Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting: A Double Blind, Randomized Crossover Study to Compare Pancopride (LAS 30451) and Pancopride plus Dexamethasone

1995 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 432-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Aranda ◽  
Isidoro C. Barneto ◽  
Ma. Jesus Rubio ◽  
Rosario Gonzalez ◽  
Antonio Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Order Of Administration ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

Aims Pancopride (PNC) is a new 5HT3 receptor antagonist which has demonstrated complete protection from nausea and vomiting in 25-73% of patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. A double-blind, randomized crossover study was carried out to assess whether the addition of dexamethasone (DXM) to PNC increases the antiemetic efficacy. Methods PNC (0.2 mg/kg. i.v. 30 min before chemotherapy) plus placebo (PLC) was compared with PNC (same dose and schedule) plus DXM (20 mg. i.v. immediately before PNC). In the second cycle, patients received the alternative antiemetic treatment. Eighty patients were included in the study (PNC+DXM=39, PNC+PLC=41), 29 of whom were women and 51 men. Fifty-four percent of the patients in the PNC+DXM group and 59% of those in the PNC+PLC group received chemotherapy containing cisplatin. Seventy-seven patients completed the first cycle and 70 the second. Results Complete protection was obtained in 19/16 patients (50/46%) with PNC+PLC and in 32/22 (82/63%) with PNC+DXM (P<0.001). Latency was significantly longer in the PNC+DXM group. The efficacy of both treatments was unaffected by the order of administration. Side effects were mild in both groups. Conclusions The combination of PNC+DXM is more efficacious than PNC+PLC in protection against highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced vomiting.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a double-blind multicenter randomized crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone.

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 675-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Roila ◽  
M Tonato ◽  
F Cognetti ◽  
E Cortesi ◽  
G Favalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Antiemetic Activity ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

Ondansetron (OND) is a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that give complete protection from emesis/nausea in approximately 50% of cisplatin (CDDP)-treated patients. To evaluate if dexamethasone (DEX) added to OND increases antiemetic efficacy, we carried out a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity of OND with OND plus DEX. One hundred two chemotherapy-naive patients (44 women and 58 men) scheduled to receive CDDP chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 entered the study. Eighty-nine patients completed both cycles with the following results: complete protection from emesis/nausea was obtained in 57/59 patients (64.0%/66.3%) with OND and in 81/79 (91.0%/88.8%) with OND plus DEX (P = .0005/P = .0021). At the end of the study, 53% of the patients expressed a treatment preference, and of these, 74% chose OND plus DEX compared with 26% who preferred OND alone, a statistically significant difference (P less than .003). Side effects were very mild and not significantly different between the two treatments. We conclude that OND plus DEX is more efficacious than OND in protecting patients from CDDP-induced emesis and nausea.

A phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active control study of fosnetupitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC): CONSOLE.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12099-12099
Author(s):  
Yoshimasa Shiraishi ◽  
Akito Hata ◽  
Naoki Inui ◽  
Morihito Okada ◽  
Masahiro Morise ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Study Drug ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Age Category

12099 Background: Fosnetupitant (FN) is a phosphorylated pro-drug of netupitant that has high binding affinity for the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor and a long half-life of 70 h. This phase 3 study is the first head-to-head study to compare two NK-1 receptor antagonists, FN and fosaprepitant (FA), in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (JapicCTI-194611). Methods: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) -based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive FN 235 mg or FA 150 mg, in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone (9.9 mg on day 1, 6.6 mg on days 2-4). The stratification factors were sex, age category (<55 vs. ≥55 years), and site. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no emetic events and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, during the overall phase (0-120 h) to show the non-inferiority (margin, -10%) of FN to FA. The secondary endpoints were: CR rate, complete protection rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, no emetic events rate in each period [i.e., acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall, 0-168 h and 120-168 h], time to treatment failure, and safety, including injection site reactions (ISRs). Assessment of efficacy was continued until 168 h after the initiation of cisplatin. Some eligible patients were evaluated for safety and efficacy of FN for up to four cycles. Results: Between February 2019 and March 2020, total 795 patients were enrolled in the study. The study drug was administered to 785 patients (n=392 in FN vs. n=393 in FA), and all of them were evaluated for efficacy and safety. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the two groups. The adjusted overall CR rate was 75.2% in FN vs. 71.0% in FA [MH common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%), thus demonstrating non-inferiority of FN to FA. Regarding the other secondary endpoints of efficacy until 168 h, FN was favorable against FA, especially the CR rate during 0-168 h (73.2% in FN vs. 66.9% in FA) (Table). The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events were 22.2% in FN vs. 25.4% in FA, whereas those of ISRs with any cause or with treatment-related were 11.0% or 0.3% in FN vs 20.6% or 3.6% in FA, respectively ( p<0.001). Conclusions: FN demonstrated non-inferiority to FA, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for ISRs. For the period beyond 120 h after initiation of chemotherapy, FN may have the potential to improve the prevention of “beyond delayed” CINV. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-194611. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of Thalidomide in Preventing Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial (CLOG1302 study)

