Effect of aprepitant on antiemetic protection in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy plus high-dose cisplatin: Analysis of combined data from 2 phase III randomized clinical trials

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (14_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8137-8137 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Gralla ◽  
D. G. Warr ◽  
A. D. Carides ◽  
J. K. Evans ◽  
K. J. Horgan
1998 ◽  
Vol 84 (1_suppl1) ◽  
pp. S3-S11
Author(s):  
Fausto Roila

At the beginning of the 80's the Italian Group for Clinical Research (G.O.I.R.C.) identified chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as one of the most distressing adverse events, and decided to plan and execute clinical trials on antiemetics in order to reduce this negative impact on patients. Therefore, some consecutive double-blind randomized trials were conducted on cisplatin-treated patients. The first was a dose-finding study on four different high-doses of domperidone, followed by a study comparing two different high-doses of metoclopramide, and a study comparing the addition of a corticosteroid to high-dose metoclopramide with respect to metoclopramide alone. Finally, a study demonstrating that a combination of a higher dose of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x2) plus dexamethasone and diphenhydramine was significantly superior with respect to a lower dose of metoclopramide (1 mg/kg x 4) combined with methylprednisolone was carried out. With the introduction of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists the interest for antiemetic therapy increased and other Italian gynecological and medical oncology centres became involved in the antiemetic research. The Italian Group for Antiemetic Research was formed in 90's and its first study demonstrated the superiority of a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone with respect to the standard three drug combination of high doses of metoclopramide in the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis. In the following years, the Group contributed to the identification of the best antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and for delayed emesis induced by cisplatin. Also a drug utilization review on antiemetics in clinical practice has recently been carried out. Today, the interest of the Group is concentrated in studying the optimal antiemetic prophylaxis for delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The rules always followed by the Italian Group for Antiemetic Research are: - complete independence of judgement on the efficacy and the tolerability of antiemetic drugs from the pharmaceutical companies; - priority of ethical problems in designing clinical trials; - strict adherence to the methodological problems of antiemetic research and - complete autonomy concerning the study planned, the data computerization and the data elaboration. In the last twelve years approximately 70 Italian centres have enrolled their patients into the studies of the Italian Group for Antiemetic Research.


Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 3489-3489
Author(s):  
Brian Van Ness ◽  
John Crowley ◽  
Emily Blood ◽  
Erik Rasmussen ◽  
Christine Ramos ◽  
...  

