The Impact of Pre-Procedural Renal Impairment on Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis of 45,287 Patients From the British Columbia Cardiac Registry.

BACKGROUND: Renal disease confers a strong independent risk for morbidity and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated the relationship between baseline pre-procedural renal function and outcomes following PCI. METHODS: We examined 45,287 patients who underwent PCI in British Columbia. We evaluated all-cause mortality and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at 2 years. Pre-procedural renal impairment was categorised by creatinine clearance (CrCl, mL/min): CrCl≥90 (n=14,876), 90>CrCl≥60 (n=10,219), 60>CrCl≥30 (n=14,876), 30>CrCl≥0 (n=2,594) and dialysis (n=579). RESULTS: Declining CrCl values less than 60 mL/min were progressively associated with greater mortality: 60>eGFR≥30 (HR=2.01, 95% CI 1.71-2.37, p<0.001); 30>eGFR≥0 (HR=4.10, 95% CI 3.39-4.95, p<0.001); and dialysis (HR=6.22, 95% CI 5.07-7.63, p<0.001). A reduction in eGFR was not associated with TVR in non-dialysis patients. However, dialysis was a strong independent predictor for TVR (HR=1.69, 95% CI 1.37-2.08, p<0.001). This was confirmed in propensity-matched analyses where, dialysis was strongly associated with TVR (HR=1.53, 95% CI 1.24-1.89, p<0.001). This association was consistently seen in stratified analyses for diabetic versus non-diabetic patients; stent length >30 mm versus <30 mm; stent diameter >3 mm versus <3 mm; and receipt of bare metal stents versus drug-eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the association with declining renal function and mortality in patients undergoing PCI. Whilst renal disease was not associated with increased TVR in non-dialysis patients, dialysis-dependence was a strong independent predictor for increased TVR.

Exposure-Response Analysis of Overall Survival for Tremelimumab in Unresectable Malignant Mesothelioma: The Confounding Effect of Disease Status.

Tremelimumab, an anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 monoclonal antibody that enhances T-cell activation, was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb study (NCT01843374) in patients with unresectable malignant mesothelioma. The study demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences in overall survival (OS). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the relationship of exposure with OS. A population pharmacokinetic (PK) model adequately described the PK data. Three factors (sex, C-reactive protein, and baseline tumor size) were identified as statistically significant PK predictors (P < 0.05 on clearance). A positive association between exposure and OS was observed. However, an association between key baseline factors with OS (regardless of treatment) and imbalances in prognostic factors favoring patients with higher exposure (upper vs. lower PK quartile) was seen. Taken together, these results suggest that the exposure OS relationship observed for tremelimumab in mesothelioma is likely spurious rather than a true association of exposure with efficacy.

SMAP L-Band Microwave Radiometer: Instrument Design and First Year on Orbit.

The Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) L-band microwave radiometer is a conical scanning instrument designed to measure soil moisture with 4% volumetric accuracy at 40-km spatial resolution. SMAP is NASA's first Earth Systematic Mission developed in response to its first Earth science decadal survey. Here, the design is reviewed and the results of its first year on orbit are presented. Unique features of the radiometer include a large 6-m rotating reflector, fully polarimetric radiometer receiver with internal calibration, and radio-frequency interference detection and filtering hardware. The radiometer electronics are thermally controlled to achieve good radiometric stability. Analyses of on-orbit results indicate that the electrical and thermal characteristics of the electronics and internal calibration sources are very stable and promote excellent gain stability. Radiometer NEDT < 1 K for 17-ms samples. The gain spectrum exhibits low noise at frequencies >1 MHz and 1/f noise rising at longer time scales fully captured by the internal calibration scheme. Results from sky observations and global swath imagery of all four Stokes antenna temperatures indicate that the instrument is operating as expected.

Evaluation of oral beclomethasone dipropionate for prevention of acute graft-versus-host disease.

Results from two randomized trials have shown that oral beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) is effective for treatment of acute gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease. Here, we report results of a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled phase II study designed to test the hypothesis that acute graft-versus-host disease could be prevented by administration of oral BDP, beginning before hematopoietic cell transplantation and continuing until day 75 after hematopoietic cell transplantation after myeloablative conditioning. Study drug (BDP or placebo) was administered as 1-mg immediate-release formulation plus 1-mg delayed-release formulation orally four times daily. According to the primary endpoint, systemic glucocorticoid treatment for graft-versus-host disease was given to 60 of the 92 participants (65%) in the BDP arm, versus 31 of 46 participants (67%) in the placebo arm. The secondary efficacy endpoints showed no statistically significant differences between the two arms. The proportion of participants who took at least 90% of the prescribed study drug during the first 4 weeks after hematopoietic cell transplantation was 54% overall. Lower severity of mucositis strongly correlated with higher adherence to the schedule of study drug administration. Inconsistent adherence related to mucositis during recovery after myeloablative conditioning may have obscured a beneficial therapeutic effect in the current study.

