Simultaneous positron emission tomography/functional magnetic resonance imaging for imaging neuroreceptor dynamics

C. Sander

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Clinical Impact of Aprepitant in Patients Receiving High-Dose Chemotherapy prior to Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Ayumi Nakamura,Yuki Kojima,Kenji Miyazawa,Syuichi Matsumoto,Hiroatsu Iida,Hirokazu Nagai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000479032

Oncology

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost benefits of the administration of aprepitant for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who received HDCT at our institution between January 2009 and December 2013. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using direct medical costs. Results: We identified a total of 38 patients (27 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and 11 with multiple myeloma). Thirteen patients received aprepitant and granisetron (aprepitant group) for CINV prophylaxis, whereas 25 patients received granisetron only (non-aprepitant group). The incidence of severe nausea (≥grade 3) was significantly lower in the aprepitant group than in the non-aprepitant group (p = 0.039). The total mean cost per patient during hospitalization, excluding the cost of HDCT and transplantation, was USD 10,941.8 in the aprepitant group and USD 14,577.2 in the non-aprepitant group (p = 0.041). This cost benefit reflected reductions in the costs of hospitalization, transfusion, and infection treatment. Conclusions: Our data indicated that the addition of aprepitant for CINV prophylaxis during HDCT reduced the incidence of severe nausea and might also provide economic benefit in the overall management of HDCT prior to autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.
Fosaprepitant versus aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-simulated, positive-controlled phase III trial

Zhonghan Zhang,Yunpeng Yang,Ping Lu,Xiaoqin Li,Jianhua Chang,Rongsheng Zheng,Lei Zhou,Shaoshui Chen,Xiaopin Chen,Biyong Ren,Wei Gu,Xiaodong Jiang,Jiyong Peng,Miaolong Huang,Guosheng Feng,Peng Shen,Qingyuan Zhang,Baihong Zhang,Yan Huang,Jingdong He,Yinglan Chen,Jingxu Cao,Hong Wang,Wei Li,Huiping Wan,Kejun Nan,Zijun Liao,Cuiying Zhang,Zhong Lin,Diansheng Zhong,Qing Xu,Hailong Liu,Tao Sun,Yanming Deng,Li Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.12.158

IF: 3.616

2020-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Background: To establish the role of antiemetic therapy with neurolcinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists (RAs) in Chinese patients associated with cisplatin-base chemotherapy regimens, this study evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimen to a 3-day orally aprepitant-based antiemetic triplet schedule for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Methods: A randomized, double-blind, positive-control design was used to test the noninferiority of fosaprepitant towards aprepitant. Patients receiving cisplatin-base (>= 50 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy were administrated palonosetron and dexamethasone with a single-dose fosaprepitant (150 mg on day 1) or a standard aprepitant regimen (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on day 2 and day 3). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during overall phase (OP). Secondary endpoints include CR during acute phase (AP) and delayed phase (DP), no vomiting and no significant nausea during OP, AP and DP. Accrual of 324 patients per treatment arm was planned to confirm noninferiority with expected CR of 75% and noninferiority margin of minus 10 percentage points. Results: A total of 648 patients were randomly assigned, and 644 were evaluable for efficacy and safety. Antiemetic efficacy of CR during the OP with fosaprepitant and aprepitant was equivalent (71.96% versus 69.35%, P=0.4894). And a between-group difference of 2.61 percentage points was finally achieved (95% CI, -4.42 to 9.64) within predefined bounds for noninferiority (primary end point achieved). Both regimens were well tolerated and commonly reported adverse events (>= 1%) were similar between these two group. Conclusions: Single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone was well tolerated and demonstrated noninferior control of CINV to aprepitant-based triple regimen in Chinese patients treating with cisplatin-base chemotherapy.
Safety and Efficacy of Aprepitant As Mono and Combination Therapy for the Prevention of Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Post-Marketing Surveillance in China.

