The Oral Neurokinin-1 Antagonist Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Patients Receiving High-Dose Cisplatin—The Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (22) ◽  
pp. 4112-4119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul J. Hesketh ◽  
Steven M. Grunberg ◽  
Richard J. Gralla ◽  
David G. Warr ◽  
Fausto Roila ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Rescue Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo

Purpose: In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients and Methods: Patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. Results: The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P < .001 for all three comparisons). Conclusion: Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Addition of the Oral NK1 Antagonist Aprepitant to Standard Antiemetics Provides Protection Against Nausea and Vomiting During Multiple Cycles of Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (22) ◽  
pp. 4105-4111 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. de Wit ◽  
J. Herrstedt ◽  
B. Rapoport ◽  
A.D. Carides ◽  
G. Carides ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Rescue Therapy ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cumulative Probability ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Data ◽  
Standard Therapy Group ◽  
Nk1 Antagonist ◽  
Multiple Cycles

Purpose: This analysis evaluated whether the antiemetic efficacy of the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant (EMEND™, Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ) plus standard antiemetics could be sustained for up to six cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 were blindly assigned to receive one of the following three regimens: (1) aprepitant 375 mg 1 hour before cisplatin on day 1 and aprepitant 250 mg on days 2 to 5 (n = 35); (2) aprepitant 125 mg before cisplatin and aprepitant 80 mg on days 2 to 5 (n = 81); or (3) placebo before cisplatin on days 2 to 5 (n = 86). All groups received ondansetron 32 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before cisplatin, and dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2 to 5. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) over 5 days following cisplatin in up to six cycles. A cumulative probability analysis using a model for transitional probabilities was used to analyze the data. The aprepitant 375/250-mg regimen was discontinued early in light of new pharmacokinetic data. Results: In the first cycle, 64% of patients in the aprepitant group and 49% in the standard therapy group had a complete response. Thereafter, complete response rates for the aprepitant group were still 59% by cycle 6, but decreased to 34% by cycle 6 for the standard therapy group. Reasons for discontinuation were similar across treatment groups. Conclusion: Compared with patients who received standard therapy, those who received only the aprepitant regimen had better and more sustained protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over multiple cycles.

Olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC): Alliance A221301, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 176-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolph M. Navari ◽  
Rui Qin ◽  
Kathryn Jean Ruddy ◽  
Heshan Liu ◽  
Steven Francis Powell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Secondary Endpoint ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3

176 Background: The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of olanzapine (OLN) for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: A randomized, double-blind, phase III trial was performed in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin, > 70 mg/m2, or cyclophosphamide-anthracycline-based chemotherapy, comparing OLN to placebo in combination with aprepitant (APR), a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3), and dexamethasone (DEX). The OLN regimen was 10 mg of oral OLN, 125 mg APR, a 5-HT3, and oral DEX 12 mg pre-chemotherapy, day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral OLN and 8 mg DEX on days 2-4 post-chemotherapy plus 80 mg APR on days 2, 3 post-chemotherapy. The placebo (PLA) regimen was oral placebo, pre-chemotherapy, day 1, and on days 2-4 post-chemotherapy; the APR, 5-HT3, and DEX pre- and post-chemotherapy were identical to that used in the OLN regimen. Fosaprepitant (150 mg IV), day 1 was allowed for substitution for the oral aprepitant. Palonosetron, ondansetron, or granisetron were the permitted 5-HT3 options. Nausea was measured on a 0-10 visual analogue scale, with 0 being “no nausea at all” and 10 being “nausea as bad as it can be”. No nausea was the primary endpoint and, complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medications) was a secondary endpoint. Results: 401 patients (202 OLN, 199 PLA) were enrolled in the study. The proportion of patients who had no nausea was significantly greater for the OLN regimen compared to the PLA regimen for the acute period (24h post-chemotherapy) (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.0006), for the delayed period ( 24-120 h post-chemotherapy) (43% vs. 26%, p < 0.0006), and for the overall period (0-120 h) (39% vs. 22%, p < 0.0006). Complete response was significantly improved for the OLN patients compared to PLA patients for the acute (85% vs. 65%, p < 0.0001), the delayed (67% vs. 53%, p < 0.0078), and the overall periods (64% vs. 41%, p < 0.0001). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Conclusions: No nausea, the primary endpoint, and complete response, a secondary endpoint, were significantly improved with OLN, compared to PLA. Clinical trial information: NCT02116530.

The equivalency study of novel current standard 3-drugs combination regimen (ondansetron, dexamethasone and olanzapine) to netupitant containing regimen for preventing high dose cisplatin induce nausea and vomiting treatment, double blind placebo control trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12100-12100
Author(s):  
Chalermchai Lertanansit ◽  
Wasamol Mahaparn ◽  
Virote Sriuranpong ◽  
Piyada Sitthideatphaiboon ◽  
Nattaya Sintawichai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Response ◽  
Placebo Control Trial ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
P Value ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo

