A Phase II Study Of Aprepitant As Anti-Emetic Prophylaxis In Patients Receiving Induction Chemotherapy For AML
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Standard AML induction chemotherapy includes an anthracycline plus cytarabine (3+7); the former is considered moderately emetogenic. Such patients typically received anti-emetic prophylaxis using a 5-HT3 antagonist; however, many patients continue to experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) requiring additional therapy. Aprepitant is a neurokinin inhibitor with documented efficacy against CINV, but has not been evaluated to date in the setting of AML induction therapy. Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated AML, receiving induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 IV daily on Days 1-3 plus cytarabine 200 mg/m2 IV daily (100 mg/m2 for patients age 60 and over) as a continuous IV infusion x 7 days, were enrolled in a Phase II single arm open label study. All patients received 5-HT3 antagonist prophylaxis using either granisetron 1 mg IV daily or ondansetron 8 mg IV q12h on the 3 daunorubicin dosing days. In addition, patients received aprepitant 125 mg PO on Day 1 followed by 80 mg PO daily on Days 2-5. No corticosteroids were used. Additional anti-emetic therapy was given as needed, at the discretion of the medical staff, for any nausea or vomiting. The primary endpoint was any vomiting or retching, while secondary endpoints included nausea requiring supplemental anti-emetics. Results were compared to a retrospective cohort of 40 patients who had received the same AML induction chemotherapy and 5-HT3 antagonist prophylaxis, but without aprepitant. Results At a pre-planned interim analysis, 27 patients receiving aprepitant on study were evaluated. By the end of Day 5, 3/27 patients (11%) had experienced at least one episode of vomiting or retching, while by the end of Day 8 four additional patients had experienced vomiting/retching, for a cumulative incidence of 26%. In comparison, the cumulative incidence of vomiting or retching by the end of Day 5 in the retrospective cohort was 50% (20/40), and 53% by Day 8. The proportion of patients experiencing vomiting was below 8% per day on aprepitant dosing days, but increased to11% on Day 6. The cumulative incidence of nausea and/or vomiting in the aprepitant group was 52% by the end of Day 5 and 60% at the end of Day 8, as compared to 78% at both time points in the retrospective cohort. There were no toxicities attributable to aprepitant. Conclusion The results indicate that aprepitant is highly effective, when combined with a 5-HT3 antagonist, in preventing vomiting in patients receiving AML induction chemotherapy with 3+7. The combination appears less effective in controlling nausea. The results warrant further evaluation in a Phase III randomized placebo controlled study. Disclosures: Brandwein: Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Aprepitant as anti-emetic prophylaxis for AML induction. Seki:Merck: Honoraria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".