Effect of schedule and maintenance on the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron combined with dexamethasone in acute and delayed nausea and emesis in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a phase III trial by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1050-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Kaizer ◽  
D Warr ◽  
P Hoskins ◽  
J Latreille ◽  
W Lofters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Severe Nausea ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Antiemetic Efficacy ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Nausea And Emesis ◽  
Oral Ondansetron

PURPOSE This study examines whether the schedule of ondansetron significantly influences its antiemetic efficacy in the first 24 hours after chemotherapy, whether the administration of oral ondansetron after 24 hours is effective in preventing delayed emesis, and whether the efficacy of ondansetron is preserved over multiple courses of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS A multicenter double-blind study randomized 302 cancer patients to one of three treatment arms. Arm A received dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously (i.v.) plus ondansetron (Zofran; Glaxo Canada Inc, Toronto, Canada) 8 mg i.v. prechemotherapy plus ondansetron 8 mg orally every 12 hours postchemotherapy for nine doses. Arm B received dexamethasone 10 mg i.v. plus ondansetron 16 mg i.v. prechemotherapy plus placebo orally postchemotherapy in the same schedule as arm A. Arm C received dexamethasone 10 mg i.v. plus ondansetron 8 mg prechemotherapy plus ondansetron 8 mg orally postchemotherapy for one dose followed by placebo orally every 12 hours for eight more doses. Response was assessed by the number of reported episodes of vomiting and by severity of nausea measured on a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS The two schedules of ondansetron used in the first 24 hours were no different in their antiemetic efficacy, with similar rates for complete responses (76.7% v 72.0%, P = .472), complete plus major responses (90.2% v 82.0%, P = .135), and severity of nausea (P = .348). Oral ondansetron after 24 hours was more effective than placebo in preventing delayed nausea and emesis, with superior rates of complete responses (59.6% v 42.1%, P = .012 by one-sided test), complete plus major responses (80.9% v 66.3%, P = .018 by one-sided test), and less severe nausea (9.2 mm v 18.6 mm on a 100-mm VAS, P = .002). The efficacy of ondansetron was maintained over subsequent courses of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION The schedule of ondansetron in the first 24 hours does not influence its efficacy. The use of oral maintenance ondansetron is effective in preventing delayed maintenance ondansetron is effective in preventing delayed nausea and emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Phase III double-blind comparison of dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron and an evaluation of the additive role of dexamethasone in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 2966-2973 ◽  
Author(s):  
W S Lofters ◽  
J L Pater ◽  
B Zee ◽  
E Dempsey ◽  
D Walde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Oral Dexamethasone ◽  
Delayed Nausea

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.

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.

Aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapies and tumor types: A randomized, double-blind study

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9626-9626
Author(s):  
J. A. Boice ◽  
H. Schmoll ◽  
C. Brown ◽  
A. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Medication Use ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Therapy Regimen ◽  
Control Regimen

