Search

Objective: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare 5 mg olanzapine plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.Methods: Patients who received a 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m2/d) were given either 5 mg olanzapine plus triple therapy with aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (quadruple group) or 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant (triplet group). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP) (0-120 h) between quadruple group and triplet group. The secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP) (0-24 h) and delayed phase (DP) (25-120 h) between two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan-Meier curves. The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded.Results: (1) The primary endpoint CR during OP was 76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) between the quadruple group and triplet group (P = 0.271). The secondary endpoint CR during the AP was significantly higher in the quadruple group than in the triplet group, which was 100.0% (59/59) vs 93.0% (57/61) (P = 0.045). The difference of CR during delayed phase between the groups was especially higher in the quadruple group compared to the triplet group (76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) (P = 0.271)). The rate of patients who achieved total protection in the overall phase was also higher in the quadruple group than the triplet group (28.8% (17/59) vs 23.0% (14/61) (P = 0.463)). During the OP, the incidence of no vomiting in the quadruple group and the triplet group was 93.2% (55/59) vs 80.3% (49/61) (P = 0.038), respectively. (2) Kaplan-Meier curves of time to first emesis were obviously longer in the quadruple group compared with the triplet group (P = 0.031). According to FLIE, no impact of CINV on daily life was defined as total score of questionnaire > 108; this study exhibited identical life quality between two groups. (3) The most common aprepitant- or olanzapine-related AEs included sedation, fatigue, and constipation. The occurrences between two groups were identical.Conclusion: It may been recommended that 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant triplet regimen as an alternative therapy in prevention CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy due to the excellent CINV control rate and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Palonosetron, a long-acting 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic agent for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; however, it sometimes causes severe constipation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the severity of palonosetron-related constipation. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the incidence and severity of constipation after intravenous administration of 0.75-mg palonosetron in 150 chemotherapy-naïve patients who received first-line chemotherapy at Saga University Hospital. Constipation was classified into grades 1–5 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with palonosetron-related worsening of constipation to grade 2 or higher. Results: Palonosetron significantly increased the incidence and severity of constipation (incidence: before vs. after palonosetron, 35.4% vs. 74.0%, p < 0.0001, and severity: before vs. after palonosetron, 26.7% and 8.7% in grades 1 and 2, respectively, vs. 46.7%, 23.3%, and 4.0% in grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively, p < 0.0001). Despite the use of laxatives, 4.0% of patients had grade 3 constipation requiring manual evacuation. Combination treatment with aprepitant (odds ratio (OR), 10.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3–90.0; p = 0.026) and older age (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01–1.57; p = 0.039) were factors associated with the severity of constipation. Conclusion: Constipation was more severe in patients receiving combination treatment with aprepitant than in those treated with palonosetron alone. Older age was also associated with increased risk of severe palonosetron-related constipation. Identification of risk factors can help target risk-based laxative therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).Methods: Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2-4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2-3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1-4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life.Results: Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p = 0.87). Grades 2-4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24-120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups.Conclusions: Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) is recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC, respectively). We previously reported that aprepitant, an NK1RA, was needed to control CINV in 43% and 12% of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively (Support Care Cancer 23:905–912, 2015). To elucidate the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in these patients, a cost-utility analysis according to the necessity of aprepitant was performed. Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed according to the necessity of aprepitant and CINV responses in both acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy. Probabilities of health states and medical costs were derived from the results of the abovementioned trial. Result: In patients who received HEC and needed aprepitant, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the regimen with no aprepitant, was 7912 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which was far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. The ICER was 27,457 USD/QALY in patients who received MEC and needed aprepitant. In contrast, in patients who received HEC or MEC but did not need aprepitant, the ICER was 175,959 or 478,844 USD/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: Regardless of whether a patient received HEC or MEC, aprepitant use was highly cost-effective for patients who truly needed it. These results warrant further research to predict the necessity of NK1RA treatment before initiating emetogenic chemotherapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: High-dose melphalan (HDMel) is the most common conditioning chemotherapy regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). No consensus exists for the emetogenicity or prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in this regimen.Methods: Data on the incidence and efficacy/safety of CINV prophylaxis among patients affected by MM undergoing autologous SCT with the HDMel regimen was extracted from electronic databases and analyzed.Results: Eleven studies involving multiple CINV prophylaxis regimens were identified and included. No consensus on HDMel emetogenicity was reached, but most studies summarized the emetogenicity as moderate-high risk. An aprepitant-based three-drug regimen (aprepitant + serotonin receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) + dexamethasone) showed better efficacy than a two-drug regimen (5HT3RA + dexamethasone) for CINV prevention without increasing the frequency in adverse events.Conclusions: The aprepitant-based three-drug regimen should be the regimen of choice for CINV prophylaxis for MM patients undergoing autologous SCT with HDMel conditioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The triplet antiemetic regimen is recommended for cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy, in the current guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis. Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified by several prior studies, there are only few studies evaluating risk factors associated with the prophylactic triplet antiemetic therapy, particularly in palonosetron use. The present study aimed to reveal the risk factors related to CINV development in patients receiving cisplatin and to compare CINV risk factors between palonosetron and granisetron use.Methods: In total, 825 patients in a phase III trial receiving palonosetron with graniestron were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV development. Additionally, risk factors associated with CINV development were separately evaluated in each treatment group.Results: Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that sex, age, cisplatin dose, and granisetron use were significant and independent factors affecting CINV development in the overall phase. Similarly, sex and age were risk factors for CINV in both treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier curves classified by each treatment group showed no significant difference between the groups among patients without any risk factors for CINV (P = 0.353). Conversely, complete response rates for patients with at least one risk factor were higher in patients receiving palonosetron (P = 0.049).Conclusions: This analysis revealed the importance of previously reported CINV risk factors when using triplet antiemetics. Palonosetron might be preferred for patients with at least one risk factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Younger age and female sex have already been well-known risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and 30-50% of cancer patients still suffer from CINV. Genetic polymorphisms are suggested to influence antiemetic treatment response.Methods: This study included a subset of patients previously enrolled in a randomised controlled trial; 156 patients were evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the role of pharmacogenomic polymorphisms relevant to antiemetic response in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The study's efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR). The study endpoint was evaluated separately in the acute (CR0-24) and delayed (CR24-120) phases. Thirteen polymorphisms were genotyped, and the association of these genotypes with the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics was then investigated. Confounding variables for the CR were identified using stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis. Age and sex were included as independent variables by the forced-entry method, and the stepwise method was used to select the pharmacogenomic factors for inclusion as independent variables.Results: Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ERCC1 8092AA (odds ratio [OR] = 11.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-72.71; p = 0.011) and female sex (OR = 3.63; 95% CI 1.14-11.58; p = 0.029) were significant predictors of CR0-24. No significant association of CR24-120 with pharmacogenomic polymorphisms was found via multivariate logistic regression analysis.Conclusions: ERCC1 polymorphism influenced the extent of CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.Trial Registration: Clinical trial information: UMIN 000009335. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) causes significant morbidity among colorectal cancer patients, receiving fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy even with standard antiemetic prophylaxis. The purpose of this study is to determine if the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves CINV in these patients.Methods: Patients receiving FOLFOX for colorectal cancer were given antiemetic prophylaxis with aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Palonosetron 0.25 mg was given IV push on day 1 only. Dexamethasone 12 mg was administered orally on day 1 and 8 mg each morning on days 2 through 4. Assessments including emetic events, rescue doses, nutritional intake, and appetite were recorded in a patient diary which was returned to study personnel in the following cycle.Results: Of the 53 patients screened, 50 were evaluable and had a complete dataset for cycle 1. For the first cycle, 74% of patients achieved a complete response (CR), 22% achieved a major response and 4% experienced treatment failure. The percentage of patients achieving a CR remained high throughout each cycle at 83, 83, and 86% for cycles 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Appetite and nutritional status remained largely unchanged throughout treatment. Adverse events occurring in more than 10% of patients included diarrhea (13.6%), fatigue (12.6%), and neutropenia (11%).Conclusions: Aprepitant added to standard antiemetic therapy appears to be an effective and safe regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving FOLFOX. