Medline ® Abstracts for References 59,60
of 'Prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults'
Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
Warr DG, Hesketh PJ, Gralla RJ, Muss HB, Herrstedt J, Eisenberg PD, Raftopoulos H, Grunberg SM, Gabriel M, Rodgers A, Bohidar N, Klinger G, Hustad CM, Horgan KJ, Skobieranda F
J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2822.
PURPOSE: 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.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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 endpoint was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.
Princess Margaret Hospital, Medical Oncology, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2M9. email@example.com
Lack of effect of aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel in cancer patients.
Nygren P, Hande K, Petty KJ, Fedgchin M, van Dyck K, Majumdar A, Panebianco D, de Smet M, Ahmed T, Murphy MG, Gottesdiener KM, Cocquyt V, van Belle S
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2005;55(6):609. Epub 2005 Feb 19.
BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist that is effective for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In vitro, aprepitant is a moderate inhibitor of the CYP3A4 enzyme, which is involved in the clearance of several chemotherapeutic agents. In this study we examined the potential for aprepitant to affect the pharmacokinetics and toxicity of intravenously administered docetaxel, a chemotherapeutic agent that is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4.
METHODS: A total of 11 cancer patients (4 male, 7 female, aged 50-68 years) were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover study. Patients received a single infusion of docetaxel monotherapy, 60-100 mg/m(2), on two occasions at least 3 weeks apart. During one of the cycles (treatment A), patients received docetaxel alone. During the alternate cycle (treatment B), they also received aprepitant 125 mg orally 1 h prior to docetaxel infusion (day 1), and a single oral dose of aprepitant 80 mg on days 2 and 3. The pharmacokinetic profile of docetaxel was assessed over 30 h following docetaxel infusion. Blood counts were monitored on days 1, 4, 7, and 14.
RESULTS: Ten patients completed the study. Concomitant administration of aprepitant did not cause any statistically or clinically significant changes in docetaxel pharmacokinetics. Values for docetaxel alone (treatment A) versus docetaxel with aprepitant (treatment B) were as follows: geometric mean AUC(0-last) was 3.26 vs 3.17 microg h/ml (P>0.25; ratio B/A 0.97); geometric mean AUC(0-infinity) 3.51 vs 3.39 microg h/ml (P>0.25; ratio B/A 0.96); geometric mean C(max) was 3.53 vs 3.37 microg/ml (P>0.25; ratio B/A 0.95); and geometric mean plasma clearance was 23.3 vs 24.2 l/h/m(2) (P>0.25; ratio B/A 1.04). The corresponding harmonic mean half-life values were 10.1 and 8.5 h. The two treatment regimens had similar tolerability profiles; the median absolute neutrophil count nadirs were 681/mm(3) during treatment with docetaxel alone and 975/mm(3) during aprepitant coadministration.
CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant had no clinically significant effect on either the pharmacokinetics or toxicity of standard doses of docetaxel in cancer patients. Aprepitant at clinically recommended doses may have a low potential to affect the pharmacokinetics of intravenous chemotherapeutic agents metabolized by CYP3A4.
Department of Oncology, Radiology, and Clinical Immunology, Uppsala University Hosipital, Uppsala, Sweden.