@entity10442 plus @entity619 versus XXXX alone in the prevention of vomiting induced by conditioning for stem cell transplantation: a prospective randomized study.

@entity1 @entity1671 @entity137 @entity619 @entity10442 @entity348 @entity10 @entity4854 @entity22
This prospective randomized study compared the efficacy and @entity137 of @entity10442 and @entity619 to those of @entity10442 alone for antiemetic control in @entity1 receiving high-dose chemotherapy with or without @entity348 ( @entity348 ) for stem cell transplantation. @entity1 were divided randomly into 2 groups. Groups received @entity10442 twice daily at a dose of 40 microg/kg with or without 4 mg @entity619 (GS group and G group, respectively), starting 30 minutes before each dose of chemotherapeutic agent or @entity348 , or 12 hours after the first dose if @entity348 or a drug was given once a day. Fifty @entity1 were evaluated for the analysis. During the first 24 hours of conditioning, 23 of 25 @entity1 (92.0%) in the GS group achieved complete control of emesis (no emetic episodes over the course of a day), compared with 72.0% in the G group (P = .06). For @entity1 receiving @entity348 on the first day of conditioning, complete emetic control was achieved in all @entity1 (100.0%) in the GS group, compared with 63.2% in the G group (P = .02). The same degree of emetic control was maintained throughout the conditioning period in 38.8% of the GS group and 29.9% of the G group (P = .10). Adverse reactions were observed more frequently in the GS group (68.0% versus 5.0% in the G group). These reactions included @entity22 , @entity10 , @entity1671 , and @entity4854 . None of the events were serious. We conclude that @entity10442 with @entity619 seems superior to @entity10442 alone for the prevention of emesis resulting from the conditioning regimen; however, the more frequent side effects may limit the wide use of this combination.