Yunpeng Yang,Nong Yang,Lin Wu,Quchang Ouyang,Jian Fang,Jinfeng Li,Wangjun Liao,Kaican Cai,Jianjin Huang,Jin Li,Yiping Zhang,Xiaojia Wang,Helong Zhang,Nong Xu,Qiong Zhao,Xingsheng Hu,Wei Li,Wei Zhong,Diansheng Zhong,Gang Cheng,Sheng Ye,Meizuo Zhong,Dong Wang,Hui Liu,Jihua Zheng,Xiaojian Liu,Hong Xu,Li Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/cco-20-160

2020-01-01

Chinese Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Background: The goal of this study was to evaluate aprepitant usage in the context of routine clinical practice with dose/regimens at the discretion of prescribers for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) treatments. Methods: In this single arm, multicenter prospective study 1,000 patients with solid malignancies were enrolled across 21 centers in China. The primary endpoint was the rate of adverse events (AEs), including drug related AEs and serious AEs (SAEs). Secondary efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving complete response (CR; no vomiting, no nausea, and no use of rescue medication) within 120 h after highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the rates of no nausea and no vomiting, as well as quality of life (QoL). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine factors associated with the overall (0-120 h), acute (0-24 h) and delayed (25-120 h) CR. Results: Of the 1,000 highly emetogenic chemotherapy treated patients enrolled in the study >= 1 AE, >= 1 drug related AE, >= 1 SAE and drug related SAE rates in 998 patients were 45.9%, 2.5%, 4.0% and 0.1%, respectively. Approximately half of the patients (455/990, 46.0%) received aprepitant as part of a 3-drug anti-CINV regimen consistent with prescribing guidelines. The overall CR (0 to 120 h) for anti-emetic drug use was 41.0%, with an acute CR of 66.0% and a delayed CR of 46.5%. The rates of no vomiting and no nausea after solely aprepitant anti-emetic therapy from 0 to 120 h were 70.9% and 43.0%, for dual anti-emetic therapy 86.9% and 64.6%, and for triple therapy 86.4% and 69.5%, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that triple anti-emetic therapy (P=0.038), male gender (P<0.001) and a history of chemotherapy (P=0.016) were significantly associated with the overall acute CR. Conclusions: Especially as a combination treatment, aprepitant is safe and efficient for preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
[ADL sleep. Design of a teaching plan].

C. Gnuse,M. Haag,B. Köpke,B. Schulte-Westermann,A. Zegelin

1990-03-01

Abstract:
Overestimation of the effect of (fos)aprepitant on intravenous dexamethasone pharmacokinetics requires adaptation of the guidelines for children with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

A. Laura Nijstad,Evelien de Vos-Kerkhof,Catherine F. Enters-Weijnen,Marianne D. van de Wetering,Wim J. E. Tissing,Matthijs M. Tibben,Hilde Rosing,Arief Lalmohamed,Alwin D. R. Huitema,C. Michel Zwaan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07423-6

IF: 3.1

2022-10-28

Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract:Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common side effects in pediatric oncology treatment. Besides 5-HT 3 -antagonists, both dexamethasone and aprepitant are cornerstone drugs in controlling these side effects. Based on results of adult studies, the dexamethasone dose is reduced by 50% when combined with aprepitant, because of a drug-drug interaction, even though data on the interaction in children is lacking. The current study was developed to investigate the effect of aprepitant on dexamethasone clearance (CL) in children, in order to assess if dexamethasone dose reduction for concomitant use of aprepitant is appropriate in the current antiemetic regimen.

oncology,health care sciences & services,rehabilitation
Addition of aprepitant improves protection against cisplatin-induced emesis when a conventional anti-emetic regimen fails

Weiheng Hu,Jian Fang,Jun Nie,Ling Dai,Xiaoling Chen,Jie Zhang,Xiangjuan Ma,Guangming Tian,Jindi Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-014-2446-4

2014-01-01

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

Abstract:Objective We investigated whether aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 antagonist, could decrease chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following cisplatin, when a conventional anti-emetic regimen had failed. Methods This was a prospective study (April 2011–April 2012) of patients with lung cancer, treated with cisplatin at the Beijing Cancer Hospital, and initially receiving granisetron, dexamethasone, and metoclopramide as anti-emetics. If patients experienced vomiting of grade ≥2 and required rescue anti-emetic medications during the first cycle, oral aprepitant was added in subsequent cycles (day 1: 125 mg; days 2–3: 80 mg once daily). Acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2–5) nausea and vomiting, use of rescue medications, and occurrence of adverse reactions were monitored after the start of chemotherapy. Results Twenty-five of 132 patients (18.9 %) were administered aprepitant for secondary prophylaxis against emesis during the second cycle of chemotherapy. The incidences of acute and delayed nausea were 52 and 100 % in the first cycle, but 8 and 72 % in the second cycle. The incidences of acute and delayed vomiting were 20 and 100 % in the first cycle, but 0 and 36 % in the second cycle. No patients required rescue medications or intravenous rehydration during the second cycle. Aprepitant was not associated with additional adverse events. Conclusions In patients with lung cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, the addition of aprepitant to a 5-HT 3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and metoclopramide improves protection against CINV when the conventional anti-emetic regimen fails.
Evaluation of Antiemetic Therapy for Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin

