Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-containing plasma improves outcome in patients with hematologic or solid cancer and severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.

Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with high morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, impaired humoral response renders severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE ) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 134) within four risk groups ((1) cancer (n = 56); (2) immunosuppression (n = 16); (3) laboratory-based risk factors (n = 36); and (4) advanced age (n = 26)) randomized to standard of care (control arm) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (plasma arm). No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29; P = 0.205). However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50; P = 0.003) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28; P = 0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer (P = 0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer who are unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.

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/m(2) 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.

The NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant does not alter the pharmacokinetics of high-dose melphalan chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma.

AIMS: The objective of this investigation was to assess the effect of aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of high-dose melphalan used as conditioning therapy before blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. METHODS: Aprepitant (125 mg) or placebo was administered 1 h before melphalan therapy (1 h infusion of 100 mg m⁻²). Eleven plasma samples were obtained over 8 h and melphalan was quantified using an LC/MS/MS method. Standard pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated and nonparametric testing was applied to assess the differences between aprepitant and placebo treatment. RESULTS: Twenty patients received placebo and 10 patients aprepitant treatment. There were no differences observed for C(max) at the end of melphalan infusion (placebo 3431 ± 608 ng ml⁻¹ vs. aprepitant 3269 ± 660 ng ml⁻¹). In addition, AUC and terminal elimination half-life were not changed by aprepitant. Total clearance of melphalan was 304 ± 58 ml min⁻¹ m⁻² (placebo) which was not influenced by aprepitant (288 ± 78 ml min⁻¹ m⁻²). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant 1 h before a high-dose chemotherapy does not influence the exposure and the elimination of melphalan. Therefore, oral administration of 125 mg aprepitant 1 h before melphalan infusion does not alter the disposition of intravenously administered melphalan.

Functional diagnosis of residual lymphomas after radiochemotherapy with positron emission tomography comparing FDG- and FLT-PET.

Positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) is used as a functional imaging technique for the staging and follow-up of lymphomas. However, additional information about the tumor proliferation rate using 3'-deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) may be useful for the assessment of prognosis. We enrolled 48 patients with Hodgkin's (n = 15) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 33) with residual masses >2 cm examined by tracer studies with FDG and FLT. The results were related to median overall and progression-free survival. In 15 out of 48 patients analysed using FDG, positive results were found. Using FLT, 10 out of 48 patients were positive. 33 patients were FDG negative. Eight patients were positive both using FDG and FLT. Overall survival for patients with a negative PET scan was significantly higher than for patients with positive PET, irrespective of the tracer used. FLT alone was able to discriminate between patients with long or short overall survival. However, there was no statistical significance comparing FDG/FLT negative versus FDG negative alone. Although FDG detected more lesions than did FLT, the additional biological characterization of tumor tissue with respect to proliferation by FLT might be useful by providing complementary information for the identification of recurrence. However, the present data show no advantage of combined FDG/FLT studies over FDG alone with respect to the prediction of survival.