Colectomy rate comparison after treatment of ulcerative colitis with placebo or infliximab.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The efficacy of infliximab for treating patients with ulcerative colitis has been established. METHODS: The Active Ulcerative Colitis Trial (ACT)-1 and ACT-2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluated infliximab induction and maintenance therapy in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Overall, 728 patients received placebo or infliximab (5 or 10 mg/kg) intravenously at weeks 0, 2, and 6, then every 8 weeks through week 46 (ACT-1) or 22 (ACT-2). Colectomy, hospitalization, and surgery/procedure data through 54 weeks after the first infusion were obtained from ACT-1, ACT-2, and associated data sources. In the prespecified analysis, all data were combined to ascertain time to colectomy. Kaplan-Meier product-limit method was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of colectomy, and log-rank test was used to compare the combined infliximab group and placebo. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent (630 of 728) of patients had complete colectomy follow-up; 13% (98 of 728) of patients had a median follow-up of 6.2 months. The cumulative incidence of colectomy through 54 weeks was 10% for infliximab and 17% for placebo (P = .02), yielding an absolute risk reduction of 7%. Compared with placebo, fewer ulcerative colitis-related hospitalizations and surgeries/procedures per 100 patient-years of treatment occurred with infliximab therapy: 40 vs 20 (P = .003) and 34 vs 21 (P = .03), respectively. Serious adverse events occurring in infliximab-treated patients included serious infections, tuberculosis, histoplasmosis, listeriosis, and malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab were less likely to undergo colectomy through 54 weeks than those receiving placebo.

Immunomagnetic purification of T cell subpopulations.

There are two types of magnetic cell isolation technologies, one column-based and the other tube-based. The column-based technology utilizes nano-sized particles that need to pass through a ferromagnetic spheres column to increase cell-capture capacity. The tube-based system utilizes micron-sized beads that can be selected using a magnet applied to the tube. The beads are used for direct or indirect labeling of cells. Direct labeling is achieved with antibodies coupled to magnetic particles directly added to the cell suspension. For indirect labeling the cells are first labeled with the antibody of interest; the antibody can be simple, biotinylated, or fluorochrome-conjugated. Subsequently, beads coated with streptavidin or anti-immunoglobulin, anti-biotin, anti-fluorochrome antibodies are used to specifically mark the subpopulation of interest. Separation of target cells can be achieved using positive or negative selection or a combination of the two. Quality of the sample preparation is critical to obtain good purification and yield.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of the NK1 antagonist, aprepitant, versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetics currently in use are not totally effective. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic that have shown promise for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This is the first study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 805 patients receiving general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery to a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg orally, aprepitant 125 mg orally, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Vomiting, nausea, and use of rescue therapy were assessed over 48 h after surgery. Treatments were compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: Incidence rates for the primary end point (complete response [no vomiting and no use of rescue] over 0-24 h after surgery, tested for superiority of aprepitant) were not different across groups (45% with aprepitant 40 mg, 43% with aprepitant 125 mg, and 42% with ondansetron). The incidence of no vomiting (0-24 h) was higher with aprepitant 40 mg (90%) and aprepitant 125 mg (95%) versus ondansetron (74%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), although between-treatment use of rescue and nausea control was not different. Both aprepitant doses also had higher incidences of no vomiting over 0-48 h (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were seen among the side effect profiles of the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant was superior to ondansetron for prevention of vomiting in the first 24 and 48 h, but no significant differences were observed between aprepitant and ondansetron for nausea control, use of rescue, or complete response.

