and an emission wavelength of 585 nm, respectively.
Statistical analysis
The data were presented as the mean ± SE (experiments of cell culture were repeated with four independent repetitions), and statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey-Kramer method for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was set at P<0.05.
Results
Cytotoxicity of AP, FAP, FAP (Proemend), Tween 80 and EPI alone on HUEhT-1 cells (viability)
HUEhT-1 cells were incubated for 24 h with a medium containing AP, FAP, FAP (Proemend), Tween 80, or EPI at different concentrations and the viability of treated cells was evaluated by WST-1 assay. AP and Tween 80 alone exerted no cytotoxicity in a concentration range from 0 to 50 µg/ml and from 0 to 1,000 µg/ml, respectively. In contrast, FAP, FAP (Proemend) and EPI exhibited cytotoxicity in a concentration-dependent manner (decrease in viability) at more than 30, 15 and 1.0 µg/ml, respectively, indicating the potency of cytotoxicity was in the following order: EPI > FAP (Proemend) > FAP (Fig. 1).
Cytotoxicity of FAP and FAP (Proemend) each on HUEhT-1 cells (LDH leakage)
HUEhT-1 cells were incubated for 24 h with either FAP or FAP (Proemend) at different concentrations, and their cytotoxic potencies were evaluated by measuring LDH leakage from cells. The leakage of LDH was induced at more than 30 and 15 µg/ml of FAP and FAP (Proemend), respectively. No significant difference was observed in the potency of cytotoxicity between FAP and FAP (Proemend) when evaluated at a concentration of 50 µg/ml of FAP (Fig. 2).
Cytotoxicity of combined use of FAP (Proemend) and EPI
In HUEhT-1 cells, the co-existence of FAP (Proemend) at a concentration of 15 µg/ml significantly increased the cytotoxicity of EPI (Fig. 3A), although FAP (Proemend) alone at a concentration of 15 µg/ml showed no cytotoxicity (Fig. 1C). Similarly, the co-existence of a non-toxic concentration of EPI (1 µg/ml) significantly increased the cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) (Fig. 3B). These results indicate the synergistic cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) and EPI. Using these concentration-viability curves, values of IC50 were estimated for isobolographic analysis (Fig. 3C). Estimated IC50 values were 11.4 µg/ml for EPI alone, 0.96 µg/ml for a combination of EPI and FAP (Proemend), 32.6 µg/ml for FAP (Proemend) alone, and 15.4 µg/ml for a combination of FAP (Proemend) and EPI. These results indicate that the cytotoxicity of EPI can be greatly increased by the presence of FAP (Proemend) even at a non-toxic concentration, although the increase in the cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) is small even in the co-presence of a non-toxic concentration of EPI.
Effect of FAP, FAP (Proemend) and Tween 80 on the intracellular accumulation of EPI
HUEhT-1 cells were incubated for 10 min with a culture medium containing EPI 20 µg/ml and either FAP, FAP (Proemend) or Tween 80 at different concentrations to evaluate the effect of each compound on the intracellular accumulation of EPI. FAP and FAP (Proemend) at concentrations of more than 15 µg/ml and Tween 80 at a concentration of 78.8 µg/ml increased the intracellular EPI concentration significantly (Fig. 4A-C).
Effect of cell surface washing on cytotoxicity of combined use of EPI and FAP (Proemend) (viability)
The effect of cell surface washing on the cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) alone or a combination of FAP (Proemend) and EPI 1 µg/ml was examined in HUEhT-1 cells. The cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) observed at a concentration of 150 µg/ml was eliminated by washing the cell surface with a fresh culture medium after 30-min incubation of HUEhT-1 cells with FAP (Proemend) (Fig. 5A). The viability of washed cells that were incubated with 150 µg/ml FAP (Proemend) rather increased by about 1.5-fold of control (100%) (Fig. 5A). In addition, the washing of the cell surface after incubation of cells with FAP (Proemend) at different concentrations eliminated completely the subsequently evoked synergic cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) and EPI (Fig. 5B).