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There is no positive evidence for the efficacy of antiemetic triplet therapy with aprepitant (APR), palonosetron (PALO), and dexamethasone (DEX) for moderate emetogenic chemotherapy, especially for gynecologic malignancies. Thus, the present study evaluated the efficacy of this triplet therapy in patients receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) for gynecologic malignancy.Methods: Seventy patients with gynecologic cancer receiving CP were enrolled into a prospective single-arm study with APR (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on days 2-3), PALO (0.75 mg), and DEX (20 mg) before initiating chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was delayed complete response (CR) rate, i.e., no vomiting and no rescue, at 24-120 h after chemotherapy administration.Results: Seventy patients were enrolled. The delayed CR rate was 97.1% (68/70). No serious adverse events were observed. Younger patient age (≤50 years) tended to be associated with a poor delayed CR rate.Conclusions: This study demonstrated a notable efficacy of antiemetic triplet therapy with APR, PALO, and DEX in female patients receiving CP. Further evaluation with a larger phase III trial is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Despite a lower risk of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving radiotherapy to the upper abdomen (UA-RINV) with prophylactic 5-HT3 antagonist therapy, patients can still experience UA-RINV. The aim of this multicenter phase II study was to assess effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of protracted dual NK1-receptor and 5-HT3 antagonist prophylaxis against UA-RINV.Methods: Patients receiving fractionated radiotherapy with radiosensitizing chemotherapy received oral ondansetron 8 mg po q12 h and aprepitant 125/80/80 mg on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday schedules throughout radiotherapy. The primary outcome was complete response (CR) defined as no vomiting or rescue therapy during the entire observation period of radiotherapy (OP). Nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were recorded in a modified version of the MASCC antiemesis tool completed twice weekly.Results: Fifty-five patients were enrolled at 5 sites, 52 of whom were evaluable. 57.7% of patients (30/52, 95% CI 43.2-71.3%) achieved CR on study, with 73.1% (38/52, 95% CI 59.0-84.4%) who did not vomit, and 71.2% (37/52, 95% CI 56.9-82.9%) who did not use rescue medication during the OP. Overall, participants vomited or experienced significant nausea (SN) for an average of 6.8% (95% CI 11.4-21.0) and 8.4% (95% CI 4.2-12.7%) of time on study, respectively. Nausea was common with 32 (61.5%) reporting SN at any time during the OP.Conclusions: UA-RINV remains an important morbidity despite the advent of modern radiotherapy. Aprepitant and ondansetron as dosed in this trial was not superior to standard ondansetron monotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a 3-day aprepitant regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the first cycle of non-anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) based on government guidelines in Korean patients.Methods: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase IV trial (NCT01636947) enrolled adult South Korean patients with a broad range of tumor types who were scheduled to receive a single dose of ≥1 MEC agent. Patients were randomized to a 3-day regimen of aprepitant (aprepitant regimen) or placebo (control regimen) on top of ondansetron plus dexamethasone. The primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were the proportions of subjects who achieved no vomiting and complete response (CR) during the overall phase.Results: Of the 494 randomized subjects, 480 were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. Response rates for no vomiting and CR in the overall phase were numerically higher for the aprepitant regimen compared with the control regimen groups, but failed to reach statistical significance (no vomiting 77.2 vs 72.0%; p = 0.191; CR 73.4 vs 70.4%; p = 0.458). Both the aprepitant and control regimens were generally well tolerated.Conclusion: A 3-day aprepitant regimen was numerically better but not statistically superior to a control regimen with respect to the achievement of no vomiting or CR during the overall phase in a non-AC MEC Korean population based on government reimbursement guidelines.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01636947 ( https://clinicaltrials.Gov/ct2/show/NCT01636947 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Antiemetic recommendations during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT)) have not been established yet. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of palonosetron plus aprepitant, without routine use of dexamethasone, could alleviate chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CRINV).Methods: This was a non-randomized, prospective, single-center, open phase II study. Patients with cervical cancer, who were treated with daily low-dose cisplatin (8 mg/m(2)/day) and concurrent radiation (2 Gy/day, 25 fractions, five times a week), were enrolled in this study. All patients received intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg on day 1 of each week) and oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3 of each week). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of antiemetic rescue medication during the treatment.Results: Twenty-seven patients (median age, 50 years; range, 33-72 years) were enrolled in this study between June 2013 and April 2014. A total of 13 (48 %) patients showed a complete response to the antiemetic regimen, while 8 patients (30 %) had emetic episodes and 6 patients (22 %) used rescue medication without emetic episodes. No severe adverse effects caused by palonosetron plus aprepitant were observed.Conclusion: The combination of palonosetron plus aprepitant was permissive for the prevention of CRINV. This regimen should be considered for patients in whom dexamethasone is contraindicated or not well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Antiemetic guideline recommendations are inconsistent as to whether a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) should be administered with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5HT3) RA + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving carboplatin. Patients receiving cisplatin routinely receive an NK1 RA-containing regimen with a resulting 14-22 % benefit in no emesis rates over a 5-HT3 