揭开表面:NK-1抑制剂治疗慢性瘙痒——希望还是安慰剂?

IF 8 2区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY
Gil Yosipovitch
{"title":"揭开表面:NK-1抑制剂治疗慢性瘙痒——希望还是安慰剂?","authors":"Gil Yosipovitch","doi":"10.1111/jdv.20859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Chronic pruritus (CP) remains a significant therapeutic challenge across dermatologic and systemic diseases. The neuropeptide substance P and its receptor, neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R), have emerged as pivotal mediators in the pathogenesis of itch.<span><sup>1</sup></span> The meta-analysis by Ho et al.<span><sup>2</sup></span> provides a timely and comprehensive synthesis of the current clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of systemic NK1R antagonists—particularly serlopitant and aprepitant—in alleviating CP. The authors conducted a rigorous literature review spanning multiple databases and clinical trial registries. Their final analysis incorporated 20 studies (13 RCTs, 2 non-RCTs, and 5 grey literature reports) with a total of 2876 patients. This broad inclusion enhances the generalizability of the findings and reflects the real-world application of NK1R-targeting therapies. However, the pooled analysis revealed a modest albeit statistically significant reduction in pruritus scores with systemic NK1R antagonists compared to placebo (SMD: −0.44; <i>p</i> = 0.002). Importantly, the odds of achieving a clinically meaningful 4-point improvement in itch severity were higher in the treatment 33.9% of patients meeting this threshold, compared to 24.7% in the placebo arm. These results are significantly less impressive than those of other anti-pruritic drugs that are not biologics or JAK inhibitors, where we expect higher itch reductions. For example, Kappa opioid difelikefalin, approved in the United States and Europe, achieved a 4-point NRS reduction in studies ranging from 42% to 64%.<span><sup>3, 4</sup></span></p><p>Subgroup analyses offer important insights for clinical practice. Notably, serlopitant and aprepitant demonstrated superior antipruritic effects compared to placebo, with aprepitant exhibiting a larger effect size (SMD: −1.55). However, the wide confidence interval suggests considerable variability and potential heterogeneity in the studies examining aprepitant. Interestingly, although initially the use of aprepitant was recommended for malignancy-associated pruritus, the analysis found greater efficacy in nonmalignant dermatologic inflammatory conditions. These findings echo the pathophysiological understanding that substance P, released from sensory neurons, contributes to neurogenic inflammation and directly activates mast cells and keratinocytes—both of which are key contributors to itch propagation in the skin. Blocking NK1R, antagonists may disrupt this cascade and provide symptom relief.</p><p>Although the authors suggest that NK-1 inhibitors are effective, the overall effect sizes, while statistically significant, are modest. This may reflect heterogeneity in study populations, treatment durations, and disease etiologies. Second, the inclusion of grey literature—while helpful in reducing publication bias—introduces variability in study quality. Additionally, the duration of treatment and sustainability of antipruritic effects remain unclear in many trials.</p><p>Moreover, most studies assessed short- to medium-term outcomes, and the long-term safety and efficacy of NK1R antagonists have not been well established. Adverse effect profiles, especially with repeated or prolonged use, require further elucidation. Furthermore, although both serlopitant and aprepitant demonstrated efficacy, neither agent is currently FDA-approved specifically for chronic pruritus; furthermore, the off-label extremely high cost of using aprepitant is limiting their routine clinical adoption.</p><p>Nonetheless, this meta-analysis strengthens the argument for considering NK1R antagonists in the therapeutic armamentarium for CP, particularly in refractory cases of dermatologic origin. The stratified efficacy suggests that patient selection—guided by pruritus aetiology—will be crucial in optimizing outcomes. It also underscores the need for future research to refine dosing regimens, identify predictive biomarkers of response and explore combination approaches with other antipruritic agents such as gabapentinoids or JAK inhibitors.</p><p>In conclusion, systemic NK1R antagonists, especially serlopitant and aprepitant, show modest efficacy in reducing chronic itch, with the greatest benefit observed in nonmalignant skin conditions. As our understanding of the neuroimmune mechanisms of pruritus expands, NK1R antagonism may be effective in some types of chronic itch.</p><p>Gil Yosipovitch: Advisory board consultant: Abbvie, Arcutis,Almiral, Amgen, Attovia, Celldex, Escient Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Vifor, GSK, Celldex and Maruho; Investigator and research support: Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, Escient, Regeneron, Sanofi, Celldex, Kiniksa, Pfizer and Abbvie.</p>","PeriodicalId":17351,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology","volume":"39 10","pages":"1703-1704"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jdv.20859","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scratching the surface: NK-1 inhibitors for chronic itch—Promise or placebo?