Efficacy and safety of aprepitant in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

Comparison of levetiracetam with phenytoin for the prevention of intravenous busulfan-induced seizures in hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients

Purpose

Busulfan is used as a conditioning regimen for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and is known to cause seizures as a side effect. As various anticonvulsant drugs have been reported, we conducted a retrospective investigation regarding the preventive effects and adverse events associated with different anticonvulsants administered alongside intravenous busulfan (ivBu) in our institution.

Methods

We targeted 104 patients who received ivBu at our institution from May 1, 2010 to April 30, 2017. We investigated the seizure prevention rate and adverse events rate under anticonvulsant prophylaxis.

Results

There were 70 cases (67.3%) of phenytoin administration and 34 cases (32.7%) of levetiracetam administration for anticonvulsant therapy. The seizure prevention rate was 98.6% for phenytoin and 100% for levetiracetam; seizures occurred in one out of 104 patients. There were no significant differences in the seizure prevention rate depending on the type of anticonvulsant. Further, there were no differences in adverse events.

Conclusions

Anticonvulsant prophylaxis is considered necessary for safe conditioning with ivBu. Adverse events associated with the use of levetiracetam are within an acceptable range. Further, levetiracetam is considered useful as a preventive drug against seizures during ivBu administration because it is easy to administer and has ideal pharmacokinetics for supportive care.

Fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving BEAM or high-dose melphalan before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of single-dose fosaprepitant on nausea and emesis after BEAM and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimens for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

In a single-center cohort study patients receiving melphalan containing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation regimens who received a one-time dose of 150 mg IV fosaprepitant (n = 56) were compared to a historical control (n = 70).

RESULTS

The primary endpoint of no emesis from melphalan administration through five days afterward was 80% for the fosaprepitant group versus 66% in the control group (p = 0.068). Addition of fosaprepitant demonstrated significant improvement in emetic episodes per patient during the entire assessment period (p = 0.011) and days 1-5 after melphalan (p = 0.045). Fosaprepitant resulted in no substantial nausea during the entire assessment period in 37% of high-dose melphalan patients and 57% of BEAM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are suggested to investigate the optimal number and timing of doses of fosaprepitant in this setting.

A randomized controlled study evaluating the efficacy of aprepitant for highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapies in hematological malignancies

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a serious complication of treatments of hematological malignancies. Although aprepitant, an NK1 receptor antagonist, has been shown to control CINV in highly emetogenic therapies for solid tumors, the antiemetic effect of this agent in hematological chemotherapies is not well established. In this randomized controlled trial, we examined the additional effect of aprepitant in combination with conventional 5HT3 blocker-based prophylaxis for CINV in highly or moderately emetic chemotherapies for hematological malignancies (n = 41). The complete response rate, defined as no emetic episodes and no salvage treatments, was significantly higher in the aprepitant arm than the control arm (82 versus 47 %, p = 0.026), with no increase in severe adverse effects. However, the difference of nausea, measured with visual analog scale, and of oral intake impairment was moderate, which suggests insufficiency of blocking NK receptor for these events. Furthermore, sub-group analysis revealed that merit of aprepitant addition depends on treatment regimens. Our results indicate the overall advantage of applying aprepitant in the control of CINV in hematological malignancies and the need for further refinement of anti-CINV strategies, including stratification according to regimen.

Aprepitant, Granisetron, and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After High-Dose Melphalan in Autologous Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma: Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial

Purpose

The optimal regimen to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is unclear. To evaluate the effect of aprepitant in addition to a standard regimen, we conducted this randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

Patients and Methods

Patients with multiple myeloma were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive either aprepitant (125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg orally on days 2 to 4), granisetron (2 mg orally on days 1 to 4), and dexamethasone (4 mg orally on day 1 and 2 mg orally on days 2 to 3) or matching placebo, granisetron (2 mg orally on days 1 to 4), and dexamethasone (8 mg orally on day 1 and 4 mg orally on days 2 to 3). Melphalan 100 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1 to 2. ASCT was performed on day 4. The primary end point (complete response) was defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy within 120 hours of melphalan administration. Quality of life was assessed by modified Functional Living Index–Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on days −1 and 6.

Results

Overall, 362 patients were available for the efficacy analysis (181 in each treatment arm). Significantly more patients receiving aprepitant reached the primary end point (58% v 41%; odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23 to 3.00; P = .0042). Absence of major nausea (94% v 88%; OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.09 to 5.15; P = .026) and emesis (78% v 65%; OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.18; P = .0036) within 120 hours was increased by aprepitant. Mean total FLIE score (± standard deviation) was 114 ± 18 for aprepitant and 106 ± 26 for placebo (P < .001).

Conclusion

The addition of aprepitant resulted in significantly less CINV and had a positive effect on quality of life.