Abstract Although multiple myeloma is clinically defined as the accumulation of clonal, malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow, the disease shows significant heterogeneity with regard to progression and therapeutic response. It is likely that germline genetic polymorphisms contribute significantly to an individual’s disease course and response. Bank On A CureTM (BOAC) is a collaborative project initiated with the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) to develop a DNA bank of myeloma patient samples, through international cooperation. As the bank continues to expand, it provides a resource for the development of cooperative partnerships to assess specific clinical trials as well as conglomerate data. In this study, we have combined data from 3 phase III trials: ECOG trial E9486 (VBMCP + cyclophosphamide or interferon); SWOG trial 9321 (VAD induction followed by randomization to PBSC-supported high dose therapy versus standard dose therapy of VBMCP); and the MRC7 trial (comparing conventional chemotherapy [ABCM] with intravenous chemotherapy and high dose melphalan [CVAMP + HDM +PBSCT]). Five single nucleotide polymorphisms were examined based on associations demonstrated in previous individual trials: GSTP1, IL-6, LT-a, TNF-a, and ERCC2 (DNA repair). Patient samples included 412 from E9486, 569 from S9321, and 232 from MRC7 (total=1213). As a combined data set, genotype associations with overall survival did not reach statistical significance, suggesting SNP associations with survival may be therapy specific. One single association that did reach significance in the conglomerate data was TNF-a genotype association with age of disease onset (the high producer variant AA genotype showing a 5 year later age of onset than the AG/GG genotypes, or the overall mean of the trial, age 61 vs 56; p=.03). This is interesting in light of reports suggesting high production of TNF-a is found in myeloma patients and may actually promote myeloma. Yet, high production may also delay disease onset due to its role in other immunologic processes. Additional parameters including genotype associations with bone disease, CR rates, toxicities, and stage are being evaluated and will be presented. Preliminary results show that when SNPs from S9321 were included in a linear regression model, genotype risk groups could be identified; showing 73% correct association with ISS stage 1, and 75% correct association with ISS stage 3. This model, however, was not validated in the E9486 trial, with less than 50% genotype predictive ISS stage association. A number of highly significant ethnic genotype associations were noted, and are presented in a separate abstract. Given the likely complex interactions of multiple genetic variations, collective genotype comparisons may be required from larger pooled data sets BOAC is assembling to increase significant associations.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1975-1975
Author(s):  
Suzanne Lentzsch ◽  
Nicolas Villanueva ◽  
James Nguyen ◽  
Heather Landau ◽  
Nikoletta Lendvai ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: High-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT remains the standard of care for patients aged ≤75 years with NDMM. The ability of novel agents, such as lenalidomide and bortezomib, to produce treatment response rates comparable to those seen with ASCT has raised questions about the necessity for upfront ASCT in transplant-eligible NDMM patients. This analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous Ld versus Ld+ASCT in patients with NDMM. Methods: Data were pooled from two randomized clinical trials (NCT01731886 and NCT00807599) that compared Ld alone versus Ld+ASCT in NDMM patients aged ≤75 years. Patients received four 28-day cycles of Ld (lenalidomide 25mg daily on days 1-21; dexamethasone 40mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) followed by stem-cell mobilization and collection, and either a) Arm A: continuous Ld (an additional 4 cycles +/- lenalidomide maintenance in NCT01731886, or continuous lenalidomide at the last tolerated dose until disease progression plus dexamethasone 20mg for 1 year following treatment initiation in NCT00807599); or b) Arm B: ASCT conditioned with high-dose melphalan, and followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy. In both trials, patients were withdrawn if they developed progressive disease (PD) at any time, or had stable disease (SD) after cycle 4 of Ld induction. We evaluated overall response rate (ORR; defined as a partial response or better), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse event (AE) incidence rates, focusing on those randomized patients who responded to 4 cycles of Ld induction. Results: Sixty patients were enrolled into NCT01731886, and 63 into NCT00807599. The analysis included a total of 85 patients who had been randomized and achieved a response to 4 cycles of Ld induction: 41 in Arm A, and 44 in Arm B. Mean ages in Arm A versus Arm B were 61.8 versus 61.7 years; median (range) follow-up times were 3.97 (0.27-6.19) versus 3.71 (0.16-5.66) years. Baseline cytogenetic risk profiles were similar overall, although Arm A contained a higher percentage of intermediate-risk patients (17.1% versus 11.4%). More than half of all patients included in the analysis had International Staging System stage 1 disease: 63.4% of patients in Arm A, and 47.7% of those in Arm B. Median PFS was similar with the two treatment approaches: 4.3 versus 4.4 years (Figure 1; p = 0.9107). OS also did not differ significantly between the two arms (Figure 2). As expected, both treatment regimens were well tolerated. Clinically significant grade 3 and 4 AEs occurring outside of the transplant period included the following: anemia (17.1% Arm A versus 15.9% Arm B); neutropenia (36.6% versus 38.6%); thrombocytopenia (17.1% versus 18.4%); infectious complications (14.6% versus 27.3%); thromboembolic events (7.3% versus 6.8%); and secondary malignancies (7.3% versus 4.5%). Conclusions: The findings of this pooled analysis suggest that, in transplant-eligible patients responsive to Ld induction, continuous Ld results in similar PFS and OS to Ld+ASCT. Larger phase III trials addressing this question are awaited. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Lentzsch: Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Axiom: Honoraria. Landau:Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Lesokhin:Efranat: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Aduro: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kewalramani:Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Getchell v Doon East Community Hospital, Alfred Wakeman et al.: Consultancy. Comenzo:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Takeda Millennium: Research Funding; Takeda Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Landgren:Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; International Myeloma Foundation: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; BMJ Publishing: Consultancy; BMJ Publishing: Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Hassoun:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.


1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
J. Catteau ◽  
C. Cyran ◽  
R. Bordet ◽  
C.E. Thomas ◽  
B.A. Dupuis

SummaryThe goal of this prospective investigation was to study the course and the quality of patient-psychiatrist relationships during phase II / phase III clinical trials of antidepressant medication prescribed for depressive disorders. All patients who participated in the clinical trials (and subsequently in this survey) signed written informed consent statements and were subject to random double blind treatment assignment. Retrospective analysis of 118 investigations was carried out, and the patients involved were questioned concerning their experiences and impressions during and after the study. Data show that the outcome of clinical trials of antidepressant drugs are not a function of pre-existing good patient-psychiatrist relationships. On the other hand, no effects on the patient-psychiatrist relationship were found as a result of the experimental procedure, and it can be concluded that no detrimental effects on future patient-psychiatrist relationships were incurred.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.