Yang Zhao,MinKe He,RunBin Liang,QiJiong Li,Ming Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S283192

2021-01-22

Abstract:Purpose: Our aim was to compare the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination of aprepitant, dolasetron and dexamethasone with the combination of dolasetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients receiving hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX). Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study. In the dolasetron plus dexamethasone group (D group), the patients received dolasetron (100 mg, i.v., on day 1) and dexamethasone (10 mg, i.v., on day 1) 30 min before starting administration of chemotherapeutic drugs. In the aprepitant plus dolasetron and dexamethasone group (AD group), the patients received dolasetron and dexamethasone as described above, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (CR, defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) during the first cycle of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy. Results: Between January 2018 and August 2019, 302 eligible patients were included: 197 in AD group and 105 in D group. Patients in AD group had significantly higher complete response rates than those in D group during the first cycle (85.8% vs 71.4%, P = 0.003) and all cycles (73.6% vs 49.5%, P<0.001). Patients in AD group had lower rescue therapy (1.5% vs 26.7%, P<0.001) and lower incidence of disruption related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (0.5% vs 6.7%, P = 0.002) than patients in D group. Conclusion: Aprepitant, dolasetron plus dexamethasone is more effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with FOLFOX-HAIC therapy than dolasetron plus dexamethasone.
Chemoradioprotection of the rat parotid gland by combined use of WR-2721 and Ro-07-0582.

M. Sodicoff,A. D. Conger,N. Pratt,M. Sinesi,P. Trepper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3575063

1979-11-01

Radiation Research

Abstract:The radioprotection of the rat parotid gland by WR-2721 alone (DMF, 2.4) was compared to the protection afforded when WR-2721 was given in combination with the hypoxic cell radiosensitizer Ro-07-0582 (DMF, 2.6). It was concluded that the radiosensitizer of malignant tumor cells Ro-07-0582 was compatible with and did not reduce the protection of normal tissue afforded by WR-2721.
Health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in outpatients receiving antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany

Florian Lordick,Birgit Ehlken,Angela Ihbe-Heffinger,Karin Berger,Karl J Krobot,James Pellissier,Glenn Davies,Robert Deuson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.09.019

Abstract:Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse effect of cancer therapy. We aimed to determine outcomes associated with use of aprepitant in outpatients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany from a patient's and payer's perspective. Methods: A decision-analytic model compared an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone) to a control regimen (ondansetron/dexamethasone) over a five days period. Clinical results and resource utilisation observed in aprepitant phase III clinical trials were assigned German unit cost data. Results: Complete response over one chemotherapy cycle was observed in 68% of patients in the aprepitant group (N=514) compared to 48% of patients in the control group (N=518). Patients were estimated to have gained an equivalent of 15 additional hours of perfect health per cycle (0.63 quality-adjusted life days) with aprepitant-based regimen compared to control regimen. Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with aprepitant was estimated at euro28,891. Conclusions: Aprepitant substantially improved CINV-related health outcomes in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Incremental benefits materialised in a cost-effective fashion.
[A Meta-Analysis of Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting].

Zhen-wei Fang,Suo-di Zhai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-167x.2010.06.032