Discussion
FEC and EC regimens in the chemotherapy for breast cancer patients contain EPI, an anthracycline drug with a high emetic risk, and the use of oral AP, intravenous FAP, dexamethasone, or olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic is recommended (15). The combined use of intravenous infusion of FAP and EPI that is frequently used for outpatients, however, can cause infusion-site adverse events compared with the combination of oral AP and EPI or intravenous FAP and cisplatin (1,15). We also observed the induction of infusion-site adverse events in breast cancer chemotherapy with the FEC regimen with intravenous FAP and studied the mechanism of adverse events based on the viewpoint of the perivascular tissue distribution of EPI by comparing three different treatments groups using rats (10). In the FAP-S group, FAP and EPI were infused into the jugular vein using the same IV tube. In the FAP-D group, FAP and EPI were infused into different jugular veins using two IV tubes (right and left jugular vein), respectively, and in the AP group, AP was administered orally, and EPI was infused into the jugular vein using an IV tube. The concentrations of EPI in plasma and perivascular tissue were compared among the FAP-S, FAP-D, and AP groups at 30 min and 24 h after the 5-min constant-rate infusion of EPI. There was no significant difference in the plasma EPI concentrations among the three groups. However, concentrations of EPI in perivascular tissues of infusion-site at 30 min and 24 h after EPI infusion were scattered greatly as follows: FAP-S group, the mean concentration was 2.30 µg/g at 30 min and 3.86 µg/g at 24 h; FAP-D group, 0.96 and 0.76 µg/g; AP group, 0.66 and 0.28 µg/g, respectively. The magnitude of histological damage at infusion-site adverse events was in the following order: EPI-infusion-site of the FAP-S group >> EPI-infusion-site of the FAP-D group >> EPI-infusion-site of the AP group and FAP-infusion-site of the FAP-D group (no damage). These results suggested that EPI has more potent cytotoxicity than FAP, and the co-existence of FAP at a higher concentration increased perivascular tissue concentrations of EPI infused thereafter and caused severe infusion-site adverse events, indicating the synergic cytotoxicity between FAP and EPI. Based on these results, we previously suggested that the infusion of FAP and EPI from different peripheral veins (right and left) can reduce the infusion-site adverse events greatly (10).
In the present study, the possible synergistic cytotoxicity of FAP and EPI and avoiding method of infusion-side adverse events were further studied employing HUEhT-1 cells. As shown in Fig. 1, the incubation of cells with FAP, FAP (Proemend) and EPI alone showed cytotoxicity of HUEhT-1 cells in a concentration-dependent manner, and the potency of cytotoxicity was in the following order: EPI > FAP (Proemend) > FAP when the cytotoxicity was evaluated by viability with WST-1 assay. These results suggested that Tween 80 contained in Proemend IV Infusion can increase the cytotoxicity of FAP, although Tween 80 alone showed no cytotoxicity in a concentration range from 0 to 1.0 mg/ml (Fig. 1). In contrast, the greater cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) compared to FAP was not clearly detected when evaluated by the LDH leakage assay, although FAP (Proemend) induced LDH leakage at a lower concentration compared to FAP (Fig. 2). It was reported that the assay with the neutral red and the MTT [3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide] was the most sensitive in detecting cytotoxic events compared to the LDH leakage and the protein assays when the cytotoxicity of hepatoma cell lines following exposure to cadmium chloride was detected (16). It was also reported that the WST-1 reagent presents several advantages compared to the two other tetrazolium salt-based cell proliferation reagents, MTT and XTT [2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide], including water-solubility, rapidity, greater stability and sensitivity (17,18). Thus, in the present study, the WST-1 assay was mainly used to evaluate the viability, or cytotoxicity, of each test compound. In these studies, however, a low concentration of FAP and/or FAP (Proemend) appeared to increase cell viability as shown in Figs. 1C and 3B. Similar phenomena were also observed in cells that were incubated with FAP (Proemend) 150 µg/ml for 30-min and then the cell surface was washed (Fig. 5A and B). In addition, large variability in cell viability was observed at a concentration of Tween 80 1 mg/ml in the medium (Fig. 1D). As shown in Fig. 4C, Tween 80 can increase the EPI distribution into HUEhT-1 cells and would cause cytotoxicity more or less. It may be considered that a slight cytotoxic effect rather stimulates the viability of cells. Further study is necessary to clarify the mechanism of such cell stimulation.
The effect of the combined use of FAP and EPI on cytotoxicity was examined, in which the presence of a nontoxic concentration of FAP (15 µg/ml) and EPI (1.0 µg/ml) significantly increased the cytotoxicity of EPI and FAP (Proemend), respectively (Fig. 3A and B). The synergic cytotoxicity of EPI and FAP (Proemend) was clearly detected by isobolographic analysis, in which the co-presence of nontoxic concentration of FAP (Proemend) greatly increased the cytotoxicity of EPI as evaluated by IC50 values (Fig. 3C), and the co-presence of either FAP or FAP (Proemend) was found to significantly increase the intracellular accumulation of EPI, in which Tween 80 alone also increases the EPI cell distribution depending on the concentration (Fig. 4). To avoid such synergic cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) and EPI, the effect of cell-surface washing after application of FAP (Proemend) on the synergic cytotoxicity was examined (Fig. 5). The washing of cell surface with culture medium after incubation with FAP (Proemend) eliminated the cytotoxicity caused by FAP (Proemend) alone and synergic cytotoxicity of FAP (Proemend) and EPI almost completely (Fig. 5).
