Anti-nausea drug lowers risk of death from aggressive breast cancer by 39% – New Atlas

 

Advancing Global Health Goals: A Study on Aprepitant and Breast Cancer Survival

A collaborative study between Australian and Norwegian researchers indicates that the anti-nausea drug aprepitant may significantly improve survival rates for women with aggressive breast cancers. This research represents a critical step toward achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3), which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, specifically by reducing premature mortality from non-communicable diseases like cancer. The findings also highlight progress in SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by addressing a major health issue affecting women, and in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) through its international research cooperation.

Study Overview and Methodology

H3: Research Objective and Contribution to SDG 3

A joint research initiative by Monash University (Australia) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) investigated the potential link between aprepitant use during chemotherapy and long-term survival outcomes. The primary objective was to determine if this common anti-emetic could be repurposed to improve cancer treatment efficacy, directly supporting SDG 3, Target 3.4, which focuses on reducing mortality from non-communicable diseases.

H3: Cohort and Data Analysis

The observational study utilized a robust dataset to analyze patient outcomes:

• Population: Data from 13,811 women diagnosed with invasive early-stage breast cancer in Norway between 2008 and 2020.
• Key Metrics: The study measured distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).
• Methodology: Researchers employed statistical models to compare survival outcomes between patients who were prescribed aprepitant and those who were not. The models adjusted for variables including age, cancer stage and subtype, and chemotherapy regimen.

Key Findings and Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

H3: Overall Survival Improvements Aligned with SDG 3

The use of aprepitant was associated with a notable improvement in patient survival, marking a potential breakthrough for global health targets. The overall findings included:

1. An estimated 11% lower risk of cancer metastasis or death.
2. An estimated 17% lower risk of death specifically from breast cancer.

H3: Significant Benefits for Aggressive Cancers (SDG 3 & SDG 5)

The study revealed the most substantial benefits for patients with aggressive, non-luminal breast cancers. Improving outcomes for these hard-to-treat subtypes is crucial for advancing women’s health (SDG 5) and reducing cancer mortality (SDG 3).

• Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC): Women with this aggressive subtype who used aprepitant saw a 34% reduced risk of metastasis and a 39% lower risk of death from breast cancer.
• HER2-Positive Cancer: Patients with this subtype also showed significant survival benefits.
• Dose-Response Trend: A longer duration of aprepitant use (12 days) was associated with up to a 42% reduction in the risk of cancer recurrence or death, suggesting that optimized dosing could further enhance treatment protocols.

Implications for Global Health and Innovation

H3: Repurposing Drugs for Enhanced Health Outcomes (SDG 3 & SDG 9)

The findings open a pathway for repurposing aprepitant as a direct cancer therapy, not merely a supportive care medication. This represents a significant scientific innovation (SDG 9, Target 9.5) that could lead to more effective and accessible cancer treatments, thereby accelerating progress toward SDG 3. If confirmed in randomized trials, aprepitant could be integrated into standard care to improve survival, especially for high-risk patients.

H3: Future Research and International Cooperation (SDG 17)

This study underscores the power of international partnerships (SDG 17) in advancing medical science. The researchers emphasize the need for further investigation to understand the biological mechanisms behind the observed association and to confirm the results through randomized clinical trials. Future work will explore optimizing dosing regimens to maximize survival benefits for patients globally.

Study Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations inherent in the observational study design:

• The study cannot definitively prove cause and effect due to its observational nature.
• Although statistical models adjusted for chemotherapy intensity, residual confounding may still exist.
• Data on prescription fulfillment does not guarantee the medication was taken as directed.
• The analysis excluded early deaths (within one year of diagnosis), which could slightly bias results.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The article directly addresses this goal by focusing on improving health outcomes for individuals with breast cancer, a major non-communicable disease. The research discussed aims to enhance treatment effectiveness and increase survival rates, which is central to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• The article highlights a collaboration between “Australia’s Monash University and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH).” This international partnership in scientific research to tackle a global health challenge exemplifies the spirit of SDG 17, which encourages collaboration across borders to achieve sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Under SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Target 3.4: “By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.”
  • The article’s core subject is a new treatment approach that could significantly reduce mortality from breast cancer. The study found that the drug aprepitant was linked to “a 39% lower risk of death from breast cancer” in women with TNBC, directly contributing to the goal of reducing premature mortality from non-communicable diseases.
• Target 3.b: “Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases…”
  • The entire article is about a research study aimed at finding new applications for an existing medicine (aprepitant) to treat a non-communicable disease. The study’s conclusion that aprepitant “could be repurposed as a cancer therapy” and that it “has also opened the door to further research” is a clear example of supporting R&D for new treatments.

Under SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• Target 17.6: “Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation…”
  • The study is a joint effort between research institutions in Australia (Monash University) and Norway (Norwegian Institute of Public Health). This international scientific collaboration to advance medical knowledge and improve cancer treatment is a direct application of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicators for SDG 3 Targets

• For Target 3.4 (related to Indicator 3.4.1: Mortality rate attributed to… cancer): The article provides several specific, quantifiable indicators to measure progress in reducing cancer mortality.
  • Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS): This is defined as “the time until death specifically due to breast cancer.”
  • Distant disease-free survival (DDFS): This measures “the time until cancer spreads (metastasis) or the patient dies.”
  • Percentage reduction in mortality risk: The study reports specific figures, such as a “17% lower risk of death from breast cancer” overall and a “39% lower risk of death from breast cancer” for patients with TNBC.
  • Percentage reduction in metastasis risk: The article notes a “34% reduced risk of metastasis” in women with TNBC.
• For Target 3.b: The existence and publication of the research itself serve as an indicator of R&D activity.
  • Published Research: The article states, “The study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute,” which is a tangible output of R&D efforts.

Indicators for SDG 17 Target

• For Target 17.6 (related to Indicator 17.6.1: Number of science and/or technology cooperation agreements):
  • International Research Collaboration: The explicit mention of the partnership between “Monash University” in Australia and the “Norwegian Institute of Public Health” serves as a direct, qualitative indicator of international cooperation in science and technology.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	Target 3.4: Reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment.	Mortality rate from cancer (Indicator 3.4.1). Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Distant disease-free survival (DDFS). Percentage reduction in risk of death (e.g., “up to 39%”). Percentage reduction in risk of metastasis (e.g., “34%”).
	Target 3.b: Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for non-communicable diseases.	The research study itself and its publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The repurposing of an existing drug (aprepitant) for cancer therapy.
SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	Target 17.6: Enhance international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation.	The collaborative research project between Monash University (Australia) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH).

Source: newatlas.com