BACKGROUND:Cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to further investigate the impact of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant on these patterns. METHODS: Three phase III HEC (patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy) and one phase III MEC (breast cancer patients scheduled to receiveanthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)) trials of aprepitant were included. In all studies, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or the standard regimen (ondansetron plus dexamethasone). The exact dosing regimen for ondansetron and dexamethasone was different in each study. In a post hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on first emesis at different time intervals after chemotherapy. RESULTS:One thousand five hundred twenty-seven patients and 856 patients were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials, respectively. For HEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-77% vs. standard regimen, beginning 15-18 h after cisplatin and extending to 60 h. For MEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-61% vs. active control, beginning 3 h after AC and for up to 12 h. CONCLUSIONS:Time of onset and duration of enhanced control of emesis with the addition of aprepitant differed between HEC and MEC. This suggests that the pattern of NK1-sensitive mechanisms may vary for different chemotherapy regimens.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to further investigate the impact of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant on these patterns. METHODS: Three phase III HEC (patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy) and one phase III MEC (breast cancerpatients scheduled to receive anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)) trials of aprepitant were included. In all studies, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or the standard regimen (ondansetron plus dexamethasone). The exact dosing regimen for ondansetron and dexamethasone was different in each study. In a post hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on first emesis at different time intervals after chemotherapy. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred twenty-seven patients and 856 patients were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials, respectively. For HEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-77% vs. standard regimen, beginning 15-18 h after cisplatin and extending to 60 h. For MEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-61% vs. active control, beginning 3 h after AC and for up to 12 h. CONCLUSIONS: Time of onset and duration of enhanced control of emesis with the addition of aprepitant differed between HEC and MEC. This suggests that the pattern of NK1-sensitive mechanisms may vary for different chemotherapy regimens.
Authors: D Campos; J R Pereira; R R Reinhardt; C Carracedo; S Poli; C Vogel; J Martinez-Cedillo; A Erazo; J Wittreich; L O Eriksson; A D Carides; B J Gertz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F D Tattersall; W Rycroft; M Cumberbatch; G Mason; S Tye; D J Williamson; J J Hale; S G Mills; P E Finke; M MacCoss; S Sadowski; E Ber; M Cascieri; R G Hill; D E MacIntyre; R J Hargreaves Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2000-02-14 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Paul J Hesketh; Steven M Grunberg; Richard J Gralla; David G Warr; Fausto Roila; Ronald de Wit; Sant P Chawla; Alexandra D Carides; Juliana Ianus; Mary E Elmer; Judith K Evans; Klaus Beck; Scott Reines; Kevin J Horgan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P J Hesketh; W H Harvey; W G Harker; T M Beck; T Ryan; L J Bricker; J A Kish; W K Murphy; J D Hainsworth; B Haley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Steven M Grunberg; Matthew Dugan; Hyman Muss; Marie Wood; Susan Burdette-Radoux; Tracey Weisberg; Marisa Siebel Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: F Roila; M Tonato; F Cognetti; E Cortesi; G Favalli; M Marangolo; D Amadori; M A Bella; V Gramazio; D Donati Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H J Schmoll; M S Aapro; S Poli-Bigelli; H-K Kim; K Park; K Jordan; J von Pawel; H Giezek; T Ahmed; C Y Chan Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-03-08 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: A D Leal; K C Kadakia; S Looker; C Hilger; K Sorgatz; K Anderson; A Jacobson; D Grendahl; D Seisler; T Hobday; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Felipe Melo Cruz; Daniel de Iracema Gomes Cubero; Patrícia Taranto; Tatiana Lerner; Andrea Thaumaturgo Lera; Michele da Costa Miranda; Mariana da Cunha Vieira; Angelo Bezerra de Souza Fêde; Fernanda Schindler; Mércia Maleckas Carrasco; Samuel Oliveira de Afonseca; Hélio Pinczowski; Auro del Giglio Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 3.603