Peptic ulcer and bleeding events associated with rofecoxib in a 3-year colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Our aim was to establish the incidence of symptomatic upper gastrointestinal ulcers, ulcer perforation, ulcer obstruction, or bleeding episodes (PUBs) associated with the use of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors at standard clinical doses compared with placebo. We report here on the PUB outcomes associated with the use of rofecoxib 25 mg in a 3-year, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to determine the effect of rofecoxib on the risk of recurrent neoplastic polyps of the colon. METHODS: A total of 2587 patients with a history of colorectal adenomas underwent randomization to 25 mg/day of rofecoxib or to placebo. Investigator-reported PUBs were adjudicated by an external blinded committee. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards techniques were used to estimate incidence and relative risks of PUBs in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Patients assigned to rofecoxib had a higher incidence of confirmed PUBs than those randomized to placebo (.88 vs .18 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 4.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-14.54). The incidence of confirmed complicated PUBs (ulcer perforation, obstruction, or bleeds) was low, but was numerically higher in the rofecoxib than in the placebo group (.23 vs .06 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 3.8; 95% confidence interval, .72-37.46; P = .14). Rofecoxib increased the incidence of confirmed PUBs vs placebo in both low-dose aspirin users and nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a history of colorectal adenomas, the long-term use of 25 mg/day of rofecoxib was associated with an increased risk of clinically relevant upper gastrointestinal events when compared with placebo.

A randomized trial of rofecoxib for the chemoprevention of colorectal adenomas.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In human and animal studies, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been associated with a reduced risk of colorectal neoplasia. Although the underlying mechanisms are unknown, inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX), particularly COX-2, is thought to play a role. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to assess whether use of the selective COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib would reduce the risk of colorectal adenomas. METHODS: We randomized 2587 subjects with a recent history of histologically confirmed adenomas to receive daily placebo or 25 mg rofecoxib. Randomization was stratified by baseline use of cardioprotective aspirin. Colonoscopic follow-up evaluation was planned for 1 and 3 years after randomization. The primary end point was all adenomas diagnosed during 3 years' treatment. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, we computed the relative risk of any adenoma after randomization, using Mantel-Haenszel statistics stratified by low-dose aspirin use at baseline. RESULTS: Adenoma recurrence was less frequent for rofecoxib subjects than for those randomized to placebo (41% vs 55%; P < .0001; relative risk [RR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.83). Rofecoxib also conferred a reduction in risk of advanced adenomas (P < .01). The chemopreventive effect was more pronounced in the first year (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.73) than in the subsequent 2 years (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93). As reported previously, rofecoxib was associated with increased risks of significant upper gastrointestinal events and serious thrombotic cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, rofecoxib significantly reduced the risk of colorectal adenomas, but also had serious toxicity.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis over multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: An aprepitant (APR) regimen was evaluated for prevention of nausea and emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) over multiple cycles. METHODS: The authors performed a randomized, double-blind study. Eligible patients with breast carcinoma were naïve to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide alone or with doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomized to receive either an APR regimen (Day 1: APR 125 mg, ondansetron [OND] 8 mg, and dexamethasone [DEX] 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hrs later; Days 2-3: APR 80 mg every day) or a control regimen (Day 1: OND 8 mg and DEX 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hrs later; Days 2-3: OND 8 mg twice per day). Data on nausea, emesis, and use of rescue medication were collected. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue therapy) in Cycle 1. Efficacy end points for the multiple-cycle extension were the probabilities of a CR in Cycles 2-4 and a sustained CR rate across multiple cycles. RESULTS: Of 866 patients randomized, 744 (85.9%) entered the multiple-cycle extension, and 650 (75.1%) completed all 4 cycles. Overall, the CR was greater with the APR regimen over the 4 cycles: 53.8% versus 39.4% for Cycle 2, 54.1% versus 39.3% for Cycle 3, and 55.0% versus 38.4% for Cycle 4. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over all 4 cycles was greater with the APR regimen (P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: The APR regimen was more effective than a control regimen for the prevention of nausea and emesis induced by MEC over multiple chemotherapy cycles.

Antiemetic efficacy of the neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid in patients receiving anthracyclines or cyclophosphamide in addition to high-dose cisplatin: analysis of combined data from two Phase III randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The tendency of chemotherapeutic regimens to cause vomiting is dependent on the individual drugs in the regimen. The authors analyzed data combined from 2 Phase III trials to assess the effect of the neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) antagonist aprepitant combined with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus a corticosteroid in a subpopulation receiving > 1 emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. METHODS: In the current study, 1043 cisplatin-naive patients (42% were women) receiving cisplatin-based (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy were assigned randomly to a control regimen (ondansetron [O] 32 mg intravenously and dexamethasone [D] 20 mg orally on Day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg orally plus O 32 mg and D 12 mg on Day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and D 8 mg on Day 4). Randomization was stratified for use of concomitant chemotherapy and female gender. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) on Days 1-5 (0-120 hours). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach, and logistic regression was used to make treatment comparisons among patients receiving the most frequently coadministered emetogenic concomitant chemotherapy (Hesketh level > or = 3). RESULTS: Among the approximately 13% of patients (n = 81 for A; n = 80 for control) who received additional emetogenic chemotherapy (doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide), the aprepitant regimen provided a 33 percentage-point improvement in the complete response rate compared with the control regimen. Among the general population, the advantage with aprepitant was 20 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: The current analysis of > 1000 patients from 2 large randomized trials showed that in the subpopulation at increased risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to concomitant emetogenic chemotherapy, the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetics improved protection to an even greater extent than in the general study population.

