Efficacy and safety of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in non–anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based moderately emetogenic therapy (MEC).

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 209-209
Author(s):  
Daniel Powers ◽  
Paul Joseph Hesketh ◽  
Lee Steven Schwartzberg ◽  
Manuel R. Modiano ◽  
Sujata Arora ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Active Control ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Oral Dexamethasone ◽  
Low Incidence ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

209 Background: Rolapitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, showed efficacy in CINV prevention in patients (pts) receiving MEC (anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) and other regimens) in a global phase 3 trial. Recent anti-emetic guidelines consider AC based regimens to be highly emetogenic. In this post hoc analysis, the efficacy and safety of rolapitant was assessed in Cycle 1 in pts receiving non-AC MEC, and in the subset of pts receiving carboplatin-based MEC. Methods: In a double-blind, active-controlled study, pts were randomized to oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo 1–2 hours before MEC. All pts received granisetron 2 mg oral on days 1-3 and oral dexamethasone 20 mg on day 1. Complete response (CR = no emesis + no use of rescue medication), no emesis, and no nausea were assessed in overall (0-120 h), acute (0-24 h), and delayed ( > 24-120 h) phases. Results: CR was significantly (P < 0.01) higher with rolapitant than active control in overall and delayed phases in the carboplatin subset and in all 3 phases in the non-AC population (Table). No emesis rates were significantly (p < 0.05) higher with rolapitant in the carboplatin subset in the overall phase. No nausea rates were significantly (P < 0.05) higher with rolapitant in the overall and delayed phases in carboplatin-based MEC. Incidences of treatment-related AEs in Cycle 1 with rolapitant vs. active control were 11.3% vs. 6.7% in the carboplatin-based subset. Most common AEs with rolapitant and active control were constipation, fatigue, and headache. Conclusions: Rolapitant was superior to active control in preventing CINV in pts receiving non-AC MEC, including in the subgroup receiving carboplatin. Rolapitant was well tolerated with low incidence of AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT01500226. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients (pts) receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 208-208
Author(s):  
Daniel Powers ◽  
Ian D. Schnadig ◽  
Manuel R. Modiano ◽  
Sujata Arora ◽  
Lee Steven Schwartzberg
Keyword(s):  
Active Control ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
And Control ◽  
Significant Nausea ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

208 Background: Rolapitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, demonstrated efficacy in the prevention of CINV in pts receiving moderately- or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC; HEC). In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated safety and efficacy outcomes in pts receiving AC-based therapy, now considered HEC. Methods: This double-blind, active-controlled study randomized pts to oral rolapitant 180 mg plus granisetron 2 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg or granisetron/dexamethasone alone (active control). Complete response (CR = no emesis and no use of rescue medication), no emesis, no significant nausea, and time to emesis or rescue medication during overall, acute, and delayed phases and treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) are presented. Results: 703 pts received AC-based therapy, of which 97% had breast cancer. CR was significantly higher for rolapitant vs. active control for delayed and overall phases in pts receiving AC-based therapy (Table). Time to first emesis or use of rescue medication was significantly longer with rolapitant vs. active control (between-group comparison, p = 0.032); median was not reached in either treatment arm. A significantly greater proportion of pts on rolapitant (73.0%) vs. active control (60.2%) had no emesis during the overall phase (p < 0.001). Rates of no significant nausea were similar for rolapitant (63.7%) and active control (62.4%) in the overall phase (p = 0.728). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) during Cycle 1 occurred in 8.7% and 8.8% of pts on rolapitant vs. active control. Most frequent TRAEs were constipation (2.9% vs. 2.7%), fatigue (2.3% vs. 2.2%), and headache (2.3% vs. 3.3%). Conclusions: Rolapitant was superior to active control in preventing CINV during delayed and overall phases after AC-based chemotherapy. The safety profiles of the rolapitant and control arms were similar. These results are consistent with those of the overall pt population in this study. Clinical trial information: NCT01500226. [Table: see text]

Rolapitant for the prevention of nausea in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 224-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolph M. Navari ◽  
Cindy K Nagy ◽  
Sujata Arora ◽  
Daniel Powers ◽  
Rebecca Anne Clark-Snow
Keyword(s):  
Active Control ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Neurokinin 1 ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Significant Nausea ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

224 Background: Nausea control remains an unmet need for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC, HEC). The objective of this analysis was to determine the effect of the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist rolapitant (VARUBI) on the prevention of nausea in patients receiving either MEC or HEC. Methods: Post hoc analyses of nausea from three randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials were performed for carboplatin-based MEC (n = 401), non-carboplatin-based MEC (n = 228), total MEC (n = 629), anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy (n = 703), and cisplatin-based HEC (n = 1070). Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo ~1–2 h before chemotherapy. All patients received active control: granisetron 2 mg oral or 10 mcg/kg IV and oral dexamethasone 20 mg. Granisetron was continued on days 2 and 3 for patients receiving MEC or AC-based therapy and dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily on days 2–4 for patients receiving HEC. Patients self-assessed nausea on days 1–6 using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Percentage of patients with no nausea (NN; maximum VAS < 5 mm) or no significant nausea (NSN; maximum VAS < 25 mm) was determined for overall, delayed, and acute phases of CINV in cycle 1. Results: Rates of NN in the carboplatin-based MEC and total MEC subgroups were significantly higher (P < 0.05) with rolapitant than active control in the delayed and overall phases. In the cisplatin-based HEC subgroup, rates of NN and NSN were significantly higher (P < 0.05) with rolapitant than active control in the delayed, acute, and overall phases. Conclusions: Rolapitant prevents nausea during all CINV phases in patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC, and during the delayed and overall phases in patients receiving carboplatin-based MEC. Clinical trial information: NCT01500226, NCT01499849, NCT01500213.