\",\"authors\":\"Gil Yosipovitch\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jdv.20859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Chronic pruritus (CP) remains a significant therapeutic challenge across dermatologic and systemic diseases. The neuropeptide substance P and its receptor, neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R), have emerged as pivotal mediators in the pathogenesis of itch.<span><sup>1</sup></span> The meta-analysis by Ho et al.<span><sup>2</sup></span> provides a timely and comprehensive synthesis of the current clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of systemic NK1R antagonists—particularly serlopitant and aprepitant—in alleviating CP. The authors conducted a rigorous literature review spanning multiple databases and clinical trial registries. Their final analysis incorporated 20 studies (13 RCTs, 2 non-RCTs, and 5 grey literature reports) with a total of 2876 patients. This broad inclusion enhances the generalizability of the findings and reflects the real-world application of NK1R-targeting therapies. However, the pooled analysis revealed a modest albeit statistically significant reduction in pruritus scores with systemic NK1R antagonists compared to placebo (SMD: −0.44; <i>p</i> = 0.002). Importantly, the odds of achieving a clinically meaningful 4-point improvement in itch severity were higher in the treatment 33.9% of patients meeting this threshold, compared to 24.7% in the placebo arm. These results are significantly less impressive than those of other anti-pruritic drugs that are not biologics or JAK inhibitors, where we expect higher itch reductions. For example, Kappa opioid difelikefalin, approved in the United States and Europe, achieved a 4-point NRS reduction in studies ranging from 42% to 64%.<span><sup>3, 4</sup></span></p><p>Subgroup analyses offer important insights for clinical practice. Notably, serlopitant and aprepitant demonstrated superior antipruritic effects compared to placebo, with aprepitant exhibiting a larger effect size (SMD: −1.55). However, the wide confidence interval suggests considerable variability and potential heterogeneity in the studies examining aprepitant. Interestingly, although initially the use of aprepitant was recommended for malignancy-associated pruritus, the analysis found greater efficacy in nonmalignant dermatologic inflammatory conditions. These findings echo the pathophysiological understanding that substance P, released from sensory neurons, contributes to neurogenic inflammation and directly activates mast cells and keratinocytes—both of which are key contributors to itch propagation in the skin. Blocking NK1R, antagonists may disrupt this cascade and provide symptom relief.</p><p>Although the authors suggest that NK-1 inhibitors are effective, the overall effect sizes, while statistically significant, are modest. This may reflect heterogeneity in study populations, treatment durations, and disease etiologies. Second, the inclusion of grey literature—while helpful in reducing publication bias—introduces variability in study quality. Additionally, the duration of treatment and sustainability of antipruritic effects remain unclear in many trials.</p><p>Moreover, most studies assessed short- to medium-term outcomes, and the long-term safety and efficacy of NK1R antagonists have not been well established. Adverse effect profiles, especially with repeated or prolonged use, require further elucidation. Furthermore, although both serlopitant and aprepitant demonstrated efficacy, neither agent is currently FDA-approved specifically for chronic pruritus; furthermore, the off-label extremely high cost of using aprepitant is limiting their routine clinical adoption.</p><p>Nonetheless, this meta-analysis strengthens the argument for considering NK1R antagonists in the therapeutic armamentarium for CP, particularly in refractory cases of dermatologic origin. The stratified efficacy suggests that patient selection—guided by pruritus aetiology—will be crucial in optimizing outcomes. It also underscores the need for future research to refine dosing regimens, identify predictive biomarkers of response and explore combination approaches with other antipruritic agents such as gabapentinoids or JAK inhibitors.</p><p>In conclusion, systemic NK1R antagonists, especially serlopitant and aprepitant, show modest efficacy in reducing chronic itch, with the greatest benefit observed in nonmalignant skin conditions. As our understanding of the neuroimmune mechanisms of pruritus expands, NK1R antagonism may be effective in some types of chronic itch.</p><p>Gil Yosipovitch: Advisory board consultant: Abbvie, Arcutis,Almiral, Amgen, Attovia, Celldex, Escient Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Vifor, GSK, Celldex and Maruho; Investigator and research support: Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, Escient, Regeneron, Sanofi, Celldex, Kiniksa, Pfizer and Abbvie.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology\",\"volume\":\"39 10\",\"pages\":\"1703-1704\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jdv.20859\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.20859\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.20859","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