These findings obtained in in-vitro HUEhT-1 cell studies imply the efficacy of washing the infusion in avoiding the infusion-site adverse events in chemotherapy using FEC or EC regimen and Proemend IV Infusion. Detailed preclinical animal studies are necessary to examine the efficacy of infusion-site washing in avoiding infusion-site adverse events in chemotherapy with EPI and intravenous FAP, including the effect of the timing of infusion-site washing and the quantity of saline for infusion-site washing. Regarding the timing of infusion-site washing, it may be considered as follows: FAP meglumine, a negatively charged phosphoryl prodrug for AP (19), and Tween 80 (polysorbate 80) with HLB 15.0 are both water-soluble compounds, and the adsorption on the cell surface or on the vascular endothelial cells would not be strong, because the surface layer of endothelial cells is covered with a negatively charged, brush-like glycocalyx (20). In contrast, the adsorption to the cell surface, or charged interaction, and the intracellular accumulation of weakly basic drugs, AP with a pKa value of 9.7 (19) and EPI with a pKa value of around 8.5 (21), are considered to be strong, because many weakly basic lipophilic drugs with a pKa value of more than 6.5 bind to acidic phospholipids, especially phosphatidylserine, in the cellular membrane (22,23). In addition, the cytotoxicity of EPI was greatly increased in the presence of FAP (Proemend) even at a nontoxic concentration, compared to the combination of FAP (Proemend) and nontoxic concentration of EPI (Fig. 3C). Taken together, in in-vivo preclinical studies, it will be important to administer Proemend at first and wash the vascular infusion-site via IV tube with an efficient amount of saline immediately after the IV infusion of Proemend, and thereafter administer EPI by infusion to avoid infusion-site adverse events in pharmacotherapy with EPI and Proemend. Regarding the washing of IV tube, the flushing of IV tube post administration of medications or between medications in IV administrations of multiple agents is recommended to prevent medicine loss (or flushing of residual medication from the line), to improve cannula patency (prevention of loss of function of peripheral intravenous catheters), or to prevent incompatibility issues between medication (24–27). However, to eliminate the adsorbed FAP and Tween 80 on the infusion-site vascular tissue almost completely, a greater volume of saline than the volume of IV tube flushing, for example, the same volume used for Proemend infusion (100–150 ml), will be necessary. Taking these considerations into account, detailed preclinical animal studies are needed to clarify the interaction mechanism between FAP and EPI and evaluate the efficacy of infusion-site washing in avoiding infusion-site adverse events.
In conclusion, the washing of the cell surface with culture medium after incubation with FAP (Proemend) was found to greatly decrease the synergic cytotoxicity of FAP, EPI and Tween 80 in HUEhT-1 cells. Based on our previous (10) and present studies, we would like to suggest that washing the infusion site after the application of Proemend with saline through an IV tube, or infusion of Proemend and EPI from different peripheral veins (right and left) may avoid or reduce the infusion-site adverse events.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Funding: No funding was received.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Authors' contributions
MY, KOd, KOm, YM and TM designed the study, and KOm approved the study. MY and KOd performed cellular experiments using HUEhT-1 cells, and TI, MM, ST, KOm, NM and TN assisted in the biological assay. MY and KOd analyzed the data. MY, KOd, YM and TM confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. MY and TM wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Glossary
Abbreviations
Abbreviations:
|
AP |
aprepitant |
|
EPI |
epirubicin |
|
FAP |
fosaprepitant |
References
|
Pritchett W and Kinsley K: Benefits and Risks of fosaprepitant in patients receiving emetogenic regimens. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 20:555–556. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Sato Y, Kondo M, Inagaki A, Komatsu H, Okada C, Naruse K, Sahashi T, Kuroda J, Ogura H, Uegaki S, et al: Highly frequent and enhanced injection site reaction induced by peripheral venous injection of fosaprepitant in anthracycline-treated patients. J Cancer. 5:390–397. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fujii T, Nishimura N, Urayama KY, Kanai H, Ishimaru H, Kawano J, Takahashi O, Yamauchi H and Yamauchi T: Differential impact of fosaprepitant on infusion site adverse events between cisplatin- and anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimens. Anticancer Res. 35:379–383. 2015.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Hegerova LT, Leal AD, Grendahl DC, Seisler DK, Sorgatz KM, Anderson KJ, Hilger CR and Loprinzi CL: An analysis of fosaprepitant-induced venous toxicity in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 23:55–59. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Boccia R, Geller RB, Clendeninn N and Ottoboni T: Hypersensitivity and infusion-site adverse events with intravenous fosaprepitant after anthracycline-containing chemotherapy: A retrospective study. Future Oncol. 15:297–303. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lundberg JD, Crawford BS, Phillips G, Berger MJ and Wesolowski R: Incidence of infusion-site reactions associated with peripheral intravenous administration of fosaprepitant. Support Care Cancer. 22:1461–1466. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chau E, Lundberg J, Phillips G, Berger M and Wesolowski R: Updated report on incidence of infusion-site reactions associated with peripheral intravenous administration of fosaprepitant. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 25:1053–1057. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ottoboni T, Keller MR, Cravets M, Clendeninn N and Quart B: Bioequivalence of HTX-019 (aprepitant IV) and fosaprepitant in healthy subjects: A phase I, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover evaluation. Drug Des Devel Ther. 12:429–435. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ottoboni T, Lauw M, Keller MR, Cravets M, Manhard K, Clendeninn N and Quart B: Safety of HTX-019 (intravenous aprepitant) and fosaprepitant in healthy subjects. Future Oncol. 14:2849–2859. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Yamasaki M, Kimura R, Mayahara S, Maeda Y, Takahashi M, Nishida T, Oda K and Murakami T: Study on the infusion-site adverse events and vascular distribution of epirubicin in chemotherapy with epirubicin and fosaprepitant. Mol Clin Oncol. 11:43–49. 2019.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Oda K, Umakoshi T, Mori N, Kasai R and Murakami T: Biopharmaceutical properties of tubeimoside-1: A cytotoxic amphipathic cyclic bisdesmoside. Int J Clin Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2:1262017. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Varela-Castillo O, Cordero P, Gutiérrez-Iglesias G, Palma I, Rubio-Gayosso I, Meaney E, Ramirez-Sanchez I, Villarreal F, Ceballos G and Nájera N: Characterization of the cytotoxic effects of the combination of cisplatin and flavanol (−)-epicatechin on human lung cancer cell line A549. An isobolographic approach. Exp Oncol. 40:19–23. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chuang SH and Reddy DS: Isobolographic analysis of antiseizure activity of the GABA type A receptor-modulating synthetic neurosteroids brexanolone and ganaxolone with tiagabine and midazolam. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 372:285–298. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Teno N, Iguchi Y, Oda K, Yamashita Y, Masuda A, Fujimori K, Une M and Gohda K: Discovery of orally active and nonsteroidal farnesoid X receptor (FXR) antagonist with propensity for accumulation and responsiveness in ileum. ACS Med Chem Lett. 12:420–425. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Olver IN: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Focus on fosaprepitant. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 4:501–506. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fotakis G and Timbrell JA: In vitro cytotoxicity assays: Comparison of LDH, neutral red, MTT and protein assay in hepatoma cell lines following exposure to cadmium chloride. Toxicol Lett. 160:171–17. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Eccardt AM, Bell TP, Mattathil L, Prasad R, Kelly SC and Fisher JS: Trans-plasma membrane electron transport and ascorbate efflux by skeletal muscle. Antioxidants (Basel). 6:892017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Scarcello E, Lambremont A, Vanbever R, Jacques PJ and Lison D: Mind your assays: Misleading cytotoxicity with the WST-1 assay in the presence of manganese. PLoS One. 15:e02316342020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Liu J, Zou M, Piao H, Liu Y, Tang B, Gao Y, Ma N and Cheng G: Characterization and pharmacokinetic study of aprepitant solid dispersions with soluplus®. Molecules. 20:11345–11356. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Cosgun ZC, Fels B and Kusche-Vihrog K: Nanomechanics of the endothelial glycocalyx: From structure to function. Am J Pathol. 190:732–741. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kurbanoglu S, Palabiyik BB, Gumustas M, Şanlı S and Uslu B; Ozkan Ankara University SA, : Development and validation of a stability-indicating RP-LC method for the determination of anticancer drug epirubicin in pharmaceuticals. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol. 37:1583–1596. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Yata N, Toyoda T, Murakami T, Nishiura A and Higashi Y: Phosphatidylserine as a determinant for the tissue distribution of weakly basic drugs in rats. Pharm Res. 7:1019–1025. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Murakami T and Yumoto R: Role of phosphatidylserine binding in tissue distribution of amine-containing basic compounds. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 7:353–364. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wotton K, Gassner LA and Ingham E: Flushing an i.v. line: A simple but potentially costly procedure for both patient and health unit. Contemp Nurse. 17:264–273. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Flint A, McIntosh D and Davies MW: Continuous infusion versus intermittent flushing to prevent loss of function of peripheral intravenous catheters used for drug administration in newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. CD0045932005.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Perez A, Feuz I, Brotschi B and Bernet V: Intermittent flushing improves cannula patency compared to continuous infusion for peripherally inserted venous catheters in newborns: Results from a prospective observational study. J Perinat Med. 40:311–314. 2012.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kovacevich DS, Corrigan M, Ross VM, McKeever L, Hall AM and Braunschweig C: American society for parenteral and enteral nutrition guidelines for the selection and care of central venous access devices for adult home parenteral nutrition administration. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 43:15–31. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI |
