Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2012
Concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors or H2 blockers did not adversely affect nilotinib efficacy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yin Ophelia Q P, Giles Frank J, Baccarani Michele, le Coutre Philipp, Chiparus Ovidiu, Gallagher Neil, Saglio Giuseppe, Hughes Timothy P, Hochhaus Andreas, Kantarjian Hagop M, Larson Richard A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2 blockers) on the efficacy of nilotinib was evaluated.
METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP; N = 492) and in patients with imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant Ph+ CML-CP (N = 256) treated with nilotinib.
RESULTS: In the newly diagnosed population, 87 (17.7 %) and 49 (10.0 %) patients received PPIs and H2 blockers, respectively. Major molecular response at 12 months was achieved by 59 (49.6 %) patients who received at least one PPI or H2 blocker (n = 119) and 153 (41.0 %) patients who did not receive any comedication (n = 373; P = 0.13). PPIs and H2 blockers were used by 77 (30.1 %) and 17 (6.6 %) patients with imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant CML-CP, respectively. Major cytogenetic response by 12 months was achieved by 55 (64.0 %) patients who received at least one PPI or H2 blocker (n = 86) versus 98 (57.6 %) patients who did not receive any comedication (n = 170; P = 0.40); 39 (45.3 %) versus 65 (38.2 %), respectively, achieved complete cytogenetic response by 12 months (P = 0.34). Similar findings were observed in patients who received comedication for >50 % of the time on nilotinib therapy. Nilotinib steady-state trough concentration was not affected by the presence of PPIs or H2 blockers.
CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent use of PPIs or H2 blockers did not affect the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of nilotinib in patients with Ph+ CML-CP.
METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP; N = 492) and in patients with imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant Ph+ CML-CP (N = 256) treated with nilotinib.
RESULTS: In the newly diagnosed population, 87 (17.7 %) and 49 (10.0 %) patients received PPIs and H2 blockers, respectively. Major molecular response at 12 months was achieved by 59 (49.6 %) patients who received at least one PPI or H2 blocker (n = 119) and 153 (41.0 %) patients who did not receive any comedication (n = 373; P = 0.13). PPIs and H2 blockers were used by 77 (30.1 %) and 17 (6.6 %) patients with imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant CML-CP, respectively. Major cytogenetic response by 12 months was achieved by 55 (64.0 %) patients who received at least one PPI or H2 blocker (n = 86) versus 98 (57.6 %) patients who did not receive any comedication (n = 170; P = 0.40); 39 (45.3 %) versus 65 (38.2 %), respectively, achieved complete cytogenetic response by 12 months (P = 0.34). Similar findings were observed in patients who received comedication for >50 % of the time on nilotinib therapy. Nilotinib steady-state trough concentration was not affected by the presence of PPIs or H2 blockers.
CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent use of PPIs or H2 blockers did not affect the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of nilotinib in patients with Ph+ CML-CP.