Second Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Hamamatsu, 431-3192, Japan.
Department of Clinical Oncology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Hamamatsu, 431-3192, Japan.
Med Oncol. 2018 Sep 5;35(11):139. doi: 10.1007/s12032-018-1199-z.
Aprepitant prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. However, it is unknown whether aprepitant salvage therapy after the development of emesis is as effective as adding prophylactic aprepitant to doublet therapy with dexamethasone and a 5-HT receptor antagonist from the first cycle of chemotherapy. To compare the antiemetic efficacy of aprepitant between salvage and prophylactic administration in the second cycle of carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, twenty-two NSCLC patients who developed CINV in the first cycle of carboplatin-containing therapy without aprepitant (salvage group) and 44 patients who received aprepitant (prophylaxis group) were extracted from the pooled data of two clinical trials, with adjustment for age, sex, and chemotherapeutic regimen as co-variables using propensity score matching. In the second cycle of chemotherapy, both groups received aprepitant, and the rate of antiemetic complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) at 5 days after chemotherapy was compared. The prophylaxis group demonstrated a significantly better overall complete response rate (88.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 75.4-96.2) compared with that of observed for the salvage group (68.2%; 95% CI 45.1-86.1, p = 0.042). The prophylaxis group also demonstrated a significantly lower proportion of any-grade nausea (43.2%) and appetite loss (43.2%) than the salvage group (72.7%, p = 0.036 and 77.3%, p = 0.010, respectively). Adding aprepitant to doublet therapy from the first cycle of carboplatin-containing chemotherapy may be more effective than salvage use of aprepitant after the development of CINV.
阿瑞匹坦预防含卡铂化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)。然而,尚不清楚在发生呕吐后,阿瑞匹坦补救治疗是否与在含卡铂化疗的第一周期中添加预防用阿瑞匹坦到地塞米松和 5-HT 受体拮抗剂双联治疗一样有效。为了比较含卡铂化疗第二周期中阿瑞匹坦补救治疗与预防治疗的止吐疗效,我们从两项临床试验的汇总数据中提取了 22 例在含卡铂化疗第一周期中未使用阿瑞匹坦(补救组)且发生 CINV 的 NSCLC 患者和 44 例接受阿瑞匹坦(预防组)的患者,将年龄、性别和化疗方案作为协变量,采用倾向评分匹配进行调整。在第二周期化疗中,两组均接受阿瑞匹坦,比较化疗后第 5 天止吐完全反应(无呕吐且无需解救治疗)的比例。预防组的总完全反应率(88.6%;95%置信区间 [CI] 75.4-96.2)显著优于补救组(68.2%;95% CI 45.1-86.1,p=0.042)。预防组还显示任何级别恶心(43.2%)和食欲下降(43.2%)的比例显著低于补救组(72.7%,p=0.036 和 77.3%,p=0.010)。在含卡铂化疗的第一周期中添加阿瑞匹坦到双联治疗可能比在 CINV 发生后补救使用阿瑞匹坦更有效。