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.

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.

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.

Persistence of efficacy of three antiemetic regimens and prognostic factors in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Italian Group for Antiemetic Research.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 2417-2426 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Diary Card ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Chemotherapy Administration ◽  
Previous Cycle

PURPOSE To evaluate antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of granisetron, dexamethasone, and their combination over repeated courses of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and the influence of the prognostic factors on occurrence of nausea and vomiting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred twenty-eight consecutive cancer patients were entered onto a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study to compare granisetron 3 mg intravenously, dexamethasone 8 mg intravenously, and 4 mg orally every 6 hours for four doses, or the combination of dexamethasone plus granisetron at the same doses, administered for three consecutive cycles. Occurrence of nausea, retching, and vomiting was monitored for 24 hours after chemotherapy administration by a diary card. RESULTS Three hundred ninety-eight patients were assessable for clinical efficacy at the first cycle, 354 were assessable at the second cycle, and 322 were assessable at the third cycle of chemotherapy. Dexamethasone plus granisetron induced significantly greater complete protection from vomiting, nausea, and both nausea and vomiting than granisetron alone in all three cycles. With respect to dexamethasone alone, complete protection from vomiting was significantly greater at the first and second cycle, and complete protection from nausea and from both nausea and vomiting only at the first cycle. Complete protection did not differ significantly among the three cycles in patients receiving dexamethasone plus granisetron or dexamethasone alone, whereas it decreased significantly, at least for vomiting, in patients receiving granisetron alone. Protection obtained in the previous cycle of chemotherapy was the most important prognostic factor in the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION The combination of dexamethasone plus granisetron offers the best antiemetic protection because of its greater efficacy with respect to the other two regimens at first cycle, and because its activity is maintained in the subsequent cycles of chemotherapy.

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]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document