The Efficacy, Safety, and Cost Benefit of Olanzapine versus Aprepitant in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pilot Study from South India

G. Babu, S. Saldanha, Lakshmaiah Kuntegowdanahalli Chinnagiriyappa, L. Jacob, S. Mallekavu, L. Dasappa, P. Kiran, Aparna Sreevatsa, Sandhya Appachu, V. Unnikrishnan, V. Arroju
{"title":"The Efficacy, Safety, and Cost Benefit of Olanzapine versus Aprepitant in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pilot Study from South India","authors":"G. Babu, S. Saldanha, Lakshmaiah Kuntegowdanahalli Chinnagiriyappa, L. Jacob, S. Mallekavu, L. Dasappa, P. Kiran, Aparna Sreevatsa, Sandhya Appachu, V. Unnikrishnan, V. Arroju","doi":"10.1155/2016/3439707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. The efficacy, safety, and cost benefit of olanzapine (OLN) when compared to aprepitant (APR) in the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) were evaluated. Methods. A prospective pilot study was done in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving HEC to compare OLN versus APR along with palonosetron and dexamethasone. 100 patients consented to the protocol and were randomized and evaluated for Complete Response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue). Results. CR was 86% for the acute period, 86% for the delayed period, and 80% for the overall period in 50 patients receiving the APD regimen. CR was 84% for the acute period, 88% for the delayed period, and 78% for the overall period for 50 patients receiving the OPD regimen. Patients without nausea were APD: 88% acute, 84% delayed, and 84% overall, and OPD: 84% acute, 88% delayed, and 84% overall. There were no significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Conclusion. In this study, there was no significant difference between olanzapine and aprepitant in preventing CINV with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine may thus be used as a potential, safe, and cost beneficial alternative to prevent nausea and vomiting in HEC.","PeriodicalId":89539,"journal":{"name":"Chemotherapy research and practice","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemotherapy research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3439707","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

Background. The efficacy, safety, and cost benefit of olanzapine (OLN) when compared to aprepitant (APR) in the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) were evaluated. Methods. A prospective pilot study was done in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving HEC to compare OLN versus APR along with palonosetron and dexamethasone. 100 patients consented to the protocol and were randomized and evaluated for Complete Response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue). Results. CR was 86% for the acute period, 86% for the delayed period, and 80% for the overall period in 50 patients receiving the APD regimen. CR was 84% for the acute period, 88% for the delayed period, and 78% for the overall period for 50 patients receiving the OPD regimen. Patients without nausea were APD: 88% acute, 84% delayed, and 84% overall, and OPD: 84% acute, 88% delayed, and 84% overall. There were no significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Conclusion. In this study, there was no significant difference between olanzapine and aprepitant in preventing CINV with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine may thus be used as a potential, safe, and cost beneficial alternative to prevent nausea and vomiting in HEC.
奥氮平与阿瑞吡坦在高致吐性化疗中的疗效、安全性和成本效益:一项来自南印度的初步研究
背景。评估了奥氮平(OLN)与阿瑞吡坦(APR)在预防高度致吐性化疗(HEC)患者化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)方面的有效性、安全性和成本效益。方法。一项前瞻性试点研究在接受HEC化疗的初始患者中进行,以比较OLN与APR以及帕洛诺司琼和地塞米松。100名患者同意该方案,并被随机分配并评估完全缓解(CR)(无呕吐,无抢救)。结果。在接受APD方案的50例患者中,急性期CR为86%,延迟期CR为86%,整体期CR为80%。在接受OPD方案的50例患者中,急性期CR为84%,延迟期CR为88%,整体期CR为78%。无恶心的患者为APD: 88%急性,84%延迟,84%总体;OPD: 84%急性,88%延迟,84%总体。没有明显的3级或4级毒性。在CINV对照组中,OPD与APD相当。结论。本研究中,奥氮平与阿瑞吡坦在预防CINV伴高致吐性化疗方面无显著差异。因此,奥氮平可以作为预防HEC患者恶心和呕吐的一种潜在的、安全的、成本有利的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书