The oral NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Pooled data from 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials.

In this work, data from two phase III studies were pooled to further evaluate the NK(1) antagonist aprepitant for prevention of cisplatin induced nausea and vomiting. One thousand and forty three patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomised to receive either a control regimen (32 mg intravenous ondansetron [O] and 20 mg oral dexamethasone [D] on day 1; 8 mg D twice daily on days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (125 mg A plus 32 mg O and 12 mg D on day 1, 80 mg A and 8 mg D once daily on days 2-3, and 8 mg D on day 4). The primary endpoint was no emesis and no rescue therapy. Potential correlations between acute and delayed emesis were assessed, as were frequency of emetic episodes by time interval and effects on nausea and quality of life as measured by the functional living index emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. In the aprepitant group, there was statistically significantly less nausea over the study period as well as higher functioning on the FLIE questionnaire in both the nausea and vomiting domains. Patients without acute emesis were more likely to have no emesis in the delayed phase. Compared with control, the aprepitant regimen improved prevention of delayed emesis by 16% points in patients without acute emesis, and by 17% points in patients with acute emesis. Among patients who did not have complete response, the frequency of emesis at various intervals over 5 days was consistently lower in patients receiving aprepitant. Analyses of this combined Phase III population further characterized the clinical profile of the aprepitant regimen, showing that delayed emesis is correlated with, but not entirely dependent on, the presence of acute emesis, and that aprepitant has a favorable effect against nausea throughout 5 days postchemotherapy. In addition, even among patients who had emesis or needed rescue therapy, aprepitant was associated with a lower frequency of these events compared with the control regimen.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This is the first study in which the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant (APR), was evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible breast cancer patients were naive to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide +/- doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (day 1, APR 125 mg, ondansetron (OND) 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, APR 80 qd) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] or a control regimen (day 1, OND 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, OND 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy, during 120 hours after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 866 patients randomized, 857 patients (99%) were assessable. Overall complete response was greater with the aprepitant regimen than with the control regimen (50.8% v 42.5%; P = .015). More patients in the aprepitant group reported minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life (63.5% v 55.6%; P = .019). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) may be associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events, but only limited long-term data have been available for analysis. We report on the cardiovascular outcomes associated with the use of the selective COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib in a long-term, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial designed to determine the effect of three years of treatment with rofecoxib on the risk of recurrent neoplastic polyps of the large bowel in patients with a history of colorectal adenomas. METHODS: A total of 2586 patients with a history of colorectal adenomas underwent randomization: 1287 were assigned to receive 25 mg of rofecoxib daily, and 1299 to receive placebo. All investigator-reported serious adverse events that represented potential thrombotic cardiovascular events were adjudicated in a blinded fashion by an external committee. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients in the rofecoxib group had a confirmed thrombotic event during 3059 patient-years of follow-up (1.50 events per 100 patient-years), as compared with 26 patients in the placebo group during 3327 patient-years of follow-up (0.78 event per 100 patient-years); the corresponding relative risk was 1.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.19 to 3.11; P=0.008). The increased relative risk became apparent after 18 months of treatment; during the first 18 months, the event rates were similar in the two groups. The results primarily reflect a greater number of myocardial infarctions and ischemic cerebrovascular events in the rofecoxib group. There was earlier separation (at approximately five months) between groups in the incidence of nonadjudicated investigator-reported congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema, or cardiac failure (hazard ratio for the comparison of the rofecoxib group with the placebo group, 4.61; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.50 to 18.83). Overall and cardiovascular mortality was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a history of colorectal adenomas, the use of rofecoxib was associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.

Aprepitant: an oral NK1 antagonist for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

This paper reviews the clinical profile of aprepitant, the first neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist to be approved for use in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. When given to patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, aprepitant in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 (5HT(3)) receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid provides significantly improved protection from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over that which has been previously achievable with current antiemetics.

The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin--the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group.

