Search

Evidence supports olanzapine for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) for highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, most studies focus on solid malignancies and single-day regimens. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to compare the addition of olanzapine to triplet therapy (fosaprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone [FOND-O]) versus triplet therapy alone (FOND) in preventing CINV in hematology patients receiving single-day and multiple-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) regimens (NCT02635984). The primary objective of this study was to compare complete response (CR; no emesis and minimal nausea, <25 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale) during the overall assessment period (chemotherapy days plus 5 days after). Secondary objectives were the number of emesis, number of rescue medications, percent achieving minimal nausea, and percent achieving complete protection (CP; no emesis, rescue antiemetic, or significant nausea), all of which are reported as acute (chemotherapy days), delayed (5 days after chemotherapy), and overall phases. Olanzapine 10 mg or matching placebo were given on each chemotherapy day and 3 days after. Adults with hematologic malignancy receiving HCT regimens of melphalan, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan), busulfan (Bu)/cyclophosphamide (Cy), Bu/fludarabine (Flu), Bu/melphalan, FluCy, FluCy-total body irradiation (TBI), etoposide-TBI, and ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) or 7+3 chemotherapy regimens were included. An estimated 98 patients were required using alpha = .05 and 80% power. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between FOND-O (n = 51) and FOND (n = 50) arms. Mean duration of olanzapine was 7.7 days (range, 4 to 11). Discontinuation for possible adverse events occurred in 3 placebo and 0 olanzapine patients. CR was significantly higher for FOND-O in overall (55% versus 26%, P = .003) and delayed (60.8% versus 30%, P = .001) but not acute (P = .13) phases. Significantly more patients receiving FOND-O achieved no more than minimal nausea in overall (P = .001) and delayed phases (P = .0002), as well as fewer overall mean emesis counts (P = .005). CP rates were not different in any assessment phase (P ≥ .05 each). Within the HCT subgroup (n = 64), the CR, CP, and no significant nausea rates were significantly better for FONDO-O in overall and delayed phases (all P < .05). Analysis within the HCT subgroup revealed significant improvement in outcomes in delayed and overall phases with FOND-O in the autologous but not allogeneic cohort. Addition of olanzapine to an NK-1-based triplet antiemetic regimen significantly improved clinically relevant outcomes in the HCT population., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (EPOCH)-containing regimens are frequently utilized in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, however, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving inpatient versus outpatient EPOCH has not been described. Additionally, no comparisons have been made regarding financial implications of EPOCH administration in either setting. This study's primary objective was to compare hospital admissions for FN in patients receiving inpatient or outpatient EPOCH., Methods: A single-center, institutional review board-approved review was conducted for adults receiving EPOCH beginning January 2010. Clinical and financial data were collected through chart review and the institution's financial department. Descriptive statistics were utilized for analysis., Results: A total of 25 patients received 86 cycles of an EPOCH-containing regimen (61 [70.9%] inpatient). Five (8.2%) inpatient cycles resulted in an admission for FN compared to 4 (16%) outpatient cycles. Prophylactic antifungal and antiviral agents were prescribed more often after inpatient cycles (>80%) compared to outpatient cycles (<50%). Overall, 27 (31.4%) of 86 cycles did not receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support. Outpatient EPOCH administration was associated with a cost savings of approximately US$141 116 for both chemotherapy costs and hospital day avoidance., Conclusion: EPOCH-containing regimens can be safely administered in the outpatient setting, which may result in cost savings for healthcare institutions.

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., (© The Author(s) 2015.)