慢性瘙痒(CP)仍然是皮肤科和全身性疾病的重要治疗挑战。神经肽物质P及其受体神经激肽-1受体(NK1R)已成为瘙痒发病机制中的关键介质Ho等人进行的荟萃分析及时、全面地综合了支持系统性NK1R拮抗剂(尤其是瑟洛匹坦和阿瑞匹坦)缓解CP疗效的当前临床证据。作者对多个数据库和临床试验注册进行了严格的文献综述。他们的最终分析纳入了20项研究(13项随机对照试验,2项非随机对照试验和5项灰色文献报告),共2876名患者。这种广泛的纳入增强了研究结果的普遍性,反映了nk1r靶向治疗在现实世界中的应用。然而,合并分析显示,与安慰剂相比,全身NK1R拮抗剂在瘙痒评分方面有适度的降低,尽管在统计学上具有显著意义(SMD: - 0.44; p = 0.002)。重要的是,治疗组达到有临床意义的瘙痒严重程度4点改善的几率更高,达到这一阈值的患者占33.9%,而安慰剂组为24.7%。这些结果明显不如其他非生物制剂或JAK抑制剂的止痒药物令人印象深刻,我们期望在这些药物中更好地减少瘙痒。例如,在美国和欧洲批准的Kappa阿片类药物difelikefalin在研究中实现了4个百分点的NRS降低,范围从42%到64%。3,4亚组分析为临床实践提供了重要的见解。值得注意的是,与安慰剂相比,舍洛吡坦和阿瑞吡坦表现出更好的止痒效果,阿瑞吡坦表现出更大的效应量(SMD:−1.55)。然而,广泛的置信区间表明,在检查阿瑞吡坦的研究中存在相当大的变异性和潜在的异质性。有趣的是,虽然最初推荐使用阿瑞吡坦治疗恶性相关性瘙痒,但分析发现,阿瑞吡坦对非恶性皮肤炎症更有效。这些发现与病理生理学的理解相呼应,即从感觉神经元释放的P物质有助于神经源性炎症,并直接激活肥大细胞和角化细胞,这两种细胞都是皮肤瘙痒传播的关键因素。拮抗剂阻断NK1R,可能会破坏这种级联反应并缓解症状。尽管作者认为NK-1抑制剂是有效的,但总体效应大小虽然具有统计学意义,但并不大。这可能反映了研究人群、治疗持续时间和疾病病因的异质性。其次,灰色文献的纳入虽然有助于减少发表偏倚,但引入了研究质量的可变性。此外,在许多试验中,治疗的持续时间和止痒效果的可持续性仍不清楚。此外,大多数研究评估的是中短期结果,NK1R拮抗剂的长期安全性和有效性尚未得到很好的确定。不良反应的概况,特别是重复或长期使用,需要进一步阐明。此外,尽管舍洛吡坦和阿瑞吡坦都显示出疗效,但目前两种药物都没有获得fda批准专门用于慢性瘙痒;此外,说明书外使用阿瑞吡坦的极高成本限制了它们的常规临床应用。尽管如此,这项荟萃分析加强了在CP治疗方案中考虑使用NK1R拮抗剂的观点,特别是在皮肤原因的难治性病例中。分层的疗效表明,以瘙痒病因为指导的患者选择将是优化结果的关键。这也强调了未来研究的必要性,以完善给药方案,确定反应的预测性生物标志物,并探索与其他止痒药物(如加巴喷丁类药物或JAK抑制剂)的联合方法。总之,全身NK1R拮抗剂,特别是舍洛吡坦和阿瑞吡坦,在减轻慢性瘙痒方面表现出适度的疗效,在非恶性皮肤状况中观察到最大的益处。随着我们对瘙痒的神经免疫机制的了解不断加深,NK1R拮抗剂可能对某些类型的慢性瘙痒有效。Gil Yosipovitch:顾问委员会顾问:Abbvie、Arcutis、Almiral、Amgen、Attovia、Celldex、Escient Health、Eli Lilly、Galderma、LEO Pharma、默克、诺华、辉瑞、Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.、赛诺菲、Vifor、GSK、Celldex和Maruho;研究者和研究支持:Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, Escient, Regeneron, Sanofi, Celldex, Kiniksa, Pfizer和Abbvie。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Scratching the surface: NK-1 inhibitors for chronic itch—Promise or placebo?

Scratching the surface: NK-1 inhibitors for chronic itch—Promise or placebo?

