Takako Inoue1, Madoka Kimura2, Junji Uchida2, Kazumi Nishino2, Toru Kumagai2, Junko Taniguchi3, Fumio Imamura2. 1. Department of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan. okuyama-ta@mc.pref.osaka.jp. 2. Department of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan. 3. Nursing Department, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of oral aprepitant in rescue treatment after the primary rescue for breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). METHODS: This was a single-institutional phase 2 study. Patients who had received MEC regimens and developed breakthrough CINV despite antiemetic prophylaxis without aprepitant were treated with primary rescue antiemetic treatments chosen by physicians. When the primary rescue (1st rescue) failed, patients received oral aprepitant as the second rescue (2nd rescue). The primary endpoint of this study was the proportion of patients requiring aprepitant as the 2nd rescue and experiencing successful rescue (SR). SR was defined as no vomiting and no need for additional rescue therapy, with nausea up to grade 1 on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and a Visual Analog Scale score of 25 mm, for 48 h after initiation of aprepitant. RESULTS: Eighty patients were eligible for this analysis. Thirty-eight (47.5%) developed breakthrough emesis and received 1st rescue. The 1st rescue was ineffective in 29 (76.3%) patients, and they received the 2nd rescue with aprepitant. Thirteen of these 29 patients (16.3% of the total patients) satisfied the criteria for SR. The primary endpoint, SR rate, in patients treated with aprepitant, was 44.8% (95% confidence interval 26.4-64.4). CONCLUSION: Since the lower end of the 95% confidence interval of SR is 26.4%, the SR in our study did not meet the predefined primary endpoint threshold. However, aprepitant was estimated to be useful in suppressing breakthrough CINV in 16% of the patients treated with MEC.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of oral aprepitant in rescue treatment after the primary rescue for breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). METHODS: This was a single-institutional phase 2 study. Patients who had received MEC regimens and developed breakthrough CINV despite antiemetic prophylaxis without aprepitant were treated with primary rescue antiemetic treatments chosen by physicians. When the primary rescue (1st rescue) failed, patients received oral aprepitant as the second rescue (2nd rescue). The primary endpoint of this study was the proportion of patients requiring aprepitant as the 2nd rescue and experiencing successful rescue (SR). SR was defined as no vomiting and no need for additional rescue therapy, with nausea up to grade 1 on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and a Visual Analog Scale score of 25 mm, for 48 h after initiation of aprepitant. RESULTS: Eighty patients were eligible for this analysis. Thirty-eight (47.5%) developed breakthrough emesis and received 1st rescue. The 1st rescue was ineffective in 29 (76.3%) patients, and they received the 2nd rescue with aprepitant. Thirteen of these 29 patients (16.3% of the total patients) satisfied the criteria for SR. The primary endpoint, SR rate, in patients treated with aprepitant, was 44.8% (95% confidence interval 26.4-64.4). CONCLUSION: Since the lower end of the 95% confidence interval of SR is 26.4%, the SR in our study did not meet the predefined primary endpoint threshold. However, aprepitant was estimated to be useful in suppressing breakthrough CINV in 16% of the patients treated with MEC.
Authors: F Roila; J Herrstedt; M Aapro; R J Gralla; L H Einhorn; E Ballatori; E Bria; R A Clark-Snow; B T Espersen; P Feyer; S M Grunberg; P J Hesketh; K Jordan; M G Kris; E Maranzano; A Molassiotis; G Morrow; I Olver; B L Rapoport; C Rittenberg; M Saito; M Tonato; D Warr Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Bernardo L Rapoport; Karin Jordan; Judith A Boice; Arlene Taylor; Carole Brown; James S Hardwick; Alexandra Carides; Timothy Webb; Hans-Joachim Schmoll Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David G Warr; Paul J Hesketh; Richard J Gralla; Hyman B Muss; Jørn Herrstedt; Peter D Eisenberg; Harry Raftopoulos; Steven M Grunberg; Munir Gabriel; Anthony Rodgers; Norman Bohidar; George Klinger; Carolyn M Hustad; Kevin J Horgan; Franck Skobieranda Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charlotte C Sun; Diane C Bodurka; Candice B Weaver; Rafia Rasu; Judith K Wolf; Michael W Bevers; Judith A Smith; J Taylor Wharton; Edward B Rubenstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: M Tanioka; A Kitao; K Matsumoto; N Shibata; S Yamaguchi; K Fujiwara; H Minami; N Katakami; S Morita; S Negoro Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Anuradha Kanaparthi; Sarah Kukura; Natalie Slenkovich; Faris AlGhamdi; Shabana Z Shafy; Mohammed Hakim; Joseph D Tobias Journal: Clin Pharmacol Date: 2019-11-27
Authors: Jennifer Gherardini; Youhei Uchida; Jonathan A Hardman; Jérémy Chéret; Kimberly Mace; Marta Bertolini; Ralf Paus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 3.240