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31) ◽  
pp. 3558-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lingyun Zhang ◽  
Xiujuan Qu ◽  
Yuee Teng ◽  
Jing Shi ◽  
Ping Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Delayed Nausea

Purpose We examined the efficacy and safety of thalidomide (THD) for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and Methods In a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC that contained cisplatin or cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin/epirubincin ≥ 50 mg/m2 regimens were randomly assigned to a THD group (100 mg twice daily on days 1 to 5) or placebo group, both with palonosetron (0.25 mg on day 1) and dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1; 8 mg on days 2 to 4). Primary end point was complete response to vomiting—no emesis or use of rescue medication—in the delayed phase (25 to 120 h). Nausea and anorexia on days 1 to 5 were evaluated by the 4-point Likert scale (0, no symptoms; 3, severe). Quality of life was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3 questionnaire on days −1 and 6. Results Of 656 patients, 638 were evaluable: 317 in the THD group and 321 in the control group. Compared with placebo, delayed and overall (0 to 120 h) complete response rates to vomiting were significantly higher with THD: 76.9% versus 61.7% ( P < .001) and 66.1% versus 53.3% ( P = .001), respectively. Rates of no nausea were also higher in the THD group (delayed: 47.3% v 33.3%; P < .001; overall: 41% v 29.6%; P = .003), and mean scores of anorexia were lower overall (0.44 ± 0.717 v 0.64 ± 0.844; P = .003). Adverse effects were mild to moderate. The THD group had increased sedation, dizziness, constipation, and dry mouth, but experienced better quality of life after chemotherapy. Conclusion Thalidomide combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved HEC-induced delayed nausea and vomiting prevention in chemotherapy-naive patients.

scholarly journals Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 907-916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin Hyoung Kang ◽  
Jung Hye Kwon ◽  
Yun-Gyoo Lee ◽  
Keon Uk Park ◽  
Ho Jung An ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Daily Life ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
To Receive

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)–induced nausea and vomiting. Materials and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by gender, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.ResultsA total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, −2.3%; 95% CI, −13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, −7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups.ConclusionIn all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Is gabapentin effective for preventing delayed nausea and vomiting (NV) after moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy (CT)?

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 18575-18575
Author(s):  
A. Menendez-Leal ◽  
C. Quijano ◽  
A. G. Menendez-Rivera
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
The Other ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Good Tolerability ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Financial Relationships

18575 Background: Following previous institutional observations,this protocol was designed to evaluate the efficacy of Gabapentin in the prophylaxis of delayed CT induced NV. Methods: The main elegibility criteria was moderate and severe NV on previous CT cycles.Gabapentin 300 mg caps. was given as follows: One capsule day -2, two capsules day -1 and one capsule tid from days 1 to 5. 24 pats. were evaluated; 22 (92%) female, 2 (8%) male.CT included Doxorubicin/Ciclofosfamide 15 (62.5%), Cis-Platin 5 (21%), Other regimens 4 (17%). Previous prophylaxis for all pats. included a 5-HT3 Antagonist plus Dexametasone. Pats. were instructed to complete a two-page Questionaire: On page 1 pats. indicated the intensity of nausea according a scale shown there. On page two they indicated the number of vomits they had.This was made three times daily for five days. The primary endpoint was reduction of NV aftyer CT. Results: The reduction observed in the number of vomits was as follows: Number of pats. that experienced 0 Vomits: day 1 (CT): 14 (58.3%); day 2: 18 (75%); day 3: 20 (83.3%); day 4: 18 (75%); day 5: 22 (91.7%). On the other hand, pats. that did not respond and had three or more vomits daily: day 1: 5 (20.8%); day 2: 2 (8.3%); day 3: 1 (4.2%); day 4: 3 (12.5%); day 5: 2 (8.3%).Most pats. experienced a decrease in the intensity of nausea as well. No significant side effects were seen. Conclusions: Gabapentin seems to have some efficacy preventing delayed NV after moderately and highly emetogenic CT. These results together with it’s possible effect on acute NV and good tolerability warrant further studies. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document