scholarly journals 111 Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study (P301) Assessing Efficacy and Safety of Extended-Release Viloxazine in Children with ADHD

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azmi Nasser ◽  
Joseph T. Hull ◽  
Fatima A. Chowdhry ◽  
Toyin Adewole ◽  
Tesfaye Liranso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Global Impression ◽  
Extended Release ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
T Score ◽  
Total Average

Abstract:Study Objective:SPN-812 (extended-release viloxazine) is a structurally distinct, bicyclic, Serotonin Norepinephrine Modulating Agent (SNMA) in development as a treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. This Phase 3, randomized, double-blind study (P301) evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily SPN-812 at doses of 100 and 200 mg compared to placebo in children ages 6-11yrs with ADHD.Method:Inclusion criteria required subjects have a confirmed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) ADHD diagnosis, ADHD-Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score ≥28, a Clinical Global Impression-Severity score ≥4, and be free of ADHD medication ≥1 week before randomization. This investigation was conducted at 34 study sites in the United States. Subjects (N=477) were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo:100 mg SPN-812:200 mg SPN-812. The 6-week treatment period included up to 1 week of titration and 5 weeks of maintenance (intent-to-treat population: N=460; placebo=155, 100 mg=147, 200 mg=158). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) at end of study (EOS) in ADHD-RS-5 total score. Key secondary endpoints included Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scores at EOS, and CFB at EOS in Conners 3-Parent Short Form (Conners 3-PS) Composite T-score and in Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Version (WFIRS-P) total average score. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, physical exams, electrocardiograms, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale.Results:Compared to placebo, a significantly greater improvement in ADHD-RS-5 total score was observed in the 100 mg and 200 mg SPN-812 treatment groups beginning at week 1 (p=0.0004, p=0.0244; respectively) through EOS (p=0.0004, p<0.0001; respectively). Significant improvement at EOS for both 100 mg and 200 mg SPN-812 compared to placebo was also observed in CGI-I score (p=0.0020, p<0.0001; respectively), Connors 3-PS Composite T-score (p=0.0003, p=0.0002; respectively), and in WFIRS-P total average score (p=0.0019, p=0.0002, respectively). The most common (≥5%) treatment-related AEs reported were somnolence, decreased appetite, and headache.Conclusions:In this study, SPN-812 at 100 mg and 200 mg doses met the primary and secondary objectives with statistical significance. AE-related dropouts were ≤5%, indicating SPN-812 treatment was well tolerated.This study is an encore of a poster presentation at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP).Funding Acknowledgements:This research was funded by Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rockville, MD.

scholarly journals 112 A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study (P302): Efficacy and Safety of Extended-Release Viloxazine in Adolescents with ADHD

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azmi Nasser ◽  
Joseph T. Hull ◽  
Fatima A. Chowdhry ◽  
Toyin Adewole ◽  
Tesfaye Liranso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Global Impression ◽  
Extended Release ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
T Score ◽  
Total Average

Abstract:Study Objective:SPN-812 (extended-release viloxazine) is a structurally distinct, bicyclic, Serotonin Norepinephrine Modulating Agent (SNMA) in development as a treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. This Phase 3, randomized, double-blind study (P302) evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily SPN-812 at doses of 200 and 400 mg compared to placebo in adolescents ages 12-17yrs with ADHD.Method:Inclusion criteria required subjects have a confirmed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) ADHD diagnosis, ADHD-Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score ≥28, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score ≥4, and be free of ADHD medication ≥1 week before randomization. This investigation was conducted at 34 study sites in the United States. Subjects (N=310) were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo:200 mg SPN-812:400 mg SPN-812. The treatment period included up to 1 week of titration and 5 weeks of maintenance (intent-to-treat population: N=301; placebo=104, 200 mg=94, 400 mg=103). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) at end of study (EOS) in ADHD-RS-5 total score. Key secondary endpoints included Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score at EOS, and CFB at EOS in Conners 3-Parent Short Form (Conners 3-PS) Composite T-score and Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Form (WFIRS-P) total average score. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, physical exams, electrocardiograms, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale.Results:Compared to placebo, a significantly greater improvement in ADHD-RS-5 total score was observed in the 200 mg and 400 mg SPN-812 treatment group at EOS (p=0.0232, p=0.0091; respectively). Significant improvement in CGI-I score at EOS for both 200 mg and 400 mg SPN-812 compared to placebo was also observed (p=0.0042, p=0.0003; respectively). No significant change was observed at either dose compared to placebo in the Conners 3-PS Composite T-score (p=0.6854, p=0.0518; respectively), or the WFIRS-P total average score (p=0.2062, p=0.0519; respectively). The most common (≥5%) treatment-related AEs were somnolence, decreased appetite, fatigue, headache, and nausea.Conclusions:In this study, SPN-812 met the primary objective for both the 200 and 400 mg doses, and a key secondary objective (CGI-I) for both the 200 and 400 mg doses. AE-related dropouts were ≤5%, indicating SPN-812 treatment was well tolerated.This study is an encore of a poster presentation at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP).Funding Acknowledgements:This research was funded by Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rockville, MD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document