RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), its use in stem cell transplant settings across Canada is not standard. While pharmacokinetic data exists, the clinical significance of cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP 3A4) inhibition of cyclophosphamide by aprepitant is unclear. Reduced activation of cyclophosphamide may reduce the effectiveness of dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin (DICEP). OBJECTIVES: To compare response rates to DICEP in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the presence and absence of aprepitant. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received full-dose DICEP for relapsed/refractory HL or DLBCL between June 1995 and September 2018 at the Foothills Medical Centre (FMC) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada was conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to assess response rate, as defined by the 2007 International Working Group response criteria. RESULTS: Of the 218 patients included in this study, 87.6% of patients in the control group and 88.5% of patients in the aprepitant group responded to DICEP (difference 0.025 [95% CI, -0.066 to 0.114], p = 0.827). Univariate analyses for age, sex, type of cancer, stage of cancer, number of prior relapses, and relapse status were not significant. No significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Response rates to DICEP in relapsed/refractory HL and DLBCL patients were similar regardless of aprepitant use. Considering these results and the effectiveness of aprepitant in CINV, its addition to standard antiemetic therapy in patients receiving DICEP should be given strong consideration in the transplant setting.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Intravenous (IV) sodium bicarbonate is considered standard therapy for high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) urine alkalinization. Due to a national IV sodium bicarbonate shortage, an oral (PO) sodium bicarbonate protocol was implemented by Alberta Health Services (AHS) for HDMTX urine alkalinization. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PO sodium bicarbonate protocol compared to IV sodium bicarbonate for HDMTX urine alkalinization. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of adult patients who received HDMTX (> 500 mg/m2) with sodium bicarbonate for urine alkalinization at 4 hospitals in Alberta was conducted. Patients who received IV sodium bicarbonate between January and June 2017 and PO sodium bicarbonate between July and December 2017 were compared for the primary outcome of time to methotrexate clearance. RESULTS: A total of 84 and 78 HDMTX cycles were included in the IV and PO cohorts, respectively. No difference in time to methotrexate clearance was seen between the IV and PO cohorts, 91.6 (± 35.4) hours and 95.2 (± 44) hours respectively; p = 0.5. The proportion of HDMTX cycles that experienced a > 25% increase in serum creatinine was not statistically significant, IV protocol 12% and PO protocol 5%; p = 0.13. Nausea and emesis occurred more frequently in the PO cohort than the IV cohort, though rarely resulted in refused doses or change to alternate sodium bicarbonate formulations. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the AHS PO sodium bicarbonate protocol was no different in time to methotrexate clearance or rates of increased serum creatinine when compared to IV sodium bicarbonate.