Mayako Uchida

Time Course of Calcium Concentrations and Risk Factors for Hypocalcemia in Patients Receiving Denosumab for the Treatment of Bone Metastases From Cancer

Background: Severe hypocalcemia sometimes develops during denosumab treatment for bone metastases from cancer and is, therefore, an important issue. However, limited information is available on the risk factors for hypocalcemia and the appropriate interval for monitoring serum calcium concentration. Objective: The present study aimed to identify the risk factors for grade ≥2 hypocalcemia and to investigate the time course of serum calcium concentrations in patients receiving denosumab for bone metastases from cancer. Method: The medical records of 66 cancer patients treated with denosumab between April 2012 and August 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Result: Of the 66 enrolled patients, 11, 5, and 1 developed grade 1, 2, and 3 hypocalcemia, respectively. All 4 patients with a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min developed hypocalcemia. Hypocalcemia occurred in only 20%, 24%, and 15% of patients with an eGFR of 30 to 59, 60 to 89, and ≥90 mL/min, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that lower eGFR values (odds ratio, 1.72 per 10 mL/min decrease, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with grade ≥2 hypocalcemia. In 11 patients who developed hypocalcemia during the first treatment course, the mean calcium concentrations decreased from 9.8 mg/dL at baseline to 8.4 mg/dL during the first week and reached a nadir of 8.1 mg/dL during the second week. Conclusion: Our results support more frequent monitoring of serum calcium concentrations at baseline and during the first 2 weeks of treatment in patients receiving denosumab, especially those with an eGFR <30 mL/min.

Antiemetic effectiveness and safety of aprepitant in patients with hematologic malignancy receiving multiday chemotherapy

PURPOSE Antiemetic effectiveness and safety of aprepitant in patients with hematologic malignancy receiving multiday chemotherapy were evaluated. METHODS All data were retrospectively collected from the Kyushu University Hospitals electronic medical record system. Patients age 20 years or older with hematologic malignancies who received multiday chemotherapy were included in the study. All patients received 3 mg of granisetron i.v. 30 minutes before chemotherapy administration. Patients in the aprepitant group received 125 mg of aprepitant orally 60-90 minutes before administration of the first moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (day 1). On day 2 or thereafter, an 80-mg oral dose of aprepitant was administered in the morning for up to five days. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved complete response (CR). RESULTS A total of 42 patients were treated with aprepitant and granisetron as antiemetic prophylaxis between April and December 2010 (aprepitant group), and 40 patients were treated with only granisetron between March 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010, before the introduction of aprepitant. The percentage of patients who achieved CR in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p = 0.01). Factors that were significantly associated with non-CR included the prophylactic use of aprepitant and chemotherapies containing ≥4 g/m(2)/day of cytarabine. The rates of adverse drug events (ADEs) did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSION The addition of aprepitant to granisetron increased the antiemetic effect without influencing ADEs in patients treated with moderately to highly emetogenic multiday chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies.

Efficacy and safety of aprepitant in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aprepitant added to standard antiemetic regimens used in high‐dose chemotherapy for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo‐HSCT).

Prophylactic effect of pemirolast, an antiallergic agent, against hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel in patients with ovarian cancer

We have previously shown that sensory nerve peptides contribute to the pathogenesis of pulmonary hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to paclitaxel in rats. Moreover, pemirolast, an antiallergic agent, reverses the HSRs to paclitaxel, although the mechanism is considered to result from the blockade of paclitaxel‐induced release of sensory peptides, rather than the inhibition of histamine release. In the present study, we investigated the preventive effect of pemirolast against acute HSRs in a total of 84 patients who undertook postoperative paclitaxel plus carboplatin chemotherapy every 4 weeks for ovarian cancer. Patients were assigned to receive oral lactose (placebo) or pemirolast (10 mg), 2 hr before paclitaxel infusion. All patients received conventional premedication, including oral diphenhydramine, intravenous ranitidine and intravenous dexamethasone, 30 min before paclitaxel infusion. The HSRs that led to the discontinuance of paclitaxel infusion (grade ≥≥2) occurred in 5 of 42 patients in placebo group, whereas none of pemirolast‐treated 42 patients showed any signs of HSRs. Plasma histamine concentrations were not changed after paclitaxel infusion in either group. Our present findings suggest that pemirolast is potentially useful for prophylaxis of paclitaxel‐induced HSRs. In this respect, the use of pemirolast as premedication is expected to be beneficial to the safety management in patients who undergo chemotherapy containing paclitaxel.

