Efficacy of a 1-day 3-drug antiemetic regimen for prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9111-9111 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Grunberg ◽  
M. Dugan ◽  
H. B. Muss ◽  
M. Wood ◽  
S. Burdette-Radoux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Regimen ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Significant Nausea

9111 Background: Serotonin antagonists, NK-1 antagonists (NKA) and corticosteroids (C) have all shown efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However these agents are commonly used in cumbersome and inconvenient multiple day regimens that can also raise questions of compliance. Palonosetron is a serotonin antagonist with a 40 hour half-life, requiring only one dose for several days of exposure. Single high doses of NKA and C can also be used to simulate drug exposures achieved with a multiple day regimen. We have therefore evaluated a 1-day 3-drug antiemetic regimen for 5 day efficacy against moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with solid tumors receiving their first cycle of cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin were eligible to receive a single pre-treatment dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg IV/dexamethasone 20 mg PO/aprepitant 285 mg PO. Nausea and vomiting were evaluated over the following 5 days with a patient diary including vomiting episodes, use of rescue medication, and daily nausea visual analogue scale (VAS). Patients were urged to begin rescue medication for nausea, vomiting, or related discomfort. Endpoints included Complete Response (CR) (no emesis or rescue), No Emesis (NE), and No Significant Nausea (NSN) (VAS<25) during the acute period (A) (Day 1), the delayed period (D) (Days 2–5), and the overall period (O) (Days 1–5). Adverse events were recorded and tabulated for at least 14 days. Results: 32 of 40 planned patients have been entered on study. 31 women and 1 man with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with median age 52 years (range 34–74) have been treated and all are evaluable. CR for A/D/O was 78%/59%/50%. However NE for A/D/O was 100%/97%/97%, and NSN for A/D/O was 75%/62%/56%. Only 8 patients had more than one day of Significant Nausea. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue and mild headache. Conclusions: A 1-day 3-drug antiemetic regimen is feasible and effective, and should be tested against a multiple day standard antiemetic regimen. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and Safety of Palonosetron in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas Undergoing Repeated Cycles of Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 5196-5196
Author(s):  
Brian Choi ◽  
Gabriela Borsaru ◽  
Daniel Voisin ◽  
Gianluca Ballinari ◽  
Nicola Di Renzo
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Prophylaxis ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Hodgkin's Lymphomas

Abstract Abstract 5196 Background: Patients undergoing chemotherapy (CT) commonly receive repeated cycles of treatment. While chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be a disruptive, unwanted side effect with negative consequences on patient quality of life, possible discontinuation of therapy, and associated increased health care resources, prevention of CINV in cycle 1 diminishes its potential in subsequent cycles. Therefore, optimizing antiemetic prophylaxis at initiation of CT is critical. Palonosetron (PALO), a potent 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) with a distinctly different pharmacokinetic and receptor binding profile, has demonstrated improved CINV protection compared to older 5-HT3 RAs in multiple phase 3 and 4 single-CT-cycle clinical trials; however, few studies have evaluated PALO over multiple cycles of CT. Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of single IV doses of PALO 0.25 mg in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas (NHL) scheduled to receive at least 2 repeated, consecutive cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (CHOP, R-CHOP or ProMACE-CytaBOM). Corticosteroids were part of the CT regimen but not administered as an antiemetic. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (0–120 h) following CT during each cycle. Secondary endpoints included CR during the acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) time periods, as well as evaluation of proportion of emesis-free patients and nausea severity (according to a 100 mm VAS) during all 3 time intervals. The safety profile and adverse events were also assessed. Results: A total of 88 patients with either B-cell (91%) or T-cell (9%) NHL received PALO for a total of 317 CT cycles (mean 3.6; median 4). The majority of patients were white (99%) males (60%) with a mean age of 59.7 yrs who received either CHOP (47%) or R-CHOP (52%). CR rates during the acute, delayed and overall phases were sustained across the 4 CT cycles (Table). High proportions of patients remained emesis-free and experienced less than significant nausea (0 to <25 mm VAS) during the 5 days post-CT throughout repeated CT cycles (Table). PALO was well tolerated over repeated cycles, with few adverse events considered possibly/probably/definitely related (TRAEs: treatment related adverse events) (8% of patients; none serious). The incidence of the typically frequent TRAEs of headache and constipation was low (1% and 2%) and there were no unexpected or relevant differences in TRAEs between cycles or in later cycles (6%, 3%, 0%, 4% cycles 1–4, respectively). Conclusion: A single, fixed IV dose of palonosetron was shown to be safe and effective in preventing CINV over repeated chemotherapy cycles in patients with NHL. Disclosures: Voisin: Helsinn Healthcare: Employment. Ballinari:Helsinn Healthcare: Employment.