2010-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy and safety of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.METHODS:Studies were identified by searching PubMed (1980 to March, 2010), EMbase (1980 to March, 2010), Cochrane Libraries (Issue 2, 2010), CNKI (1980 to March, 2010), CBMdisc (1980 to March, 2010), and WanFang Data (1982 to March, 2010). Randomized controlled trials of aprepitant for the prevention of CINV were included. The quality of included studies was assessed and meta-analysis was performed for the results of homogeneous studies by RevMan 5.0.23 software.RESULTS:Ten studies involving 4 376 oncology patients were included. They were all high quality studies, with Jadad scores more than 5. The results of meta-analysis were as follows: (1) Acute CINV: The overall complete response rate was improved by 14.21% when aprepitant was combined with ondansetron and dexamethasone (83.33% vs 72.96%; P<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed the patients receiving AC (anthracycline/cyclophosphamide) regimen benefited less than the patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. The rate of no significant nausea was only improved by 3.92% (P=0.04). (2) Delayed CINV: Compared with ondansetron, aprepitant could improve vomiting by 14.98% (P=0.004). When aprepitant was added with dexamethasone, the response rate of vomiting and nausea was improved by 37.72% (P<0.001) and 11.24% (P=0.008) respectively. (3) Adverse reactions: The incidence of fatigue/asthenia was higher in the aprepitant regimen (P=0.001), while the incidence of constipation was lower (P=0.002).CONCLUSION:Aprepitant can improve the control of vomiting, but has slight effect on nausea. Patients receiving AC regimen benefit less than patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. In view of its high cost, pharmacoeconomics researches of aprepitant should be considered.
Antiemesis effect of aprepitant for the liposome doxorubicin and ifosfamide induced nausea and vomiting in soft tissue sarcomas patients

Lu ZHANG,Zheng-fu FAN,Jia-yong LIU,Chu-jie BAI,Rui-feng XUE,Shu LI,Tian GAO,Zhi-wei FANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16073/j.cnki.cjcpt.2017.13.010

2017-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE Aprepitant is a neurokinin 1(NK-1)receptor antagonist,which is approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINv)in China recently.However,there are few reports about the effica-cy of this drug on multi-day chemotherapy in soft tissue sarcomas.The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant in preventing emesis in patients with soft tissue sarcomas receiving chemotherapy containing liposome doxo-rubicin and ifosfamide.METHODS In a prospective observational study,32 patients receiving 5-days chemotherapy con-taining liposome doxorubicin and ifosfamide were enrolled in Department of Orthopaedic Oncology of Peking University Cancer Hospital between February 1,2016 and June 30,2016.A total of 32 patients were assigned into the aprepitant group or the control group nonrandomly.The antemetic drugs of aprepitant group include aprepitant,ondansetron and dexamethasone,while the antemetic drugs of control group include ondansetron and dexamethasone.The severity of nau-sea and vomiting were observed during the 10d post-chemotherapy.The endpoint were CR (complete response)rate of a-cute phase (no vomitng and no rescue therapy throughout the 0-24 h post-chemotherapy)and CR rate of delayed phase (no vomitng and no rescue therapy throughout the 2-10 d post-chemotherapy),CP (complete protection)rate of acute phase (CR plus no significant nausea,vAS<25 mm throughout the 0-24 h post-chemotherapy)and CP rate of delayed phase (CR plus no significant nausea,vAS<25 mm throughout the 2-10 d post-chemotherapy).Enumeration data were analyzed by Fisher's exact test.Measurement data of normal distribution were analyzed by T test,while measurement data of non-normal distribution were analyzed by Mann-WhitneyU test.RESULTS Aprepitant group were 15 patients,while the control group were 17 patients,the patients'baseline characteristics were equivalent between the two groups.The highest value of the mean number of emetic episodes per day for both aprepitant group and the control group appeared on day 5 after the start of chemotherapy (0.5±1.4 and 1.7±1.9 emetic episodes,U =80,P =0.034),While the highest val-ue of the mean vAS scores per day for both aprepitant group and the control group appeared on day 5 after the start of chemotherapy too,(22±13.2)mm and (33.5±21.2)mm (U =80.5,P =0.070).CR rate of acute phase in aprepitant group and the control group were 100% (15/15)and 88.2% (15/17),P = 0.486,CR rate of delayed phase were 80%(12/15)and 41.2%(7/17),P =0.036.CP rate of acute phase in aprepitant group and the control group were 13.3%(2/15)and 23.5% (4/17),P = 0.659,CP rate of delayed phase were 33.3% (5/15)and 11.8% (2/17),P = 0.209. Aprepitant-related adverse effect was not detected in the aprepitant group in this study.CONCLUSION Nausea and vom-iting induced by chemotherapy containing liposome doxorubicin and ifosfamide in soft tissue sarcomas patients was the worst on day 5 after the start of chemotherapy,adding aprepitant was possible to improve CR rate of delayed phase.
Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Susan Moore,John Tumeh,Steven Wojtanowski,Christopher Flowers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00141.x