RA/DEX control. Recent studies suggest a similar benefit in patients receiving carboplatin. NEPA is the first fixed antiemetic combination agent and comprises the highly selective NK1 RA, netupitant, and pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (PALO). This paper presents the efficacy of NEPA in the subset of patients receiving carboplatin in a phase 3 trial (NCT01376297), in the context of aprepitant (APR) data in the carboplatin setting.Methods: One hundred ninety-six patients (47 % of all study patients: n = 145 NEPA + DEX; n = 51 APR + PALO + DEX) received carboplatin in a multinational, double-blind, randomized phase 3 study. Complete response (CR: no emesis/rescue) and no significant nausea (NSN: score ≤25 on 100 mm visual analog scale) rates were calculated.Results: Cycle 1-4 overall (0-120 h) CR rates were similar for NEPA (80, 91, 92, and 93 %) and APR (82, 88, 88, and 90 %). Overall NSN rates were also similar (NEPA 84-96 %; APR 82-90 %).Conclusions: Response rates for NEPA and APR regimens were similar and consistent with prior studies evaluating the contribution of adding NK1 RAs in patients receiving carboplatin. Considering such evidence, guideline groups/practitioners should consider giving a NK1 RA antiemetic triplet in patients receiving carboplatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective of this exploratory analysis was to determine if individual patient risk factors could be used to optimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).Methods: Through validated risk prediction models which quantify patient risk factors, 152 patients with early-stage breast cancer scheduled to received adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy were categorized as being at low (level 0) or high-risk (level 1) for CINV. Prior to the first cycle of chemotherapy, low-risk patients received ondansetron and dexamethasone, while high-risk level 1 patients also received aprepitant. For subsequent cycles, patients who experienced CINV had their antiemetics changed in a stepwise manner to level 2 (extended-duration dexamethasone) or level 3 (extended-duration dexamethasone and low-dose olanzapine).Results: The study enrolled 152 patients who received 484 cycles of chemotherapy. Forty patient cycles were classified as low risk (level 0) compared to 201, 162 and 81 that were classified as high-risk levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Complete control of acute and delayed vomiting was comparable and was achieved in over 85 % of patients across all risk levels (p = 0.56 and p = 0.99). In contrast, complete control of acute and delayed nausea was reduced in risk levels 1 to 3 compared to level 0 (acute = 51.2, 58.0, 45.7 vs. 70.0 %; p = 0.013)-(delayed = 32.8, 45.7, 34.6 vs. 62.5 %; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Despite the addition of aprepitant, extended-duration dexamethasone and olanzapine, patients at high risk for CINV due to personal risk factors failed to achieve good nausea control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Dexamethasone, plus a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist are recommended for controlling the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Several days of dexamethasone are effective for CINV; however, dexamethasone also has side effects. The purpose of this trial was to investigate whether the use of a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist could allow a reduced dose of dexamethasone for breast cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.Methods: Eighty breast cancer patients who received an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination regimen were enrolled. The patients were randomized to arm A (dexamethasone days 1-3) and arm B (dexamethasone day 1). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). The secondary endpoints were the CR during the delayed phase (days 2-5), complete control (CC) (no emetic episodes, no rescue medication, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase, and the safety of this antiemetic therapy.Results: There were no significant differences in the rates of CR and CC between arm A and B as follows: CR overall phase--arm A: 82.9%, 90% confidence interval [CI] 71.3-90.5% vs arm B: 82.1%, 90% CI 70.0-90.0%; p = 1.00; CR delayed phase--arm A: 87.8%, 90% CI 77.0-93.9% vs arm B: 94.9%, 90% CI 85.6-98.3%; p = 0.43; CC overall phase--arm A: 48.8%, 90% CI 36.4-61.3% vs arm B: 61.5%, 90% CI 48.4-73.2%; p = 0.27. There were very few adverse events and no severe adverse events associated with this antiemetic therapy.Conclusions: The results suggest that the antiemetic effect provided by dexamethasone administered for 3 days can be obtained by dexamethasone administered for 1 day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We aimed to compare the preventive effect of 5-day administration of aprepitant with single administration of fosaprepitant meglumine against nausea and vomiting symptoms due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens comprising cisplatin (CDDP).Methods: Subjects were inpatients who underwent chemotherapy for gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, lung cancer, or head and neck cancer with a regimen comprising 60 mg/m(2) or higher dose of CDDP. In this randomised, open-label, controlled study, the subjects were assigned to a group given aprepitant for 5 days or a group given a single administration of fosaprepitant meglumine. The nausea and vomiting symptoms that emerged within 7 days after the first CDDP administration were investigated with a questionnaire form; the results were compared between the two groups. Risk factors affecting nausea and vomiting symptoms were also investigated.Results: Of the 101 patients enrolled, 93 patients were included (48 in the 5-day aprepitant group and 45 in the single fosaprepitant meglumine group). No significant intergroup differences in the complete response rate or the complete control rate were found over the entire period. The nausea score tended to increase from day 3 in both groups, but no significant intergroup difference was observed. Furthermore, the investigation of risk factors affecting moderate or severe nausea symptoms indicated that the fosaprepitant meglumine administration was not a risk factor.Conclusions: Single administration of fosaprepitant meglumine was not inferior to 5-day administration of aprepitant for preventing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting symptoms occurring after administration of CDDP (60 mg/m(2) or higher). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, in combination with 5 HT-3 antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended in adults receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy to reduce chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV). Data for use of aprepitant in children is limited and hence aprepitant is not recommended by Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario guidelines for prevention of CIV in children <12 years.Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at a single center in chemotherapy naïve children (5-18 years) receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received intravenous ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) and dexamethasone (0.15 mg/kg) prior to chemotherapy followed by oral ondansetron and dexamethasone. Patients randomly assigned to aprepitant arm received oral aprepitant (15-40 kg = days 1-3, 80 mg; 41-65 kg = day 1, 125 mg and days 2-3, 80 mg) 1 h before chemotherapy. Control group received placebo as add-on therapy. Primary outcome measure was the incidence of acute moderate to severe vomiting, which was defined as more than two vomiting episodes within 24 h after the administration of the first chemotherapy dose until 24 h after the last chemotherapy dose in the block. Complete response (CR) was defined as absence of vomiting and retching during the specified phase.Results: Of the 96 randomized patients, three were excluded from analysis; 93 patients were analyzed (50 in aprepitant arm and 43 in placebo arm). Acute moderate and severe vomiting was reported in 72 % patients receiving placebo and 38 % patients receiving aprepitant (p = 0.001). Complete response rates during acute phase were significantly higher in aprepitant arm (48 vs. 12 %, p < 0.001). No major adverse effects were reported by patients/guardians.Conclusions: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial shows that aprepitant significantly decreases the incidence of CIV during acute phase when used as an add-on drug with ondansetron and dexamethasone in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist is recommended for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and has recently been introduced to oncology practice in Japan. However, whether all patients undergoing HEC truly need NK-1 receptor antagonist remains unknown, and increasing medical costs due to uniform use of NK-1 receptor antagonist are a concern. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of patients who needed aprepitant at the time of its introduction in Japan, and therapeutic and preventive effects of aprepitant on HEC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Patients and methods: Eligible patients with thoracic malignancies who were to undergo HEC or MEC received 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to prevent CINV. Aprepitant was administered to treat CINV occurring in the first course, or to prevent CINV in the second course. Frequency of vomiting, degree of nausea, and quality of life with respect to CINV were assessed. Results: In total, 96 patients were enrolled. Aprepitant was not administered in 57 and 88 % of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively. In patients treated with aprepitant ( n = 18), therapeutic use of aprepitant after occurrence of CINV ( n = 9) decreased average scores in numerical rating scale for nausea from 7.44 to 5.44 ( p = 0.10), and average frequency of vomiting per day from 2.11 to 0.11 ( p = 0.03). Prophylactic use of aprepitant in the second course ( n = 18) increased the proportion of patients with no significant nausea from 6 % (first course) to 50 % (second course; p = 0.007), and those with no vomiting from 33 to 89 % ( p = 0.002). Aprepitant use also significantly improved quality of life with respect to CINV in the second course. Conclusion: More than half of patients receiving HEC and 88 % of patients receiving MEC did not use aprepitant. Aprepitant showed significant therapeutic and preventive effects on CINV in patients who truly needed it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to investigate the usefulness of the triplet regimen comprising aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Methods: Patients with lung cancer (aged 65.8 ± 8.4 years) who received carboplatin-based MEC and those treated with cisplatin-based HEC were enrolled. The antiemetic regimen for both types of chemotherapy consisted of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone based on the May 2010 guidelines prepared by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. The incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and the use of salvage treatment were assessed. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients with a complete response (CR: no nausea and no salvage treatment) during the entire study period (5 days) after chemotherapy, during the acute phase (day 1), and during the delayed phase (days 2-5). Results: CR rates for the entire period were 86 and 71 % in patients receiving carboplatin-based and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively. CR rates were respectively 98 and 100 % in the acute phase versus 87 and 71 % in the delayed phase. Most of the patients could ingest food throughout the entire period after chemotherapy. Assessment of various risk factors for acute and delayed CINV (gender, age, prior vomiting due to antineoplastic therapy, prior experience of motion sickness, and history of drinking) revealed no significant influence of these factors on the CR rate for the entire period in patients receiving either carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Conclusion: The present triple therapy can be recommended for supporting both carboplatin-based and cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is crucial for maintaining the quality of life of cancer patients. Female patients have been underrepresented in previous clinical studies of aprepitant or palonosetron. We performed a prospective multicenter study to investigate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy comprising these two agents and dexamethasone in female cancer patients