scholarly journals Open-label observational study to assess the efficacy and safety of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Indian patients receiving chemotherapy with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens

2015 ◽  
Vol 04 (01) ◽  
pp. 007-010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin Hingmire ◽  
Nirmal Raut
Keyword(s):  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Complete Control

Abstract Context: Currently, there is limited data on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Indian population with aprepitant containing regimens. Aims: The aim was to assess the Efficacy and Safety of Aprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) regimens. Settings and Design: Investigator initiated, multicentric, open-label, prospective, noncomparative, observational trial. Subjects and Methods: Triple drug regimen with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasaone administration was assessed for the prevention of CINV during acute, delayed, and the overall phase (OP) for HEC/MEC Regimens. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) and the key secondary endpoint was the complete control (CC; no emesis, no rescue medication and no more than mild nausea) during the OP. Statistical Analysis Used: Perprotocol efficacy was analyzed for the first cycle with results represented in terms of CR/CC rates using descriptive statistics. Results: Seventy-five patients were included in the study with median age of 49.7 years and 89.7% being females. The CR rate (OP) for patients administered HEC or MEC regimens during the first cycle were 92% and 90.9%, respectively. Similarly, the CC rates (OP) were 75% and 90% for these regimens, respectively. 7 (9.2%) patients reported adverse drug reactions that were mild and transient with no reports of any serious adverse events. Conclusions: Use of aprepitant containing regimen for patients receiving HEC/MEC regimen resulted in significantly high CR and CC response rates, which further consolidate its potential role to improve patient quality of life and compliance to disease management.

scholarly journals Single-dose netupitant/palonosetron versus 3-day aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pooled analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolph M Navari ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
Erminio Bonizzoni ◽  
Rebecca Clark-Snow ◽  
Silvia Olivari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Efficacy Data ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Neurokinin 1 ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
Significant Nausea

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h) and overall (0–120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p < 0.05) and 78.4 versus 75.0% during the acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. Conclusion: Oral NEPA administered on day 1 was more effective than a 3-day APR regimen in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin.

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 226-226
Author(s):  
Toshimichi Miya ◽  
Kunihiko Kobayashi ◽  
Mitsunori Hino ◽  
Masahiro Ando ◽  
Susumu Takeuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Acute Phase ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Antiemetic Therapy ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Treatment ◽  
Severe Adverse Events ◽  
Delayed Phase

226 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assess efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy consist palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy consist palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication (complete response (CR)) in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication (complete control (CC)). Results: Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100%, 91.9% and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100%, 84.4% and 84.4%, respectively. Most common adverse events were mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed. Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100%, 91.9% and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100%, 84.4% and 84.4%, respectively. Most common adverse events were mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed. Conclusions: Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in preventing CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen. Clinical trial information: UMIN000017877.

Efficacy and safety of rolapitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in subjects receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9077-9077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Enrique Fein ◽  
Allen Poma ◽  
Mary Lynne Hedley
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Significant Nausea

9077 Background: Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) improves quality of life and increases the likelihood that patients will continue to receive appropriate treatment. The objective of this dose finding study was to evaluate rolapitant for the prevention of CINV in subjects receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: A phase II, double blind study in which 454 subjects receiving HEC (≥70mg/m2 cisplatin-based chemotherapy) were randomized in equal fashion prior to chemotherapy to receive ondansetron + dexamethasone + either placebo or 10, 25, 100 or 200mg of rolapitant. Subjects recorded episodes of emesis, severity of nausea, and use of rescue medication(s) daily within a subject diary from Days 1 through 6 of Cycle 1. Results: The rolapitant 200mg group had significantly greater complete response rates (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) in the overall (0 to 120 hours), acute (0 to ≤24 hours) and delayed (>24 to 120 hours) phases compared to the placebo group (62.5% vs. 46.7%, p=0.032; 87.6% vs. 66.7%, p=0.001 and 63.6% vs. 48.9%, p=0.045, respectively). Moreover, the 200mg group had significantly greater rates of no emesis and no significant nausea in the overall, acute, and delayed phases and achieved statistically significant better QoL scores (FLIE questionnaire) compared to the placebo group. Rates for no emesis and no significant nausea for the 200mg dose group in Cycles 2 to 6 continued to demonstrate superior treatment effect vs. placebo. Treatment-related adverse events were mild and included constipation, headache, fatigue and dizziness. Overall, serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred with similar incidences across all treatment groups (9% - 14%). Most common SAEs were febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, dehydration, nausea and pneumonia and were considered related to chemotherapy or underlying cancer and not to rolapitant. Conclusions: Administration of rolapitant 200mg with ondansetron and dexamethasone is safe and effective at preventing CINV in subjects receiving HEC.

Efficacy of Thalidomide in Preventing Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial (CLOG1302 study)

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31) ◽  
pp. 3558-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lingyun Zhang ◽  
Xiujuan Qu ◽  
Yuee Teng ◽  
Jing Shi ◽  
Ping Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Delayed Nausea

Purpose We examined the efficacy and safety of thalidomide (THD) for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and Methods In a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC that contained cisplatin or cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin/epirubincin ≥ 50 mg/m2 regimens were randomly assigned to a THD group (100 mg twice daily on days 1 to 5) or placebo group, both with palonosetron (0.25 mg on day 1) and dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1; 8 mg on days 2 to 4). Primary end point was complete response to vomiting—no emesis or use of rescue medication—in the delayed phase (25 to 120 h). Nausea and anorexia on days 1 to 5 were evaluated by the 4-point Likert scale (0, no symptoms; 3, severe). Quality of life was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3 questionnaire on days −1 and 6. Results Of 656 patients, 638 were evaluable: 317 in the THD group and 321 in the control group. Compared with placebo, delayed and overall (0 to 120 h) complete response rates to vomiting were significantly higher with THD: 76.9% versus 61.7% ( P < .001) and 66.1% versus 53.3% ( P = .001), respectively. Rates of no nausea were also higher in the THD group (delayed: 47.3% v 33.3%; P < .001; overall: 41% v 29.6%; P = .003), and mean scores of anorexia were lower overall (0.44 ± 0.717 v 0.64 ± 0.844; P = .003). Adverse effects were mild to moderate. The THD group had increased sedation, dizziness, constipation, and dry mouth, but experienced better quality of life after chemotherapy. Conclusion Thalidomide combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved HEC-induced delayed nausea and vomiting prevention in chemotherapy-naive patients.

scholarly journals Ramosetron hydrochloride for the prevention of cancer chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: The Indian experience

2014 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 132-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayesh J. Sanmukhani ◽  
Prafulla Pawar ◽  
Ravindra Mittal
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Chemotherapy ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Ondansetron Hydrochloride ◽  
Delayed Nausea

Abstract Background: Despite the advent of 5-HT 3 antagonists, control of delayed gastrointestinal adverse events with cancer chemotherapy is still not optimal. This open label, active controlled, multicentric clinical trial was undertaken to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of ramosetron with ondansetron for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with emetogenic cancer chemotherapy in adult patients in India. Materials and Methods: Enrolled patients received treatment with ramosetron hydrochloride 0.1 mg or ondansetron hydrochloride 4 mg tablets once daily in the morning for 5 days starting 1 h before the start of chemotherapy. Severity grades of nausea and vomiting were recorded on a daily basis for a period of 5 days and complete response rate (CRR) and effective rate (ER) were calculated. Clinical adverse events were recorded and hematological and biochemical investigations were performed for safety assessment. Results: A total of 114 patients in ramosetron group and 100 patients in ondansetron group completed the study and were eligible for efficacy and safety analysis. CRR and ERs show that while ramosetron is non-inferior to ondansetron in the control of early nausea and vomiting (occurring during the first 24 h) after the treatment with emetogenic chemotherapy, it is superior to ondansetron in the control of delayed nausea and vomiting (occurring after the first 24 h). The proportion of patients achieving a cumulative complete response (for the entire study period) is significantly greater in ramosetron group as compared to ondansetron group (27.2% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.001). Ramosetron was well tolerated by all the study participants. Conclusions: Ramosetron is significantly more effective than ondansetron for the control of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by emetogenic cancer chemotherapy.

Aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapies and tumor types: A randomized, double-blind study

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9626-9626
Author(s):  
J. A. Boice ◽  
H. Schmoll ◽  
C. Brown ◽  
A. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Medication Use ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Therapy Regimen ◽  
Control Regimen

9626 Background: Aprepitant (A) has been shown in a previous trial to be effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in breast cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide and anthracycline. This study assessed A in patients with a variety of tumors receiving a broad range of MEC regimens. Methods: This Phase III, randomized, gender-stratified, double-blind, trial enrolled female and male patients ≥18 years old with confirmed malignancies naïve to MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and scheduled to receive a single dose of 1 or more MEC agent. Patients received A triple-therapy regimen (A 125 mg, ondansetron [O] 8 mg b.i.d., and dexamethasone [D] 12 mg on Day 1 of chemotherapy, A 80 mg q.d. on Days 2–3) or a control regimen (O 8 mg b.i.d. and D 20 mg on Day 1, and O 8 mg q12h on Days 2–3) all administered orally. Episodes of vomiting, nausea, and rescue medication use were recorded in a patient diary. Tolerability was assessed by physical and lab examinations, and adverse event (AE) reporting. Primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients with No Vomiting and Complete Response (no vomiting and no rescue medication use), respectively, during the 120 hours postchemotherapy. Results: Among 848 randomized patients, 77% were female while 52, 20, 13, and 5% of patients had breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, respectively. Significantly more patients in the A group achieved No Vomiting and Complete Response (a difference of 14.1 &12.4 percentage points vs. control, respectively). The incidences of AEs were generally similar in the aprepitant (61.9%) and control groups (66.5%). Conclusions: The aprepitant regimen provided superior efficacy over the control regimen in the treatment of CINV in a broad range of patients receiving MEC in both No Vomiting and Complete Response endpoints. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Aprepitant in multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19591-e19591
Author(s):  
Johann-Francois Ouellette Freve ◽  
Denis Soulieres ◽  
Normand Blais ◽  
Nathalie LeTarte
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Small Population ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Serotonin Antagonists ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

e19591 Background: Aprepitant is a NK-1 inhibitor approved in combination with serotonin antagonists and dexamethasone (Dex) for highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Antiemetic regimens for multiple-day chemotherapy are not standard and guidelines recommend serotonin antagonists and Dex for each day of chemotherapy and for following days. Studies with aprepitant in that setting are ongoing. In our center, aprepitant use with multiple-day chemotherapy was prescribed at the physician’s discretion. Methods: We did a retrospective study of the use of aprepitant with cisplatin-based multiple-day chemotherapy (CBMDC) regimens from November 2008 to November 2011. Pharmacy files were used to identify patients that received at least one dose of CBMDC. Data was extracted from pharmacy and medical records. Objectives included efficacy (complete response (CR), absence of nausea and vomiting, change in antiemetics) and safety of different regimens. Results: During the study period, 39 patients (34 men) received CBMDC, mostly BEP for testicular cancer. Three patients also received second-line treatment. Patients received BEP (93%), ICE (2%), or TIP (5%) chemotherapy. Eleven patients received 3-day aprepitant, 15 patients 5-day aprepitant and 16 patients did not receive aprepitant at all as primary prophylaxis. Patients were older in the 3-day group. CR was 1% in the 3 day-group, 64% in the 5-day group and 36% in the control group (p=0,08). There was a trend that nausea and vomiting were reported more frequently in the 3-day group. In 4 patients, aprepitant was added for days 4 and 5 in subsequent cycles with better control. Rescue medication was used in 100% of patients receiving the 3-day regimen, 36% in patients receiving the 5-day regimen and 64% of patients not receiving aprepitant. Three patients receiving 5-day aprepitant had to further decrease their Dex dose for adverse events (insomnia, emotional lability, pyrosis, acne). No severe adverse events were reported with the 5-day use of aprepitant. Conclusions: Even within a small population, five-day aprepitant is effective in inducing CR, reducing vomiting and is safe in patients receiving CBMDC. It has been chosen as a standard treatment in our patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document