Abstract:Objective: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem for cancer patients. Aprepitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved for use with 5-HT3 antagonists and corticosteroids to prevent CINV associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of standard aprepitant use has not been established. Methods: We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies for CINV: conventional treatment with a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid, conventional treatment plus aprepitant, and conventional treatment with aprepitant added after the onset of CINV. Data from published clinical trials provided probabilities and utilities for the model. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Federal Supply Scale provided costs for medical resources and medications utilized. Resource use data were based on a randomized clinical trial and routine clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each aprepitant strategy was calculated in US$ per healthy day equivalent (HDE) and converted to dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in model parameters. Results: Adding aprepitant after CINV occurred cost $264 per HDE ($96,333/QALY). The three-drug strategy cost $267/HDE with a 95% confidence range of $248-$305/HDE ($97,429/QALY; $90,396-$111,239/QALY). In univariate analyses, the most influential factors on the ICER were: the cost of aprepitant, the likelihood of delayed CINV without aprepitant, the likelihood of acute CINV with/without aprepitant, and the increase in HDE from avoiding CINV. Conclusions: Aprepitant provides modest incremental benefits compared with conventional management of CINV. Routine aprepitant use appears most cost-effective when the likelihood of delayed CINV or the cost of rescue medications is high.
Polymorphic Phase Behavior of Lysopalmitoylphosphatidylcholine in Poly ( ethy 1 ene glycol )-Water Mixtures ?

M. Kouchakdjian,E. Marinelli,Xiaoli Gao,F. Johnson,D. Patel

Abstract:
Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles

Tingting Qiu,Peng Men,Tong Sun,Suodi Zhai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.660514

2021-08-25

Abstract:Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the published cost-effectiveness analyses of aprepitant for patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and CBM database. The date of publication is up to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved and reviewers reached a consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS). The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2019 using the CCEMG-EPPI-Certer Cost Converter. Results: Thirteen articles were included based on the inclusion criteria for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis. Twelve studies were rated as good quality and one as a moderate quality based on the CHEERS checklist. Eight studies compared aprepitant plus 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) and dexamethasone with the standard regimen (5-HT3RA and dexamethasone). It was concluded that aprepitant plus standard regimen was a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV. Only one study that compared aprepitant plus 5-HT3RA with 5-HT3RA, concluded that the addition of aprepitant reduced the incidence of severe nausea, and it might also provide an economic benefit in the overall management. Four studies that compared aprepitant with other antiemetic drugs concluded that aprepitant is a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV compared with metoclopramide. However, netupitan + palonosetron and olanzapine are cost-effective compared with aprepitant. Conclusion: This study is the first systematic evaluation of adding aprepitant to standard regimens for patients with CINV. Most economic evaluations of antiemetic medications are reported to be of good quality. Adding aprepitant to standard regimens is found to be a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV.
Phase III Randomized Trial of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone with or Without Aprepitant to Prevent Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Full-dose Single-day Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer

Fang Wu,Xiaoping Lin,Zhanghuan Yang,Ziyi Sun,Fanxu Zeng,Jianfu Heng,Jingjing Qu,Liang Zeng,Nong Yang,Yongchang Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2018.08.006

IF: 4.84

2018-01-01

Clinical Lung Cancer

Abstract:There was no standard treatment to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer receiving full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. We conducted this phase III randomized trial and enrolled 244 patients to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in such patients. Our study achieved the primary endpoint and demonstrated that triple-reagent treatment was effective and well-tolerated. Introduction: This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer receiving full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who received full dose single-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized (1:1) to aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone, or placebo plus palonosetron and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response of nausea and vomiting in the first cycle. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with nausea and vomiting who received rescue antiemetic medication, the response of cross-over patients, and safety. Results: A total of 244 patients were randomized. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding personal characteristics. The administration of aprepitant significantly improved the complete response for vomiting in the overall period (92.6% vs. 79.93%; P < .01), but not a nausea-free response (75.4% vs. 71.3%; P > .05) in the first cycle. The percentage of patients who received rescue antiemetic medication was decreased for the aprepitant group (14.8% vs. 37.1%; P < .001). Patients who did not use aprepitant and suffered with nausea and vomiting in cycle 1 were crossed over to the aprepitant group (N = 32), and the rate of nausea and vomiting in cycle 2 was decreased to 37.5% (P < .05) and 25% (P < .05), respectively. There were no drug-related adverse effects. Conclusions: Aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone proved to be effective and well-tolerated in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK 1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, With that of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study

Hiroshi Inano,Yoshihito Morimoto,Kanata Kitagawa,Akito Shibuya,Kozue Nakagomi,Tomohiro Ota,Yuri Anzo,Rika Miyauchi,Aiko Shono,Kazuhiro Watanabe,Katsuya Otori

