aprepitant and Lymphoma--Non-Hodgkin

We performed a prospective study to investigate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, ondansetron, and prednisone in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients receiving R-CEOP or CEOP chemotherapy regimen. All patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and prednisone), or a control regimen (ondansetron and prednisone) treatment group. For the complete response, the aprepitant group was statistically superior to the control group in the overall study period (76.5% vs. 56.0%; p = .03), as well as in separate analyses of the acute phase (92.2% vs. 78.0%; p = .045), and even more notably in the delayed phase (82.4% vs. 64.0%; p = .037). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the two treatment groups (p > .05). The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving R-CEOP or CEOP regimen and was generally well tolerated.

Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adult; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Prednisone; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

We performed a clinical study of a triple-drug combination to evaluate its efficacy to prevent both acute and delayed emesis after high-dose chemotherapy with BEAM (BCNU [carmustine]+etoposide+ARA-C [cytarabine]+melphalan) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) by comparison with a historical control group of patients treated with dexamethasone (dex) and ondansetron or palonosetron.. We evaluated 96 patients non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (n=54), and Hodgkin's disease (n=42). Evaluated patients received: aprepitant+palonosetron and dex. The observation period started with the initiation of chemotherapy (0 hours) and continued for 24 hours after the completion of the chemotherapy for the acute phase, and during 5 days after finishing chemotherapy for the delayed phase. The response rate to study drugs was evaluated using a four-grade scale based on the degree of control of nausea and vomiting: high, modrate, slightly effective, or not effective.. Patients treated with the three-drug combination showed a significantly higher response rate than those receiving palonosetron or ondasetron (+dex) during the both the acute and the delayed phases: highly effective early+late phases, 82% versus 70% versus 35%; highly effective early phase, 94% versus 70% versus 35%; highly effective late phase, 85% versus 85% versus 50%; highly+moderately effective early phase, 97% versus 70% versus 40%; highly+moderately effective late phase, 97% versus 90% versus 60%, for triple combination, palonosctron with dexamethasone and ondasetron+dex, respectively. All antiemetic regimens were well tolerated. The three-drug combination showed a similar safety profile; adverse events were generally mild and transient.. The triple-drug combination was more effective than ondansetron or palonosetron (+dex) treatments to prevent acute (especially) and delayed nausea and vomiting following BEAM before HSCT.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carmustine; Cytarabine; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Etoposide; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Melphalan; Morpholines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron and palonosetron against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy. A total of 61 patients were eligible for this study. Before starting the bendamustine-based chemotherapy, granisetron or palonosetron were intravenously administered with or without aprepitant and/or dexamethasone. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (during the 6 days after the start of the chemotherapy), acute (up to 2 days), and delayed (3 to 6 days) phases were assessed. CC was defined as complete response with only grade 0-1 nausea, no vomiting, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. Granisetron or palonosetron alone were administered to 9 and 19 patients, respectively. Aprepitant and/or dexamethasone were combined with granisetron and palonosetron in 28 and 5 patients, respectively. Acute CINV was completely controlled in all patients. Both granisetron monotherapy and palonosetron combination therapy could provide good control of delayed CINV, although the CC rates during the delayed and overall phases were not significantly different among mono- and combination therapy of the antiemetics. There was no significant difference in the frequencies of adverse drug events between the granisetron and palonosetron treatment groups. The present study showed that the antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron-based therapy were non-inferior to those of palonosetron-based therapy. Taken together with treatment costs, granisetron monotherapy would be adequate to prevent CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Bendamustine Hydrochloride; Dexamethasone; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

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).. 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.. 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.. 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.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Multiple Myeloma; Nausea; Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Drug Interactions; Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Morpholines; Nausea; Prednisolone; Rituximab; Vincristine