Stroke ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 1622-1623 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Howard ◽  
Christopher S. Coffey ◽  
Gary R. Cutter

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (18) ◽  
pp. 3002-3007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shauna L. Hillman ◽  
Sumithra J. Mandrekar ◽  
Brian Bot ◽  
Ronald P. DeMatteo ◽  
Edith A. Perez ◽  
...  

Purpose In March 1998, Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) version 2.0 introduced the collection of attribution of adverse events (AEs) to study drug. We investigate whether attribution adds value to the interpretation of AE data. Patients and Methods Patients in the placebo arm of two phase III trials—North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial 97-24-51 (carboxyamino-triazole v placebo in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer) and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z9001 (imatinib mesylate v placebo after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors)—were studied. Attribution was categorized as unrelated (not related or unlikely) and related (possible, probable, or definite). Results In total, 398 patients (84 from Trial 97-24-51 and 314 from Trial Z9001) and 7,736 AEs were included; 47% and 50% of the placebo-arm AEs, respectively, were reported as related. When the same AE was reported in the same patient on multiple visits, the attribution category changed at least once 36% and 31% of the time. AE type and sex (Trial Z9001) and AE type and performance status (Trial 97-24-51) were associated with a higher likelihood of AEs being deemed related. Conclusion Nearly 50% of AEs were reported as attributed to study drug on the placebo arm of two randomized clinical trials. These data provide strong evidence that AE attribution is difficult to determine, unreliable, and of questionable value in interpreting AE data in randomized clinical trials.


2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (9) ◽  
pp. 1397-1410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Hendeles ◽  
Christine A Sorkness

Objective: To evaluate data on anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) therapy for asthma. Data Sources: Information was selected from PubMed from 1989 to May 2007 using the search term omalizumab and included randomized, controlled trials. These studies evaluated asthma treatment with omalizumab and focused on its efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness in this population. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All randomized clinical trials were reviewed (23 were identified and 19 were included; 3 were not relevant and 1 contained duplicative data). Other articles using the search words anti-IgE therapy and cost-effectiveness were evaluated; relevant information was extracted. Data Synthesis: IgE-dependent mechanisms play an important role in the development and maintenance of airway inflammation in asthma. Omalizumab is a subcutaneously administered monoclonal anti-IgE antibody that reduces unbound IgE concentrations and promotes down-regulation of IgE receptors. Results from clinical trials in adults, adolescents, and children with poorly controlled IgE-mediated asthma have shown that omalizumab improves symptom control and allows patients to be managed with lower doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It has been well tolerated in clinical trials lasting as long as 52 weeks, but injection-site reactions are common (45% in omalizumab group vs 43% in placebo group) and anaphylaxis has occurred in 0.2% of patients. A consensus expert panel has recommended that omalizumab should be considered for patients 12 years of age or older with allergic asthma who are inadequately controlled on guideline-based therapy and require maintenance therapy with systemic corticosteroids or high-dose ICSs, or who have poor adherence to ICS therapy. Conclusions: Anti-IgE therapy provides an effective and generally safe approach to the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated asthma who are not adequately controlled by conventional guideline-based medications. However, the potential benefit must be weighed against the cost and inconvenience of this new therapy.


2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (22) ◽  
pp. 3791-3796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori E. Dodd ◽  
Edward L. Korn ◽  
Boris Freidlin ◽  
C. Carl Jaffe ◽  
Lawrence V. Rubinstein ◽  
...  

Progression-free survival is an important end point in advanced disease settings. Blinded independent central review (BICR) of progression in randomized clinical trials has been advocated to control bias that might result from errors in progression assessments. However, although BICR lessens some potential biases, it does not remove all biases from evaluations of treatment effectiveness. In fact, as typically conducted, BICRs may introduce bias because of informative censoring, which results from having to censor unconfirmed locally determined progressions. In this article, we discuss the rationale for BICR and different ways of implementing independent review. We discuss the limitations of these approaches and review published trials that report implementing BICR. We demonstrate the existence of informative censoring using data from a randomized phase II trial. We conclude that double-blinded trials with consistent application of measurement criteria are the best means of ensuring unbiased trial results. When such designs are not practical, BICR is not recommended as a general strategy for reducing bias. However, BICR may be useful as an auditing tool to assess the reliability of marginally positive results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document