Efficacy and safety of an increased-dose of dexamethasone in patients receiving fosaprepitant chemotherapy in Japan

BACKGROUND Antiemetic triplet therapy including dexamethasone (DEX) is widely used for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In Japan, the appropriate dose of DEX has not been established for this combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS To assess the efficacy and safety of increased-dose DEX, we retrospectively examined patients receiving HEC with antiemetic triplet therapy. RESULTS Twenty-four patients (fosaprepitant group) were given an increased-dose of DEX (average total dose: 45.8mg), fosaprepitant, and 5-HT3 antagonist. A lower-dose of DEX (33.6mg), oral aprepitant, and 5-HT3 antagonist were administered to the other 48 patients (aprepitant group). The vomiting control rates in the fosaprepitant and aprepitant groups were 100% and 85.4% in the acute phase, and were 75.0% and 64.6% in the delayed phase. The incidences of toxicity were similar comparing the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Triplet therapy using an increased-dose of DEX is suggested to be safe and effective for patients receiving HEC.

Comparison between antiemetic effects of palonosetron and granisetron on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japanese patients treated with R-CHOP

In the present study, the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, not combined with dexamethasone and aprepitant, on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was evaluated in patients with malignant lymphoma receiving first-line rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy, and was compared to that of granisetron. A total of 74 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma were included in this study (April 2007 to December 2015). Palonosetron (0.75 mg) or granisetron (3 mg) was intravenously administered before R-CHOP therapy. The proportions of patients with complete response (CR) during the overall (0-120 h after the start of R-CHOP therapy), acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases were evaluated. CR was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. A total of 32 and 42 patients were treated with palonosetron and granisetron, respectively. The CR rate in the palonosetron group was significantly higher than that in the granisetron group during the delayed phase (90.6 and 61.9%, respectively; p=0.007). Logistic regression analysis showed that use of palonosetron improved the CR rate during the delayed phase, compared to use of granisetron. Female sex, age less than 60 years, no habitual alcohol intake, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) score of 1 were significant risk factors associated with non-CR. The findings of this study suggested the superiority of palonosetron to granisetron, without accompanying dexamethasone and aprepitant, for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with malignant lymphoma.

Drug-induced tubulointerstitial nephritis in a retrospective study using spontaneous reporting system database

Introduction Tubulointerstitial nephritis (TIN) is a problem in clinical settings because drug therapy is the cause in most cases. Patients often present with nonspecific symptoms, which can lead to delays in the diagnosis and treatment of the disease. The purpose of this study was to clarify the rank-order of the association of TIN with the causative drugs using a spontaneous reporting system database. Materials and methods Data were extracted from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (Japan). Based on 5,195,890 reports of all adverse reactions, we obtained 3,088 reports of TIN caused by all drugs and calculated the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and 95% CI for TIN. Results The 5 drugs with the highest RORs were gliclazide (ROR, 30.5; 95% CI, 17.4–53.2), tosufloxacin tosilate hydrate (ROR, 29.5; 95% CI, 21.3–41.0), piperacillin–tazobactam (ROR, 24.3; 95% CI, 19.4–30.5), cefteram pivoxil (ROR, 23.5; 95% CI, 12.5–44.2), and mefenamic acid (ROR, 22.5; 95% CI, 13.4–37.7). No sex-related difference was observed in drug-induced TIN. Most of the reports about TIN onset following the administration of culprit drugs were recorded within 12 weeks. Conclusion Based on the results, a comprehensive study using a pharmacovigilance database enabled us to identify the dugs that most frequently induced TIN, so these drugs should be used carefully in clinical practice to avoid TIN.

Comparison of antiemetic effects of granisetron and palonosetron in patients receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy

The antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron and palonosetron against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy. A total of 61 patients were eligible for this study. Before starting the bendamustine-based chemotherapy, granisetron or palonosetron were intravenously administered with or without aprepitant and/or dexamethasone. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (during the 6 days after the start of the chemotherapy), acute (up to 2 days), and delayed (3 to 6 days) phases were assessed. CC was defined as complete response with only grade 0-1 nausea, no vomiting, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. Granisetron or palonosetron alone were administered to 9 and 19 patients, respectively. Aprepitant and/or dexamethasone were combined with granisetron and palonosetron in 28 and 5 patients, respectively. Acute CINV was completely controlled in all patients. Both granisetron monotherapy and palonosetron combination therapy could provide good control of delayed CINV, although the CC rates during the delayed and overall phases were not significantly different among mono- and combination therapy of the antiemetics. There was no significant difference in the frequencies of adverse drug events between the granisetron and palonosetron treatment groups. The present study showed that the antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron-based therapy were non-inferior to those of palonosetron-based therapy. Taken together with treatment costs, granisetron monotherapy would be adequate to prevent CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy.