Pielichowski, W., Barzal, J., Gawronski, K., Mlot, B., Oborska, S., Wasko-Grabowska, A., & Rzepecki, P. (2011). A triple-drug combination to prevent nausea and vomiting following BEAM chemotherapy before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings, 43(8), 3107–3110.doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.08.010
To evaluate the efficacy of a triple-drug combination (palonosetron + aprepitant + dexamethasone) to prevent acute and delayed emesis after high-dose chemotherapy with BEAM (carmustine + etoposide + cytarabine + melphalan) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) by comparison with historical control of patients treated with dexamethasone + ondansetron or dexamethasone + palonosetron
Triple drug antiemetic regimen (aprepitant 1 hour before chemotherapy [125 mg on day one and 80 mg on days 2 & 3] + 0.25 mg IV palonosetron 30 minutes before chemotherapy and 20 mg IV dexamtheasone 15 minutes before chemotherapy for day 1 and 12 mg daily for rest of chemotherapy regimen) was compared to data from historical control patients that received 32 mg ondansetron and IV dexamethasone daily during chemotherapy or palonosetron and dexamethasone (dexamethasone given as 20 mg IV day 1 and 12 mg daily for rest of chemotherapy regimen in all cases). Acute phase was defined as the first 24 hours after receiving chemotherapy, and delayed phase was definied as days 2–5.
The study was conducted at a single inpatient setting in Warsaw, Poland.
All patients were in active treatment.
This was a descriptive study with comparison to historical controls.
Patients treated with the triple-drug antiemetic combination showed higher response rates than those receiving palonosetron or ondansetron (+ dexamethasone) during both the acute and delayed phases in reduction of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).
Drawing conclusions based on the information provided in the study is difficult.
Although the study appeared to support the use of established CINV guidelines established by the National Comprehenaive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the data in this study were of questionable significance because of the information provided and poor quality of the study.