12100 Background: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is vital in cancer treatment. Here, we compared the efficacy of netupitant-containing regimen; composed of NEPA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine (NEPAs), which is recommended for preventing CINV from high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to standard 3-drugs; ondansetron, dexamethasone, olanzapine for preventing CINV from high-dose cisplatin (≥75 mg/m2). Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-control trial randomly assigned untreated patients who were received high-dose cisplatin in a 1:1 ratio to either NEPAs or standard 3-drugs combination regimen. Dose of dexamethasone in NEPAs regimen was modified after preplanned interim safety analysis to increase from 4 to 8 mg per day on days 2-4. The stratification factors were concurrent treatment with radiation and sex. The primary endpoint was the overall complete response (CR) rate defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue antiemetic drugs. The protocol allowed crossover to NEPAs for those who received standard 3-drugs and did not reach CR in the first cycle. We collected outcome in the first 2-cycle of treatment. Results: Between January 2019 and December 2020, hundred patients were randomly assigned to either NEPAs (n = 51) or in-house standard 3-drugs (n = 49). Demographic characteristics were well-balanced in both arms. Total events in both arms were 101 events for NEPAs and 78 events for standard 3-drug. Overall CR rate were 70% and 69% in NEPAs and standard 3-drugs, ( p-value 0.87) respectively. According to emesis phase, CR in acute (0- 24 hrs.) and delay phase (24-120 hrs.) were not different in both arms; 91% vs. 89% and 72% vs. 71% in NEPAs and standard 3-drugs respectively. However, mean nausea VAS score was significantly lower in NEPAs (1.63 vs. 2.02, p-value = 0.001). The ad hoc subgroup analysis shown similar efficacy between before and after protocol amendment of NEPAs regimen in term of delay emesis CR rate; 70.9% vs. 73.9% ( p-value 0.73). Conclusions: The NEPA-containing regimen did not show superiority compare to standard 3-drug in terms of complete response rate for CINV prevention among patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. Furthermore, the dexamethasone dosage of 4 vs. 8 mg per day might not affect the efficacy of delay emesis of the NEPAs regimen. Clinical trial information: TCTR20190508001. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Oral cannabinoid-rich THC/CBD cannabis extract for secondary prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a study protocol for a pilot and definitive randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial (CannabisCINV)

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e020745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antony J Mersiades ◽  
Annette Tognela ◽  
Paul S Haber ◽  
Martin Stockler ◽  
Nicholas Lintzeris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Drug Regimen ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Antiemetic Effect ◽  
System Resource

IntroductionChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important issue for patients receiving chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy. Trials using delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-rich (THC) products demonstrate limited antiemetic effect, significant adverse events and flawed study design. Trials using cannabidiol-rich (CBD) products demonstrate improved efficacy and psychological adverse event profile. No definitive trials have been conducted to support the use of cannabinoids for this indication, nor has the potential economic impact of incorporating such regimens into the Australian healthcare system been established. CannabisCINV aims to assess the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adding TN-TC11M, an oral THC/CBD extract to guideline-consistent antiemetics in the secondary prevention of CINV.Methods and analysisThe current multicentre, 1:1 randomised cross-over, placebo-controlled pilot study will recruit 80 adult patients with any malignancy, experiencing CINV during moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetics. Patients receive oral TN-TC11M (THC 2.5mg/CBD 2.5 mg) capsules or placebo capsules three times a day on day −1 to day 5 of cycle A of chemotherapy, followed by the alternative drug regimen during cycle B of chemotherapy and the preferred drug regimen during cycle C. The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects attaining a complete response to CINV. Secondary and tertiary endpoints include regimen tolerability, impact on quality of life and health system resource use. The primary assessment tool is patient diaries, which are filled from day −1 to day 5. A subsequent randomised placebo-controlled parallel phase III trial will recruit a further 250 patients.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by ethics review committees for all participating sites. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences.Drug supplyTilray.Protocol version2.0, 9 June 2017.Trial registration numberANZCTR12616001036404; Pre-results.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluating olanzapine 5 mg combined with standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: J-FORCE Study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11503-11503
Author(s):  
Hironobu Hashimoto ◽  
Masakazu Abe ◽  
Masahiko Nakao ◽  
Hideaki Mizutani ◽  
Yasuhiko Sakata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Response ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Antiemetic Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Phase Ii Studies ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
Delayed Phase

11503 Background: Olanzapine (OLZ) 10 mg added to standard antiemetic therapy including aprepitant (APR), palonosetron (PALO), and dexamethasone (DEX) has been recommended for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Guidelines suggest that a dose of 5 mg should be taken into consideration in patients at risk of sedation. OLZ 5 mg showed an equivalent activity and favorable toxicity to somnolence in several phase II studies. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial to evaluate OLZ 5 mg in addition to standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods: Patients receiving cisplatin (≥ 50 mg/m2) were randomly assigned to either OLZ 5 mg or placebo on days 1–4, combined with APR, PALO and DEX. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting and no rescue medications in the delayed phase (24–120 h). A total of 690 patients were required to detect a 10% increase in CR from 65% in the placebo to 75% in the OLZ, with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% and a power of 80%. Results: A total of 710 patients were enrolled (OLZ 356 and placebo 354). CR in the delayed phase was 79.1% (95% CI: 74.9–83.3) in the OLZ 5 mg and 65.8% (95% CI: 60.9–70.8) in the placebo ( p < 0.001). Other efficacy results are summarized in Table. The most common treatment-related adverse events was somnolence (43.1% for OLZ vs. 33.0% for placebo). Conclusions: OLZ 5 mg combined with APR, PALO and DEX can be considered a new standard antiemetic therapy in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: UMIN000024676. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document