PURPOSE: In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Addition of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a novel neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) antagonist that has been shown to improve control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) when added to a standard antiemetic regimen of a 5-hydroxytriptamine-3 antagonist plus a corticosteroid. The authors sought to evaluate further the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant plus standard therapy in a large clinical trial. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-groups, Phase III study. Patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive treatment with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatment regimens; the standard therapy group received intravenous ondansetron 32 mg and oral dexamethasone 20 mg on Day 1, and oral dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4. The aprepitant group received oral aprepitant 125 mg, intravenous ondansetron 32 mg, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on Day 1; oral aprepitant 80 mg and oral dexamethasone 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on Day 4. Patients recorded episodes of emesis, use of rescue therapy, and severity of nausea in a diary. A modified intent-to-treat approach was used to analyze the efficacy data. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) during the 5-day period postcisplatin. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models, and reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments were used to assess tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were evaluated for efficacy, and 568 patients were evaluated for safety. During the 5 days after chemotherapy, the percentages of patients who achieved a complete response were 62.7% in the aprepitant group (163 of 260 patients) versus 43.3% in the standard therapy group (114 of 263 patients; P < 0.001). For Day 1, the complete response rates were 82.8% for the aprepitant group and 68.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.001); for Days 2-5, the complete response rates were 67.7% in the aprepitant group and 46.8% in the standard therapy group (P < 0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 treatment groups (72.8% in the aprepitant group [206 of 283 patients] and 72.6% in the standard therapy group [207 of 285 patients]) as were rates of serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, and deaths. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cancer who are receiving high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy, therapy consisting of aprepitant (125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-3) plus a standard regimen of ondansetron and dexamethasone provided superior antiemetic protection compared with standard therapy alone and was generally well tolerated.

Establishing the dose of the oral NK1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: The neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant (EMEND; Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, PA) has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when it is given with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. The current study sought to define the most appropriate dose regimen of oral aprepitant. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with cancer who were receiving initial cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) and standard antiemetic therapy (intravenous ondansetron plus oral dexamethasone). Patients were randomized to receive standard therapy plus either aprepitant 375 mg on Day 1 and 250 mg on Days 2-5, aprepitant 125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-5, or placebo. Due to an apparent interaction with dexamethasone suggested by pharmacokinetic data obtained while the study was ongoing, the aprepitant 375/250 mg dose was discontinued and replaced with aprepitant 40 mg on Day 1 and 25 mg on Days 2-5, and a new randomization schedule was generated. Patients recorded nausea and emesis in a diary. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy), which was analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach with data obtained after the dose adjustment. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments, and included all available data. RESULTS: The percentages of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall study period were 71.0% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (n = 131 patients), 58.8% for the aprepitant 40/25-mg group (n = 119 patients), and 43.7% for the standard therapy group (n = 126 patients; P < 0.05 for either aprepitant regimen vs. standard therapy). Rates for Day 1 were 83.2% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group, 75.6% for aprepitant 40/25-mg group, and 71.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.05 for aprepitant 125/80 mg vs. standard therapy), and rates on Days 2-5 were 72.7% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group, 63.9% for the aprepitant 40/25-mg group, and 45.2% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.01 for either aprepitant group vs. standard therapy). The efficacy of the aprepitant 375/250-mg regimen was similar to that of the aprepitant 125/80-mg regimen. The overall incidence of adverse events was generally similar across treatment groups: 85% in the aprepitant 375/250-mg group (n = 34 patients), 76% in the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (n = 214 patients), 71% in the aprepitant 40/25-mg group (n = 120 patients), and 72% in the standard therapy group (n = 212 patients), with the exception of a higher incidence of infection in the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (13%) compared with the standard therapy group (4%). CONCLUSIONS: When it was added to a standard regimen of intravenous ondansetron and oral dexamethasone in the current study, aprepitant reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and was generally well tolerated, although increases in infection were noted that were assumed to be due to elevated dexamethasone levels as a result of the pharmacokinetic interaction. The aprepitant 125/80-mg regimen had the most favorable benefit:risk profile.

Immunomagnetic purification of T cell subpopulations.

This unit describes a general method for physical separation of cell subpopulations from a heterogeneous mixture of cell types. The technique relies on having an appropriate monoclonal antibody or mix of monoclonal antibodies that distinguish between the cell types being separated. Its advantages over other antibody-mediated selection techniques are purity of resulting cell preparation, reproducibility of separation, and ease of handling small to large numbers of cells (10(6) to 10(10) cells). The basic protocol outlines preparation of purified human T lymphocytes. The method produces good yields of pure T cells prepared by negative selection (i.e., not labeled with antibody). The alternate protocol applies similar principles for purifying CD4(+) T cells, and presents refinements of the basic protocol that minimize cost and improve convenience.