scholarly journals Efficacy of Olanzapine Combined Therapy for Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy Resistant to Standard Antiemetic Therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masakazu Abe ◽  
Yuka Kasamatsu ◽  
Nobuhiro Kado ◽  
Shiho Kuji ◽  
Aki Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
Gynecologic Cancer ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Therapy ◽  
Preventive Effect ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Oral Olanzapine ◽  
Phase 0 ◽  
Delayed Phase

Objective. Olanzapine is proved to be effective for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). But its efficacy in combination with standard antiemetic therapy is unknown. The purpose of this study is to prove the preventive effect of olanzapine for the prevention of CINV caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy when used with standard antiemetic therapy.Method. Gynecologic cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy who had grade 2 or 3 nausea in overall phase (0–120 h after chemotherapy) despite standard therapy were assigned to this study. From the next cycles to cycles in which patients developed grade 2 or 3 nausea, they received olanzapine with standard therapy. 5 mg oral olanzapine was administered for 7 days from the day before chemotherapy. The effectiveness of preventive administration of olanzapine was evaluated retrospectively. The primary endpoint was nausea control rate (grade 0 or 1) with olanzapine.Results. Fifty patients were evaluable. The nausea control rate with olanzapine was improved from 58% to 98% in acute phase (0–24 h after chemotherapy) and 2% to 94% in delayed phase (24–120 h after chemotherapy). In overall phase, the nausea control rate improved from 0% to 92%, and it was statistically significant (P<0.001).Conclusion. Preventive use of olanzapine combined with standard antiemetic therapy showed improvement in control of refractory nausea.

scholarly journals Comparative study of fosaprepitant and aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Ting Yu ◽  
zhuo wang ◽  
fen zhou ◽  
Shuangshuang Shen ◽  
Shunguo Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Acute Phase ◽  
Pediatric Cancer ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase 0 ◽  
Pediatric Cancer Patients ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Delayed Phase

Abstract Children aged 2-12 years scheduled to receive moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to arm-A (fosaprepitant) or arm-B (aprepitant). Children recruited to arm-A received intravenous ondansetron plus dexamethasone followed by fosaprepitant infusion. Children recruited to arm-B received the same drugs as those given to children in arm-A, except that fosaprepitant was substituted with aprepitant. The primary end point of the study was to determine the proportion of patients who achieved a CR, defined as no vomiting, no retching, and no use of rescue medication, the proportion of patients who achieved a CR during the acute phase (0-24 hours) after administration of the last dose of chemotherapy. Secondary end points were the proportion of patients who achieved a CR during the 24-120 hours (delayed phase) and overall after administration of the last dose of chemotherapy. Results: One hundred and eight patients were analyzed (55 in the fosaprepitant arm and 53 in the aprepitant arm). CR rates were higher in the fosaprepitant arm compared with the aprepitant arm during the acute phase (95 % vs 79 %, P =0.01< 0.05), delayed phase (71 % vs 66 %, P =0.89 ), and overall phase (69 % vs 57 %, P =0.18). Furthermore, the demand of rescue anti-emetics observed in fosaprepitant arm (7 %) has no difference with aprepitant arm (11 %). Conclusion: Addition of fosaprepitant to ondansetron and dexamethasone is more effective than aprepitant for the prevention of acute vomiting.

Active combination with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for preventing emesis of anthracycline-containing regimens in patients with breast cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19512-e19512
Author(s):  
Yoshie Nakayama ◽  
Yoshinori Ito ◽  
Shunji Takahashi ◽  
Kiyohiko Hatake
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Acute Phase ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Complete Control ◽  
Antiemetic Drugs ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Phase 0 ◽  
Delayed Phase

e19512 Background: Anthracycline and cyclophoshamaide containing regimens for breast cancer are classified as highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Aprepitant (A), palonosetron (P), granisetron (G) or dexamethasone(D) are recommended as antiemetic drugs. However, it is uncertain which combination would be best effective. We have retrospectively examined the efficacy of these antiemetic drugs. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 501 patients with breast cancer treated with anthracycline and cyclophoshamaide containing regimens between August, 2009 and September, 2010. The combination of GD were G: 3 mg on day1 (i.v.), 2 mg on days 2-6 (p.o.) and D: 16.5 mg on day1 (i.v.), 8mg on days 2-4 (p.o.). The AGD were A: 125 mg on day1 (i.v.), 80 mg on days 2-3 (p.o.), G: 3 mg on day1 (i.v.), 2 mg on days 2-6 (p.o.), and D: 13.2 mg on day1 (i.v.), 4 mg on days 2-4 (p.o.). The APD were A: 125 mg on day1 (i.v.), 80 mg on days 2-3 (p.o.), P: 0.75 mg on day1 ( i.v.), and D: 13.2 mg on day1 (i.v.), 4 mg on days 2-4 (p.o.). Results: The number of patients who were treated with GD, AGD, and APD were 170, 159, and 172, respectively. Complete response (CR) rate in acute phase (0-24h) or delayed phase (24-120h) and complete control (CC) rate in acute or delayed phase in each regimens were summarized in the table. AGD or APD was significantly superior to GD in CR rate of acute or delayed phase (P<0.01). Of note, CC rate of APD in acute phase was significantly superior to AGD (P<0.01). AGD or APD was significantly superior to GD in CC rate in delayed phase. Conclusions: The combination with APD was the most effective antiemetic therapy in patients who were treated with anthracycline and cyclophosphamide containing regimens. [Table: see text]

Meta-analysis of trials comparing standard antiemetic treatment (SAT) with aprepitant containing antiemetic regimens (ACAR) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 171-171
Author(s):  
Neha Gupta ◽  
Hassan Hatoum ◽  
Omar Al Ustwani ◽  
Pongwut Danchaivijitr ◽  
Katy Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Treatment ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Score Method ◽  
American Society ◽  
Delayed Phase

171 Background: Various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown improved outcomes with addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic treatment (SAT) in preventing CINV. We conducted a meta-analysis to study the overall impact of ACAR in CINV prevention in adults. Methods: We searched Pubmed and Ovid databases, and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings abstracts for RCTs using ACAR with SAT for CINV prevention in adult cancer patients (pts). Major study end points were complete response to treatment (CR; defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medications) in overall phase (OP; 0-120 hours of chemotherapy), acute phase (AP; 0-24 hours) and delayed phase (DP; 24-120 hours). Additionally, we assessed the control of nausea and toxicity profile (TP). Stouffer's Z-score method was used to calculate the overall effect. Results: 16 RCTs (5,547 pts) were included. 11 trials (3,314 pts) involved highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and 5 trials (2,233 pts) involved moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). ACAR increased CR in OP from 47% to 63% (OR=0.52, CI=0.46 to 0.58; p<0.001), in AP from 73% to 81% (p<0.01), and in DP from 51% to 66% (p<0.001). Significant increase in nausea control was seen in DP (p=0.03) but not in OP or AP. Incidence of various toxicities was statistically similar in both groups except slightly higher rate of fatigue (p=0.02) and hiccups (p<0.001), and lower rate of neutropenia (p=0.02) in ACAR. Conclusions: ACAR is effective in CINV due to both HEC and MEC in adult cancer pts. ACAR improves the control of emesis in all phases, and nausea in delayed phase only. With the exception of causing more fatigue & hiccups, and lesser neutropenia, overall TP of ACAR is similar to SAT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document