Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25223352›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2015

Therapeutic and preventive antiemetic effect of aprepitant in Japanese patients with thoracic malignancies who truly need it.

Sumiyo Ito, Ikuto Tsukiyama, Masahiko Ando, Masayo Katakami, Rie Hamanaka, Kenshi Kosaka, Ayako Matsubara, Masaki Nishimura, Hiroyuki Tanaka, Nobuhiro Asai and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Sumiyo ItoDepartment of Pharmacy, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Aichi, Japan.
Ikuto Tsukiyama
Masahiko Ando
Masayo Katakami
Rie Hamanaka
Kenshi Kosaka
Ayako Matsubara
Masaki Nishimura
Hiroyuki Tanaka
Nobuhiro Asai
Norihito Yokoe
Ayumu Takahashi
Kenji Baba
Katsuhiko Matsuura
Etsuro Yamaguchi
Akihito Kubo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNeurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist is recommended for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and has recently been introduced to oncology practice in Japan. However, whether all patients undergoing HEC truly need NK-1 receptor antagonist remains unknown, and increasing medical costs due to uniform use of NK-1 receptor antagonist are a concern. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of patients who needed aprepitant at the time of its introduction in Japan, and therapeutic and preventive effects of aprepitant on HEC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). PATIENTS AND

methodsEligible patients with thoracic malignancies who were to undergo HEC or MEC received 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to prevent CINV. Aprepitant was administered to treat CINV occurring in the first course, or to prevent CINV in the second course. Frequency of vomiting, degree of nausea, and quality of life with respect to CINV were assessed.

resultsIn total, 96 patients were enrolled. Aprepitant was not administered in 57 and 88 % of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively. In patients treated with aprepitant (n = 18), therapeutic use of aprepitant after occurrence of CINV (n = 9) decreased average scores in numerical rating scale for nausea from 7.44 to 5.44 (p = 0.10), and average frequency of vomiting per day from 2.11 to 0.11 (p = 0.03). Prophylactic use of aprepitant in the second course (n = 18) increased the proportion of patients with no significant nausea from 6 % (first course) to 50 % (second course; p = 0.007), and those with no vomiting from 33 to 89 % (p = 0.002). Aprepitant use also significantly improved quality of life with respect to CINV in the second course.

conclusionMore than half of patients receiving HEC and 88 % of patients receiving MEC did not use aprepitant. Aprepitant showed significant therapeutic and preventive effects on CINV in patients who truly needed it.

Indexed as

AgedAntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsAprepitantFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedMorpholinesNauseaNeurokinin-1 Receptor AntagonistsQuality of LifeThoracic NeoplasmsVomitingAntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsAprepitantMorpholinesNeurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.