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.b23-00819

2024-01-01

Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin

Abstract:Existing antiemetic therapy against emetic-risk agents across malignancies 24 h post-dose in the acute period in CDDP-based regimens yields a satisfactory complete response (CR) rate of ≥ 90%. However, the control rate after 24 h in the delayed period is unsatisfactory. This study compared the efficacy of fosnetupitant (F-NTP), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, with that of fosaprepitant (F-APR) and aprepitant (APR) in the treatment of patients with cancer at high emetic risk due to chemotherapy. In this retrospective case-control study involving patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, patients were divided into three groups based on prophylactic antiemetic therapy: F-NTP, F-APR, and APR. The CR rate was evaluated for each period up to 168 h and further subdivided into acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and beyond-delayed (120-168 h) periods. Eighty-eight patients were included in the F-NTP group, 66 in the F-APR group, and 268 in the APR group. The CR rates at 0-168 and 120-168 h after cisplatin administration were significantly higher in the F-NTP group than in the F-APR and APR groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, F-NTP use was an independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy, including F-NTP, was effective and well-tolerated during the delayed period. The efficacy of F-NTP in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was superior to those of F-APR and APR during the study period.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Fine Structure Mapping of the am (Gdh) Locus of Neurospora.

J. Rambosek,J. Kinsey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/105.2.293

IF: 4.402

1983-10-01

Genetics

Abstract:Utilizing a combination of flanking marker analysis and deletion mapping we have constructed a fine structure map of the am locus which includes 63 point mutants and ten unique deletions. Positions of point mutants can be rapidly assigned to one of 13 segments within the gene on the basis of crosses to nine deletion strains.
[Efficacy and Survival Analysis of DICE Regimen for 97 Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma].

L Y Ping,Y Q Song,W Zheng,X P Wang,Y Xie,N J Lin,M F Tu,Z T Ying,W P Liu,C Zhang,L J Deng,J Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2016.09.012

2016-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To investigate the efficacy and survival of the DICE regimen (cisplatin, ifosfamide, etoposide, dexamethasone) for relapsed and refractory NHL. Methods: Clinical data of 97 relapsed and refractory NHL patients treated with DICE regimen in Peking University Cancer Hospital between Sep 1. 2008 and Dec 31. 2013 were retrospectively analyzed, and then we evaluate the efficacy and safety of DICE regimen. Results: ① There were 64 males and 33 females with a median age of 49 years. The most common pathological type was DLBCL (73.20%). There were 35 B-NHL patients used rituximab combined with DICE. Finally, a total of 26 patients underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) after the salvage chemotherapy. ② The overall response rate (ORR) was 47.42%, the complete response (CR) rate was 22.68%. The ORR of the relapsed/progressive group was higher than the refractory group [67.57% (25/37) vs 35.00% (21/60), χ2= 9.736, P=0.002]. ③The median follow-up of these 97 patients was 15.0 months (1.5-80.0 months). The expected median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 12.0 (95% CI 5.0-19.0) months, 26.0 (95% CI 6.0-45.9) months. ④There was no difference between the auto-HSCT group and no auto-HSCT group in the median OS [41.0 (95%CI 8.9-73.1) vs 22.0 (95%CI 8.5-35.5) months, P=0.361]. The patients who achieved CR and PR after DICE regimen had longer OS than those patients who in stable or progressive disease (56.0 vs 18.5 months, P <0.001). Patients who used DICE combined with rituximab had longer OS than patients who only used DICE regimen (51.5 vs 28.5 months, P=0.041). The multiple-factor analysis showed that the efficacy of DICE was an independent prognostic factor of OS [HR=4.24 (95%CI 2.12-8.50), P<0.001 ]. ⑤ The major adverse events included neutropenia (84.54% ) , thrombocytopenia (41.24% ), anemia (68.04%), and nausea/vomiting (65.98%), 14 patients (14.43%) had liver function abnormality, 1 patient had acute renal function injury during the treatment period. There was no chemotherapy-related death occurred. Conclusion: The DICE regimen is effective in refractory and relapsed NHL, and DICE is safe and well-tolerated. The high response rate of DICE regimen may correlate with good prognosis. For the B-NHL patients who used DICE combined with rituximab had longer OS than those patients who used DICE regimen only.
Aprepitant Triple Therapy for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Following High-Dose Cisplatin in Chinese Patients: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial.

Zhihuang Hu,Ying Cheng,Hongyu Zhang,Caicun Zhou,Baohui Han,Yiping Zhang,Cheng Huang,Jianhua Chang,Xiangqun Song,Jun Liang,Houjie Liang,Chunxue Bai,Shiying Yu,Jia Chen,Jie Wang,Hongming Pan,Denesh K. Chitkara,Darcy A. Hille,Li Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-2043-9

IF: 3.1

2013-01-01

Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract: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.
Randomized comparison of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin versus dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin chemotherapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory aggressive lymphomas: NCIC-CTG LY.12

Michael Crump,John Kuruvilla,Stephen Couban,David A MacDonald,Vishal Kukreti,C Tom Kouroukis,Morel Rubinger,Rena Buckstein,Kevin R Imrie,Massimo Federico,Nicola Di Renzo,Kang Howson-Jan,Tara Baetz,Leonard Kaizer,Michael Voralia,Harold J Olney,A Robert Turner,Jonathan Sussman,Annette E Hay,Marina S Djurfeldt,Ralph M Meyer,Bingshu E Chen,Lois E Shepherd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.9593

2014-11-01

Abstract:Purpose: For patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma, we hypothesized that gemcitabine-based therapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is as effective as and less toxic than standard treatment. Patients and methods: We randomly assigned 619 patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma to treatment with gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) or to dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP). Patients with B-cell lymphoma also received rituximab. Responding patients proceeded to stem-cell collection and ASCT. Coprimary end points were response rate after two treatment cycles and transplantation rate. The noninferiority margin for the response rate to GDP relative to DHAP was set at 10%. Secondary end points included event-free and overall survival, treatment toxicity, and quality of life. Results: For the intention-to-treat population, the response rate with GDP was 45.2%; with DHAP the response rate was 44.0% (95% CI for difference, -9.0% to 6.7%), meeting protocol-defined criteria for noninferiority of GDP (P = .005). Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis. The transplantation rates were 52.1% with GDP and 49.3% with DHAP (P = .44). At a median follow-up of 53 months, no differences were detected in event-free survival (HR, 0.99; stratified log-rank P = .95) or overall survival (HR, 1.03; P = .78) between GDP and DHAP. Treatment with GDP was associated with less toxicity (P < .001) and need for hospitalization (P < .001), and preserved quality of life (P = .04). Conclusion: For patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma, in comparison with DHAP, treatment with GDP is associated with a noninferior response rate, similar transplantation rate, event-free survival, and overall survival, less toxicity and hospitalization, and superior quality of life.

Simultaneous positron emission tomography/functional magnetic resonance imaging for imaging neuroreceptor dynamics

Clinical Impact of Aprepitant in Patients Receiving High-Dose Chemotherapy prior to Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Fosaprepitant versus aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-simulated, positive-controlled phase III trial

Safety and Efficacy of Aprepitant As Mono and Combination Therapy for the Prevention of Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Post-Marketing Surveillance in China.

[ADL sleep. Design of a teaching plan].

Overestimation of the effect of (fos)aprepitant on intravenous dexamethasone pharmacokinetics requires adaptation of the guidelines for children with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Addition of aprepitant improves protection against cisplatin-induced emesis when a conventional anti-emetic regimen fails

Evaluation of Antiemetic Therapy for Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin

Chemoradioprotection of the rat parotid gland by combined use of WR-2721 and Ro-07-0582.

Health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in outpatients receiving antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany

[A Meta-Analysis of Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting].

Antiemesis effect of aprepitant for the liposome doxorubicin and ifosfamide induced nausea and vomiting in soft tissue sarcomas patients

Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Polymorphic Phase Behavior of Lysopalmitoylphosphatidylcholine in Poly ( ethy 1 ene glycol )-Water Mixtures ?

Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles

Phase III Randomized Trial of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone with or Without Aprepitant to Prevent Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Full-dose Single-day Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer

Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK 1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, With that of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study

Fine Structure Mapping of the am (Gdh) Locus of Neurospora.

[Efficacy and Survival Analysis of DICE Regimen for 97 Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma].

Aprepitant Triple Therapy for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Following High-Dose Cisplatin in Chinese Patients: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial.

Randomized comparison of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin versus dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin chemotherapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory aggressive lymphomas: NCIC-CTG LY.12