9626 Background: Aprepitant (A) has been shown in a previous trial to be effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in breast cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide and anthracycline. This study assessed A in patients with a variety of tumors receiving a broad range of MEC regimens. Methods: This Phase III, randomized, gender-stratified, double-blind, trial enrolled female and male patients ≥18 years old with confirmed malignancies naïve to MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and scheduled to receive a single dose of 1 or more MEC agent. Patients received A triple-therapy regimen (A 125 mg, ondansetron [O] 8 mg b.i.d., and dexamethasone [D] 12 mg on Day 1 of chemotherapy, A 80 mg q.d. on Days 2–3) or a control regimen (O 8 mg b.i.d. and D 20 mg on Day 1, and O 8 mg q12h on Days 2–3) all administered orally. Episodes of vomiting, nausea, and rescue medication use were recorded in a patient diary. Tolerability was assessed by physical and lab examinations, and adverse event (AE) reporting. Primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients with No Vomiting and Complete Response (no vomiting and no rescue medication use), respectively, during the 120 hours postchemotherapy. Results: Among 848 randomized patients, 77% were female while 52, 20, 13, and 5% of patients had breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, respectively. Significantly more patients in the A group achieved No Vomiting and Complete Response (a difference of 14.1 &12.4 percentage points vs. control, respectively). The incidences of AEs were generally similar in the aprepitant (61.9%) and control groups (66.5%). Conclusions: The aprepitant regimen provided superior efficacy over the control regimen in the treatment of CINV in a broad range of patients receiving MEC in both No Vomiting and Complete Response endpoints. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Comparison of single-dose oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized parallel study.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 754-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
E A Perez ◽  
P Hesketh ◽  
J Sandbach ◽  
J Reeves ◽  
S Chawla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Adverse Experiences ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Dose Oral ◽  
Nausea And Emesis ◽  
Chemotherapy Initiation ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE The antiemetic effectiveness and safety of single-dose oral granisetron were compared with intravenous (I.V.) ondansetron in chemotherapy-naive patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this double-blind, parallel-group study, patients naive to emetogenic chemotherapy (N = 1,085) who were scheduled to receive cyclophosphamide- (500 to 1,200 mg/m2) or carboplatin (> or = 300 mg/m2) based chemotherapy, were randomized to receive either oral granisetron (n = 542) or I.V. ondansetron (n = 543). Efficacy assessments included the proportion of patients in each treatment group with total control over the 24 and 48 hours following chemotherapy initiation, as well as incidence and severity of nausea and emesis and use of antiemetic rescue medication. Prophylactic corticosteroids were allowed. Safety assessment was based on patients' reports of adverse experiences. RESULTS Approximately 80% of patients received prophylactic corticosteroids. Single-dose oral granisetron (2 mg) and I.V. ondansetron (32 mg) resulted in equivalent levels of total emetic control during the first 48 hours after chemotherapy. The proportion of nausea- and emesis-free patients at 24 and 48 hours were also approximately equivalent. The most commonly reported adverse experiences were headache, asthenia, and constipation. More patients who received ondonsetron than granisetron reported dizziness (9.6% v 5.4%, respectively; P = .011) and abnormal vision (4.2% v 0.6%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION A single oral dose of granisetron (2 mg) resulted in equivalent levels of antiemetic protection as I.V. ondansetron (32 mg). Both agents were well tolerated, although more dizziness and abnormal vision were reported with ondansetron. Because the two antiemetic regimens exhibited equivalent efficacies, additional factors such as convenience and cost of therapy should be considered.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in the era of NK-1 receptor antagonists. Perception versus reality

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20636-e20636
Author(s):  
M. Majem ◽  
E. Moreno ◽  
J. Perez ◽  
N. Calvo ◽  
A. Feliu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Acute Nausea ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Nausea And Emesis ◽  
Delayed Cinv ◽  
Antiemetic Medication

e20636 Background: Physicians and nurses had underestimated the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after both high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) (Grumberg, Cancer 2004;100:2261–8; Erazo Valle, Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:2403–10). We have assessed if physicians and nurses’ perception of CNIV in their own practices after the introduction of Aprepitant was closer to reality. Methods: A prospective, observational unicenter study of adult patients receiving their first chemotherapy cycle was performed. Medical oncologists and oncology nurses also estimated the incidence of acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2–5) CINV after first administration of HEC and MEC. Eligible patients completed a 6-day diary including emetic episodes, nausea assessment, and antiemetic medication use. Observed incidence rates of acute and delayed CINV were compared with physician/nurse predictions. Results: Twenty-nine physicians and nurses and 95 patients (86.3% receiving HEC and 13.7%MEC) were recruited. Acute nausea and emesis were observed in 14.3% and 2.4% respectively of HEC patients receiving Aprepitant, and delayed nausea and emesis were observed in 14.3% and 7.1% of these patients, respectively. Physicians and nurses accurately predicted the incidence of acute and delayed CINV after HEC patients receiving Aprepitant. Acute nausea and emesis were observed in 22.2% and 0% respectively of MEC patients and delayed nausea and emesis in 33.3% and 22.2% of MEC patients, respectively. All physicians and nurses underestimated the incidence of acute nausea and delayed nausea and emesis after MEC by 15, 28 and 18 percentage points, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of aprepitant in the prevention of CINV after HEC allows a better control of CINV that is perceived accurately by physicians and nurses. By contrary, physicians and nurses continue markedly underestimating the incidence of CINV after MEC. CINV still remain important targets for improved therapeutic intervention and physicians and nurses must be aware about the real incidence of CNIV. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document