receiving chemotherapy that included cisplatin (≥50 mg/m). Methods: Aprepitant was administered at a dose of 125 mg before chemotherapy on day 1 and at 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Palonosetron (0.75 mg) was given before chemotherapy on day 1. Dexamethasone was administered at a dose of 9.9 mg before chemotherapy on day 1 and at 6.6 mg on days 2-4. The primary endpoint was the the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) throughout the overall period (0-120 h post-chemotherapy). Results: Ninety-six women (median age 55 years) were enrolled. The overall CR rate was 54.2 %. CR was obtained during the acute phase (0-24 h post-chemotherapy) and the delayed phase (24-120 h post-chemotherapy) in 87.5 and 56.3 % of the patients, respectively. The most common adverse reactions were constipation and fatigue (reported by three patients each). Conclusions: Exhibition of a favorable overall CR rate over existing two-drug combinations suggests that the triple therapy regimen used in the present study is effective and tolerable in patients with gynecological malignancies receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Female patients may have a higher risk of developing CINV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant as part of the antiemetic regimen for high-dose melphalan conditioning in multiple myeloma patients. Design: This is a prospective, single-arm study. Setting: The study was conducted at an Academic Medical Facility. Subjects: Twenty-six patients receiving high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell support were included in this study. Intervention: Eligible patients were >18 years with a diagnosis of MM undergoing high-dose melphalan followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). All patients had serum aminotransferases and total bilirubin less than 2× upper limit of normal. Treatment consisted of aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, followed by 80 mg orally 24 and 48 h after the initial dose; ondansetron 16 mg orally day 1; dexamethasone 12 mg orally day 1, and 8 mg orally days 2-4 with breakthrough medications as needed. Measurements and main results: Patients were evaluated for the frequency of emetic episodes, the need for breakthrough antiemetic medication, and the mean nausea score in 24-h increments beginning 24 h after chemotherapy and continuing until 120 h. Nausea score was determined using a linear analog scale (0-10). Complete response (CR) was defined as no more than one (1) emetic episode during the evaluation period. A total of 26 patients (17 male, 9 female) were enrolled in the study. Of these, 25 (96 %) were complete responders and 24 (92 %) had no documented emetic episodes during the study period. One patient (4 %) had 1 emetic episode and one patient (4 %) had 2 emetic episodes. Some degree of nausea was reported by 23/26 patients, and the mean nausea score for the entire group over the study period was 0.7 (range 0-10). Conclusions: Addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetics resulted in low rates of delayed nausea/vomiting associated with high-dose melphalan and PBSCT, and has now become standard practice in this patient population at our institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Women with ovarian carcinoma that are treated with paclitaxel/carboplatin are particularly susceptible to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The current study evaluated the new combination (aprepitant/ramosetron/dexamethasone, 20 mg) in ovarian cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of paclitaxel/carboplatin. Methods: This is a prospective non-randomized single site study. Patients received the following regimen for the prevention of CINV-day 1, 125 mg aprepitant, 0.6 mg ramosetron, and 20 mg dexamethasone before chemotherapy; and days 2-3, 80 mg aprepitant each day. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the 120 h following the first chemotherapy cycle. Toxicity assessments were conducted using the NCI-CTC investigator guide (version 3.0). Results: Of the 89 patients enrolled, 85 patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity, and 68 (80 %) completed all 6 cycles. In cycle 1, the percentage of patients who achieved CR in the acute, delayed, and overall phases was 98.8 %, 89.4 %, and 89.4 %, respectively. Of the 460 cycles, adverse events, drug-related adverse events, and serious adverse events occurred in 179 (38.9 %), 35 (7.6 %), and 10 cycles (2.2 %), respectively. The most common adverse event was constipation (12.4 %) and headache (11.1 %). None of the patients discontinued the study because of adverse events. Conclusions: The combination of aprepitant, ramosetron, and high-dose dexamethasone demonstrated efficacy for CINV prevention in ovarian cancer patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Aprepitant, an oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, has demonstrated improved control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in previous studies. This is the first phase III study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in Asian countries. Methods: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed the prevention of CINV during the acute phase (AP), delayed phase (DP), and overall phase (OP). Patients receiving HEC were randomized to either an aprepitant group (day 1, aprepitant 125 mg; days 2-3, aprepitant 80 mg) or a standard therapy group (days 1-3, placebo). Both groups received intravenous granisetron and oral dexamethasone. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue therapy) during the OP. Results: Of the 421 randomized patients, 411 (98 %) were assessable for efficacy; 69.6 % (142/204) and 57.0 % (118/207) of patients reported CR during the OP in the aprepitant and standard therapy groups, respectively ( P = 0.007). CR rates in the aprepitant group were higher during the DP (74.0 % vs. 59.4 %, P = 0.001) but were similar during the AP (79.4 % vs. 79.3 %, P = 0.942). Toxicity and adverse events were comparable in both groups. Conclusions: The addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic treatment regimens for Chinese patients undergoing HEC provided superior CINV prevention and was well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Nausea and vomiting are among the most feared complications of chemotherapy reported by patients. The objective of this study was to establish the overall complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue medication 0-120 h after chemotherapy) with either ondansetron- or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, single-center, pilot study that enrolled patients receiving their first cycle of HEC. Patients were randomized to receive either palonosetron 0.25 mg IV (PAD) or ondansetron 24 mg orally (OAD) on day 1 prior to HEC. All patients received oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1, then 80 mg on days 2 and 3, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on day 1, then 8 mg on days 2, 3, and 4. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Results: A total of 40 patients were enrolled, 20 in each arm. All patients were female, and 39 received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer. For the primary endpoint, 65 % (95 % CI, 40.8-84.6 %) of patients in the PAD arm and 40 % (95 % CI, 19.1-63.9 %) of patients in the OAD arm achieved an overall CR. Conclusions: While CR rates for aprepitant and dexamethasone plus palonosetron or ondansetron-containing regimens have been published previously, this is the first documentation of CR rates with these regimens in the same patient population. These results may be used to design a larger, adequately powered, prospective study comparing these regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are some of the most problematic symptoms for cancer patients. Triplet therapy consisting of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and dexamethasone is a guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The efficacy and safety of triplet therapy using a 0.75-mg dose of palonosetron have not yet been investigated. We performed a prospective phase II study using triplet antiemetic therapy with 0.75 mg of palonosetron. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve lung cancer patients scheduled to receive HEC were enrolled. The eligible patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy consisting of the intravenous administration of 0.75 mg of palonosetron, and 9.9 mg of dexamethasone and the oral administration of 125 mg of aprepitant on day 1, followed by the oral administration of 80 mg of aprepitant on days 2-3 and the oral administration of 8 mg of dexamethasone on days 2-4. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (the CR rate; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120 h). Results: The efficacy analysis was performed in 63 patients. The CR rates during the overall, acute and delayed phases were 81.0, 96.8, and 81.0 %, respectively. The no nausea and no significant nausea rate during the overall phase were 54.0 and 66.7 %, respectively. The most common adverse event was grade 1 or 2 constipation. Conclusions: Triplet antiemetic therapy using a 0.75-mg dose of palonosetron shows a promising antiemetic effect in preventing CINV in lung cancer patients receiving HEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of adding a 7-day aprepitant schedule to a 5HT receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for patients with germ cell tumors receiving first-line 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods: In a single-arm, open-label, multi-center, phase 2 trial, chemo-naive patients received aprepitant 125 mg PO (per oral) on day 1 and 80 mg PO on days 2 to 7, a 5HT receptor antagonist on days 1 to 5, and dexamethasone 8 mg on days 1 to 8. The primary endpoint was no emesis (vomiting or dry retching) during days 1 to 7 of cycle 1. Results: Fifty patients were recruited. For cycle 1, proportions reporting no emesis on day 1, no emesis on days 1 to 7, no nausea on day 1, and no nausea on days 1 to 7 were 96, 82, 71, and 27 %, respectively. The efficacy was maintained in all cycles with over 80 % of patients reporting no emesis on any given day of any given cycle. Emesis was more common on days 4 to 7 (68 % episodes) than on days 1 to 3 (32 % episodes). Over any 24-h period, 49 % of patients with emesis reported no more than two episodes, and 62 % of patients with nausea reported intensity as 3 or less on a scale from 0 to 10. There were no unexpected or serious adverse events reported. Conclusion: Adding 7 days of aprepitant to a 5HT receptor antagonist and dexamethasone effectively controlled acute and delayed emesis with 5-day cisplatin regimens. Days of nausea were more common than days of vomiting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced emesis remains a problem despite prophylaxis with 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) antagonists and dexamethasone. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of adding aprepitant, a neurokinin-1(NK-1) receptor antagonist, as a secondary antiemetic prophylaxis in cases failing to achieve full protection against emesis during the first cycle of a cisplatin-based regimen. Methods: Patients receiving chemotherapy with a dose of at least 50 mg/m of cisplatin-based regimens were eligible. If patients failed to achieve complete protection against vomiting when antiemetics (5-HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone) were given in cycle 1, aprepitant was added in subsequent cycles. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emetic episodes and no rescue antiemetics) during days 1-6. Results: We analyzed 257 patients consecutively. Forty-nine patients (19%) had acute and/or delayed emesis during the first cycle of chemotherapy. Forty of 49 patients received aprepitant for secondary prophylaxis of emesis in the second cycle. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea was achieved in 63% and 55% of patients, respectively. Thirty-five patients received aprepitant for the third cycle. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea was achieved in 77% and 71% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: Primary antiemetic prophylaxis with 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone provided more than 80% complete protection against cisplatin-induced emesis. Addition of aprepitant as secondary antiemetic prophylaxis in subsequent cycles provided adequate emesis protection in patients who failed primary prophylaxis. Using aprepitant as secondary antiemetic prophylaxis for cancer patients with cisplatin-induced emesis is feasible and cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a phase II trial evaluating efficacy and safety of aprepitant (AP) in combination with 5-HT3 antagonist and adjusted dose dexamethasone in patients receiving high-dose cyclophosphamide (CY) and filgrastim for stem cell mobilization. We used Simon's optimal two-stage design constrained to fewer than 40 patients with 10% type I error and 85% statistical power. The first stage of the study required accrual of 18 response-evaluable patients. The primary endpoint was the control of vomiting without the use of any rescue anti-emetics at 24 h after the administration of high dose CY (4 g/m). If emesis was controlled in ≥9 patients, an additional cohort of 17 patients would be enrolled. The null hypothesis would be rejected if there were ≥20 responses among 35 patients. Forty patients were enrolled, five of whom were not evaluable for response. Eighteen evaluable patients were enrolled in the first stage. Acute emesis was controlled in 10 patients; therefore, enrollment proceeded to stage 2. An additional 17 patients were enrolled; 20/35 response-evaluable patients (57%) did not develop acute vomiting or require rescue anti-emetics, thus achieving the goal of the study. A total of 22/35 response-evaluable patients (63%) met the secondary endpoint of delayed emesis control (days 2-5). Thirty-three out of 35 patients underwent successful stem cell mobilization. No ≥ grade 3 AP-related adverse events were noted. The AP regimen can effectively control acute and delayed emesis in the majority patients receiving high-dose CY. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A number of studies have reported that aprepitant has been used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In this study, we aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, which can provide evidence for aprepitant administration. Materials and methods: Fifteen trials involving patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in this pooled analysis. Antiemetic drugs in these studies included aprepitant, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Results: A total of 4,798 cases were investigated in these clinical trials. Compared with placebo or the standard antiemetic therapy, the cumulative incidence of emesis was significantly reduced in the patients treated with aprepitant-based (125 mg/80 mg) therapy on the first day [relative risk (RR) = 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.16], from 2 to 5 days (RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.48) and in the overall 5 days (RR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.22-1.39). In terms of drug safety, there was no significant difference between aprepitant-based regimens and non-aprepitant regimens. Conclusion: Results from the analysis suggest that aprepitant with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone is highly effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in the days after administration of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC). Methods: Patients with breast cancer, ≥ age 18, with a performance status of ≤2, receiving doxorubicin (≥60 mg/m) and cyclophosphamide (≥500 mg/m) for the first time were eligible. Prior to chemotherapy patients received aprepitant 125 mg orally (PO), dexamethasone 8-10 mg PO/intravenously (IV), and palonosetron 0.25 mg IV. On days 2-3, dexamethasone 4 mg PO and aprepitant 80 mg PO were given. Outcomes were recorded in patient diaries for the 120-h study period following chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no emesis or rescue) for the 120-h study period. Results: Thirty-six patients were enrolled and all are evaluable. The median age was 53 (33-75) and 36 are females. Eighteen patients (50%) achieved a complete response during the 120-h study period. Acute (≤24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) complete response rates were 81% (27/36) and 61% (22/36), respectively. No emesis rates for the acute, delayed, and overall study periods were 97% (35/36), 94% (34/36), and 92% (33/36), respectively. Treatment was well tolerated. Conclusions: The combination of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron prevented emesis in more than 90% of breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of AC chemotherapy. Nausea was less well controlled. Overall complete response was achieved in one half of the study patients. Further improvement in the prevention of AC-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting will require more effective antinausea treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Aprepitant was shown previously to be effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in breast cancer patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimen. This study assessed aprepitant in patients receiving a broad range of MEC regimens with a variety of tumor types. Methods This phase III, randomized, gender-stratified, double-blind trial enrolled patients with confirmed malignancies, naïve to MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, who were scheduled to receive a single dose of at least one MEC agent. Patients received an aprepitant triple-therapy regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone) or a control regimen (ondansetron and dexamethasone) administered orally. Primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients with no vomiting and complete response (no vomiting and no rescue medication), respectively, during the 120 h post-chemotherapy. Results Of 848 randomized patients, 77% were female, and 52% received non-AC-based antineoplastic regimens. Significantly, more patients in the aprepitant group achieved no vomiting and complete response, regardless of whether they received AC or non-AC regimens, in the 120 h after chemotherapy. Overall, the incidences of adverse events were generally similar in the aprepitant (62.8%) and control groups (67.2%). Conclusions The aprepitant regimen provided superior efficacy in the treatment of CINV in a broad range of patients receiving MEC (non-AC or AC) in both no vomiting and complete response endpoints. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. These results show the benefit of including aprepitant as part of the standard antiemetic regimen for cancer patients receiving MEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]