Chronic pruritus (CP) remains a significant therapeutic challenge across dermatologic and systemic diseases. The neuropeptide substance P and its receptor, neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R), have emerged as pivotal mediators in the pathogenesis of itch.1 The meta-analysis by Ho et al.2 provides a timely and comprehensive synthesis of the current clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of systemic NK1R antagonists—particularly serlopitant and aprepitant—in alleviating CP. The authors conducted a rigorous literature review spanning multiple databases and clinical trial registries. Their final analysis incorporated 20 studies (13 RCTs, 2 non-RCTs, and 5 grey literature reports) with a total of 2876 patients. This broad inclusion enhances the generalizability of the findings and reflects the real-world application of NK1R-targeting therapies. However, the pooled analysis revealed a modest albeit statistically significant reduction in pruritus scores with systemic NK1R antagonists compared to placebo (SMD: −0.44; p = 0.002). Importantly, the odds of achieving a clinically meaningful 4-point improvement in itch severity were higher in the treatment 33.9% of patients meeting this threshold, compared to 24.7% in the placebo arm. These results are significantly less impressive than those of other anti-pruritic drugs that are not biologics or JAK inhibitors, where we expect higher itch reductions. For example, Kappa opioid difelikefalin, approved in the United States and Europe, achieved a 4-point NRS reduction in studies ranging from 42% to 64%.3, 4

Subgroup analyses offer important insights for clinical practice. Notably, serlopitant and aprepitant demonstrated superior antipruritic effects compared to placebo, with aprepitant exhibiting a larger effect size (SMD: −1.55). However, the wide confidence interval suggests considerable variability and potential heterogeneity in the studies examining aprepitant. Interestingly, although initially the use of aprepitant was recommended for malignancy-associated pruritus, the analysis found greater efficacy in nonmalignant dermatologic inflammatory conditions. These findings echo the pathophysiological understanding that substance P, released from sensory neurons, contributes to neurogenic inflammation and directly activates mast cells and keratinocytes—both of which are key contributors to itch propagation in the skin. Blocking NK1R, antagonists may disrupt this cascade and provide symptom relief.

Although the authors suggest that NK-1 inhibitors are effective, the overall effect sizes, while statistically significant, are modest. This may reflect heterogeneity in study populations, treatment durations, and disease etiologies. Second, the inclusion of grey literature—while helpful in reducing publication bias—introduces variability in study quality. Additionally, the duration of treatment and sustainability of antipruritic effects remain unclear in many trials.

Moreover, most studies assessed short- to medium-term outcomes, and the long-term safety and efficacy of NK1R antagonists have not been well established. Adverse effect profiles, especially with repeated or prolonged use, require further elucidation. Furthermore, although both serlopitant and aprepitant demonstrated efficacy, neither agent is currently FDA-approved specifically for chronic pruritus; furthermore, the off-label extremely high cost of using aprepitant is limiting their routine clinical adoption.

Nonetheless, this meta-analysis strengthens the argument for considering NK1R antagonists in the therapeutic armamentarium for CP, particularly in refractory cases of dermatologic origin. The stratified efficacy suggests that patient selection—guided by pruritus aetiology—will be crucial in optimizing outcomes. It also underscores the need for future research to refine dosing regimens, identify predictive biomarkers of response and explore combination approaches with other antipruritic agents such as gabapentinoids or JAK inhibitors.

In conclusion, systemic NK1R antagonists, especially serlopitant and aprepitant, show modest efficacy in reducing chronic itch, with the greatest benefit observed in nonmalignant skin conditions. As our understanding of the neuroimmune mechanisms of pruritus expands, NK1R antagonism may be effective in some types of chronic itch.

Gil Yosipovitch: Advisory board consultant: Abbvie, Arcutis,Almiral, Amgen, Attovia, Celldex, Escient Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Vifor, GSK, Celldex and Maruho; Investigator and research support: Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, Escient, Regeneron, Sanofi, Celldex, Kiniksa, Pfizer and Abbvie.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
874
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (JEADV) is a publication that focuses on dermatology and venereology. It covers various topics within these fields, including both clinical and basic science subjects. The journal publishes articles in different formats, such as editorials, review articles, practice articles, original papers, short reports, letters to the editor, features, and announcements from the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV). The journal covers a wide range of keywords, including allergy, cancer, clinical medicine, cytokines, dermatology, drug reactions, hair disease, laser therapy, nail disease, oncology, skin cancer, skin disease, therapeutics, tumors, virus infections, and venereology. The JEADV is indexed and abstracted by various databases and resources, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, Botanical Pesticides, CAB Abstracts®, Embase, Global Health, InfoTrac, Ingenta Select, MEDLINE/PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信