Efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimen: a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study in patients with gynecologic cancer receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Yahata ◽  
Hiroaki Kobayashi ◽  
Kenzo Sonoda ◽  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Tatsuhiro Ohgami ◽  
...  
1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 2966-2973 ◽  
Author(s):  
W S Lofters ◽  
J L Pater ◽  
B Zee ◽  
E Dempsey ◽  
D Walde ◽  
...  

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy of dolasetron and ondansetron in controlling nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours; to evaluate the efficacy when dexamethasone is added to either drug in the first 24 hours; and to extend these comparisons over 7 days in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study with six parallel arms that used a 2 x 2 factorial design in chemotherapy-naive patients. In arm 1, dolasetron (2.4 mg/kg) was given intravenously (I.V.) prechemotherapy, followed 24 hours later by oral dolasetron (200 mg once daily) for 6 days. Arms 2 and 3 consisted of dolasetron and dexamethasone 8 mg I.V., followed 24 hours later by oral dexamethasone (8 mg once daily) in one arm, and oral dexamethasone and dolasetron in the other, also for 6 days. In arms 4, 5, and 6, ondansetron (32 mg I.V. or 8 mg orally twice daily) was administered in a similar manner to arms 1, 2, and 3 before and 24 hours after chemotherapy. Mean nausea severity (MNS) was assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS) in a daily diary. RESULTS Of 703 patients enrolled, 696 were eligible. There were 343 dolasetron- and 353 ondansetron-treated patients; 57% of dolasetron-treated patients had complete protection in the first 24 hours versus 67% of patients who received ondansetron (P = .013). MNS was also more pronounced on the dolasetron arm (P = .051). Sixty-seven percent of patients who received added dexamethasone in the first 24 hours had complete protection, compared with 55% without dexamethasone (P < .001). MNS was significantly reduced with the addition of dexamethasone (P < .001). At 7 days, dolasetron and ondansetron had equivalent complete protection rates (36% and 39%, respectively). With the addition of dexamethasone, 48% of patients compared with 28% had complete protection (P < .001). MNS was significantly improved with added dexamethasone (P < .001). CONCLUSION At the doses used, dolasetron was significantly less effective than ondansetron at controlling nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, but there was no demonstrable difference between both drugs over 7 days. The addition of dexamethasone significantly improved the efficacy of both drugs in the first 24 hours and over 7 days.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21699-e21699
Author(s):  
So Yeon Jeon ◽  
Hye Sook Han ◽  
Woo Kyun Bae ◽  
Moo-Rim Park ◽  
Sang-Cheol Lee ◽  
...  

e21699 Background: Olanzapine was found to be effective for preventing acute and delayed emesis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy by randomized phase 3 study. However, there is limited data for the efficacy of olanzapine combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Methods: We conducted randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether olanzapine could reduce the frequency of CINV and improve quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of MEC induced nausea and vomiting. Two groups received either 10 mg of olanzapine orally or matching placebo daily on days 1 through 4. The primary end point was the complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) for the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy). Secondary end points included the complete responses for the delayed (24-120 hours) and overall phase (0-120 hours), proportion of significant emesis (VAS ≥ 25 mm) for overall phase, use of rescue medications, and effect on QOL by Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Results: Fifty-six patients were randomized and fifty-four patients were evaluable (29 assigned to olanzapine, and 25 to placebo). The complete response rate was not significant between olanzapine and placebo group in the acute (96.5% vs. 88.0%, P = 0.326), delayed (69.0% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.118), and overall phase (69.0% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.118). However, the percentage of patients with significant emesis (17.2% vs. 44.0%, P = 0.032) and the use of rescue medications (0.03±0.19 vs. 1.88±2.88, P = 0.002) were significantly lower with olanzapine than with placebo in the overall phase. Furthermore, olanzapine group experienced a better QOL than the placebo group, as reported on the FLIE questionnaire (P = 0.015). Conclusions: Olanzapine in addition to palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved the management of emesis and QOL among previously untreated patients receiving MEC, although the efficacy was limited to reduce the frequency of CINV. Clinical trial information: NCT02400866.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document