Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant ; 19(1): 49-55.e1, 2013 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22863840

RESUMEN

Uncontrolled delayed nausea and vomiting remains a problem after high-dose preparative regimens used for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Recently, aprepitant was approved for highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and, in particular, is effective for decreasing delayed emesis. To evaluate its safety and efficacy in the transplantation setting, we performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone in patients treated with ablative preparative regimens. Patients were randomized to receive oral aprepitant or placebo daily with oral ondansetron and dexamethasone during and for 3 days after the completion of the preparative regimen in this prospective randomized, double-blind study. The primary objective was complete response (CR) rate, defined as no emesis with no or mild nausea. Other endpoints included number of emetic episodes, nausea severity assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), the need for rescue antiemetics, and transplantation outcome, including regimen-related toxicity. One hundred eighty-one patients were randomized and 179 patients were eligible for analysis. Overall, CR rates were 81.9% for the aprepitant and 65.8% for the placebo arms (P < .001). Percentages of patients with no emesis all days were 73.3% for aprepitant and 22.5% placebo (P < .001). Mean VAS scores were 16.6 mm aprepitant and 16.9 mm placebo (NS), and there were no differences in the amount of rescue antiemetics used, regimen related toxicity, engraftment, or transplantation outcome. Aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron significantly decreased emesis and significant nausea, whereas not increasing RRT or affecting short-term survival but had no significant impact on the use of PRN antiemetics, or overall VAS nausea scores.


Asunto(s)
Antieméticos/administración & dosificación , Trasplante de Células Madre Hematopoyéticas , Morfolinas/administración & dosificación , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios/prevención & control , Adulto , Anciano , Antieméticos/efectos adversos , Aprepitant , Dexametasona/administración & dosificación , Dexametasona/efectos adversos , Femenino , Neoplasias Hematológicas/terapia , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Morfolinas/efectos adversos , Ondansetrón/administración & dosificación , Ondansetrón/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Trasplante Autólogo , Trasplante Homólogo
2.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant ; 16(5): 678-85, 2010 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20045479

RESUMEN

Nonrandomized trials suggest that pegfilgrastim, a pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, could be used in lieu of filgrastim after autologus peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. This phase III, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial compared the efficacy, costs, and safety of single-dose pegfilgrastim (single 6 mg dose) versus daily filgrastim (5 microg/kg/day) for this indication. Seventy-eight patients, matched for age, sex, underlying disease, stage, and CD34/kg transplant dose were enrolled. Cytokines were started on day +1 posttransplant and continued to an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 5x10(9)/L for 3 days or 10x10(9)/L for 1 day. The median time to neutrophil engraftment (ANC >1.5x10(9)/L for 3 days or 5x10(9)/L for 1 day) was the same in both groups (12 days). No differences in platelet engraftment (11 versus 13 days), number of platelet transfusions (5 versus 4), percent with positive cultures for bacterial pathogens (23% versus 15%), days of fever (1 versus 2), deaths prior to engraftment (1 versus 1), or duration of hospital stay (19 versus 19 days) were seen between the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups, respectively. Using the average wholesale price for doses used in this trial, there was a per-patient savings of $961 for the pegfilgrastim group (P < .001). This phase III study failed to demonstrate a difference in time to neutrophil engraftment or any clinical sequelae between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim when given post-APBSCT, with pegfilgrastim achieving a cost savings over filgrastim.


Asunto(s)
Factor Estimulante de Colonias de Granulocitos/administración & dosificación , Trasplante de Células Madre de Sangre Periférica/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Plaquetas/fisiología , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Filgrastim , Factor Estimulante de Colonias de Granulocitos/economía , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neutrófilos/fisiología , Trasplante de Células Madre de Sangre Periférica/economía , Polietilenglicoles , Proteínas Recombinantes , Regeneración , Trasplante Autólogo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA