2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy, Safety And Feasibility Of Antiemetic Prophylaxis With Fosaprepitant, Granisetron And Dexamethasone In Pediatric Patients With Hemato-Oncological Malignancies

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are a major burden for patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. International guidelines recommend an antiemetic prophylaxis with corticosteroids, 5-HT 3R-antagonists and NK 1R-antagonists. The NK 1R-antagonist fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients. There is little pediatric experience with fosaprepitant.

          Methods

          This non-interventional observation study analyzed 303 chemotherapy courses administered to 83 pediatric patients with a median age of 9 years (2–17 years), who received antiemetic prophylaxis either with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone (fosaprepitant group/FG; n=41), or granisetron with or without dexamethasone (control group/CG; n=42), during moderately (CINV risk 30–90%) or highly (CINV risk>90%) emetogenic chemotherapy. The two groups’ results were compared with respect to the safety and efficacy of the antiemetic prophylaxis during the acute (0-24hrs after chemotherapy), delayed (>24–120hrs after chemotherapy) and both CINV phases. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were compared between the two cohorts.

          Results

          Adverse events were not significantly different in the two groups (p>0.05). Significantly fewer vomiting events occurred during antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant in the acute (23 vs 142 events; p<0.0001) and the delayed (71 vs 255 events; p<0.0001) CINV phase. In the control group, the percentage of chemotherapy courses with vomiting was significantly higher during the acute (24%/FG vs 45%/CG; p<0.0001) and delayed CINV phase (28%/FG vs 47%/CG; p=0.0004). Dimenhydrinate (rescue medication) was administered significantly more often in the CG, compared to the FG (114/FG vs 320/CG doses; p<0.0001). Likewise, in the control group, dimenhydrinate was administered in significantly more (p<0.0001) chemotherapy courses during the acute and delayed CINV phases (79 of 150; 52.7%), compared to the fosaprepitant group (45 of 153; 29.4%).

          Conclusion

          Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone was well tolerated, safe and effective in pediatric patients. However, larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate these findings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin--the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group.

          In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons). Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            2016 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer patients.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

              This is the first study in which the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant (APR), was evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Eligible breast cancer patients were naive to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide +/- doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (day 1, APR 125 mg, ondansetron (OND) 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, APR 80 qd) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] or a control regimen (day 1, OND 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, OND 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy, during 120 hours after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire. Of 866 patients randomized, 857 patients (99%) were assessable. Overall complete response was greater with the aprepitant regimen than with the control regimen (50.8% v 42.5%; P = .015). More patients in the aprepitant group reported minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life (63.5% v 55.6%; P = .019). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Des Devel Ther
                DDDT
                dddt
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Dove
                1177-8881
                30 September 2019
                2019
                : 13
                : 3439-3451
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Pediatrics, Hematology/Oncology, University Children‘s Hospital Tübingen , Tübingen 72076, Germany
                [2 ]University Pharmacy, Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen , Tübingen 72076, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Michaela Döring University Hospital Tübingen - Children’s Hospital, Department I – General Pediatrics, Hematology/Oncology , Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 1, Tübingen72076, GermanyTel +49-(0)7071-2981355Fax +49-(0)7071-295203 Email michaela.doering@med.uni-tuebingen.de
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                214264
                10.2147/DDDT.S214264
                6777642
                © 2019 Cabanillas Stanchi et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 4, References: 35, Pages: 13
                Funding
                This work was supported by the Stefan-Morsch-Stiftung, Birkenfeld, Germany and the Förderverein für Krebskranke Kinder Tübingen e.V., Tübingen, Germany.
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article