scholarly journals Single-dose netupitant/palonosetron versus 3-day aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pooled analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolph M Navari ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
Erminio Bonizzoni ◽  
Rebecca Clark-Snow ◽  
Silvia Olivari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Efficacy Data ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Neurokinin 1 ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
Significant Nausea

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h) and overall (0–120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p < 0.05) and 78.4 versus 75.0% during the acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. Conclusion: Oral NEPA administered on day 1 was more effective than a 3-day APR regimen in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin.

Efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with gastrointestinal and colorectal cancers.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 222-222
Author(s):  
Rudolph M. Navari ◽  
Karin Jordan ◽  
Bernardo Leon Rapoport ◽  
Ian D. Schnadig ◽  
Martin Chasen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Active Control ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Colorectal Cancers ◽  
Dexamethasone Therapy ◽  
Neurokinin 1 ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
Significant Nausea

222 Background: Rolapitant (VARUBI) is a selective, long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA) for the prevention of CINV. Rolapitant effectively prevented CINV in phase 3 trials of patients (pts) receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC, MEC). While MEC and HEC regimens are commonly used to treat pts with gastrointestinal and colorectal cancers (GI/CRC), very few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of a neurokinin-1 RA regimen in these pts. We assessed the incidence of CINV and efficacy of rolapitant in a subset of pts with GI/CRC. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of 3 similarly-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Pts with cancer of the esophagus, stomach, colon/rectum, or anus received a single oral dose of 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo prior to HEC or MEC. All pts received a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) RA and dexamethasone (active control). The HEC studies included cisplatin, and the MEC study carboplatin, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, epirubicin, and doxorubicin. Endpoints included complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication), no emesis, no nausea (maximum visual analogue scale [VAS] < 5 mm), no significant nausea (maximum VAS < 25mm) and complete protection (CP; no emesis, no use of rescue medication, and no significant nausea) in the overall (0-120 h), acute (≤ 24 h), and delayed (> 24-120 h) phases. Results: Out of 188 GI/CRC pts, 101 pts received rolapitant and 87 received active control. Pts treated with rolapitant had significantly higher rates of CR, no nausea, no emesis, and CP in the overall phase (P < 0.05). Rolapitant was well-tolerated and overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Addition of rolapitant to 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone therapy significantly improved CR, no nausea, no emesis, and CP in pts with GI/CRC receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01500226, NCT01499849, NCT01500213. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of a 1-day 3-drug antiemetic regimen for prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9111-9111 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Grunberg ◽  
M. Dugan ◽  
H. B. Muss ◽  
M. Wood ◽  
S. Burdette-Radoux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Regimen ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Significant Nausea

9111 Background: Serotonin antagonists, NK-1 antagonists (NKA) and corticosteroids (C) have all shown efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However these agents are commonly used in cumbersome and inconvenient multiple day regimens that can also raise questions of compliance. Palonosetron is a serotonin antagonist with a 40 hour half-life, requiring only one dose for several days of exposure. Single high doses of NKA and C can also be used to simulate drug exposures achieved with a multiple day regimen. We have therefore evaluated a 1-day 3-drug antiemetic regimen for 5 day efficacy against moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with solid tumors receiving their first cycle of cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin were eligible to receive a single pre-treatment dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg IV/dexamethasone 20 mg PO/aprepitant 285 mg PO. Nausea and vomiting were evaluated over the following 5 days with a patient diary including vomiting episodes, use of rescue medication, and daily nausea visual analogue scale (VAS). Patients were urged to begin rescue medication for nausea, vomiting, or related discomfort. Endpoints included Complete Response (CR) (no emesis or rescue), No Emesis (NE), and No Significant Nausea (NSN) (VAS<25) during the acute period (A) (Day 1), the delayed period (D) (Days 2–5), and the overall period (O) (Days 1–5). Adverse events were recorded and tabulated for at least 14 days. Results: 32 of 40 planned patients have been entered on study. 31 women and 1 man with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with median age 52 years (range 34–74) have been treated and all are evaluable. CR for A/D/O was 78%/59%/50%. However NE for A/D/O was 100%/97%/97%, and NSN for A/D/O was 75%/62%/56%. Only 8 patients had more than one day of Significant Nausea. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue and mild headache. Conclusions: A 1-day 3-drug antiemetic regimen is feasible and effective, and should be tested against a multiple day standard antiemetic regimen. [Table: see text]

Rolapitant for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with gynecologic cancer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 223-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernardo Leon Rapoport ◽  
Lee Steven Schwartzberg ◽  
Sujata Arora ◽  
Daniel Powers ◽  
Karin Jordan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Gynecologic Cancer ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Neurokinin 1 ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
And Control

223 Background: Rolapitant, a long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, protected against CINV in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Methods: In 3 double-blind phase 3 studies, patients were randomized to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo before administration of HEC or MEC. All patients received a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. In a post hoc analysis of 3 pooled studies (2 HEC and 1 MEC), we assessed the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in patients with gynecologic (ovarian, uterine, or cervical) cancer. Endpoints included complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication), no emesis, no nausea (maximum visual analogue scale [VAS] < 5 mm), and complete protection (CP; no emesis, no use of rescue medication, and no significant nausea [maximum VAS < 25 mm]) in the overall (0–120 h), acute (≤ 24 h), and delayed (> 24–120 h) phases. Results: Of 201 patients with gynecologic cancer (60% ovarian, 28% uterine, and 12% cervical cancer), 55% received cisplatin-based HEC and 44% received MEC (99% of whom received carboplatin-based therapy). In the overall and delayed phases, improved rates of CR, no emesis, no nausea, and CP were observed with rolapitant compared with control (Table). The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups (45% vs 54%). Conclusions: Rolapitant protected against overall and delayed CINV in patients with gynecologic cancer receiving HEC or MEC. Clinical trial information: NCT01500226, NCT01499849, NCT01500213. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Pooled analysis of combination antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with colorectal cancer treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy of moderate emetic risk

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Toshinobu Hayashi ◽  
Junichi Nishimura ◽  
Taroh Satoh ◽  
Mutsumi Fukunaga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Delayed Cinv ◽  
Neurokinin 1 ◽  
Individual Risk Factors

Abstract Background Among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with oxaliplatin (L-OHP)-based chemotherapy, delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been well controlled. Methods We pooled data from two prospective observational studies in Japan and one phase III clinical trial to assess whether delayed CINV could be controlled with a combination of three antiemetics adding a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist and identified individual risk factors, using an inverse probability treatment-weighted analysis. Results A total of 661 patients were evaluable in this study (median age: 64 years; 391 male, and 270 female). 3 antiemetics controlled delayed nausea (33.18% vs. 42.25%; p = 0.0510) and vomiting (4.15% vs. 16.08%; p < 0.0001) better than with 2 antiemetics. Female and 2 antiemetics were risk factors for both delayed nausea (female—odds ratio [OR]: 1.918; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.292–2.848; p = 0.0012; 2 antiemetics—OR: 1.485; 95% CI: 1.000–2.204; p = 0.0498) and delayed vomiting (female—OR: 2.735; 95% CI: 1.410–5.304; p = 0.0029; 2 antiemetics—OR: 4.551; 95% CI: 2.116–9.785; p = 0.0001). Conclusions Identifying individual risk factors can facilitate personalized treatments for delayed CINV. We recommend a 3-antiemetic combination prophylaxis for CRC patients treated with L-OHP-based chemotherapy, especially for female patients.

Assessing duration of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): A pooled study analysis of NEPA versus aprepitant.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12091-12091
Author(s):  
Rudolph M. Navari ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
Erminio Bonizzoni ◽  
Rebecca Clark-Snow ◽  
Silvia Olivari Tilola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Duration ◽  
Antiemetic Prophylaxis ◽  
Significant Nausea

12091 Background: The historical standard clinical trial endpoint for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been assessment of complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication use) over five days. Recent evaluations focused on the duration of breakthrough CINV suggest that long duration of CINV results in more lost work time and impaired activity and is also a strong predictor for CINV in subsequent cycles. A recent pooled analysis of three similarly designed registration trials of NEPA, a fixed oral combination NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant)/5-HT3RA (palonosetron), showed significantly higher CR rates during the delayed phase (≥24-120h) for NEPA compared to an aprepitant (APR) regimen. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the extent and duration of breakthrough CINV in these pooled studies. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy and antiemetic prophylaxis of either a single dose of NEPA plus dexamethasone (DEX) or a 3-day APR/5-HT3 RA/DEX regimen from three randomized, double-blind pivotal trials were included. Patients without a CR were defined as treatment failures. Extent of CINV was evaluated using proportions of patients with treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea (defined as >25 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale). Over the 5-day overall phase, duration was categorized as 1-2, and ≥3 days. Pearson’s chi-square test was employed to compare risks between treatments for each duration category in each of the previously mentioned endpoints. Results: Among all 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, a significantly greater proportion of APR patients experienced treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea for ≥3 days. Specifically, among patients with treatment failure, 31% (41/134) who received NEPA and 43% (61/143) who received APR experienced breakthrough CINV for ≥3 days. Conclusions: Expanding on data suggesting single-day NEPA is more effective than 3-day APR in preventing delayed CINV, NEPA is also more effective in minimizing the extent and duration of CINV in patients with breakthrough emesis and nausea.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals A Comparison of Fosaprepitant and Ondansetron for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Moderate to High Risk Patients: A Retrospective Database Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiaki Murakami ◽  
Nami Kakuta ◽  
Katsuyoshi Kume ◽  
Yoko Sakai ◽  
Asuka Kasai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nk1 Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Neurokinin 1 ◽  
Type 3

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occur in 30–50% of patients undergoing general anesthesia and in 70–80% of high PONV risk patients. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist, compared to ondansetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in moderate to high PONV risk patients from our previous randomized controlled trials. Patients (171 patients from 4 pooled studies) with the Apfel simplified score ≥ 2 and undergoing general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive intravenous fosaprepitant 150 mg (NK1 group, n=82) and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (ONS group, n=89) before induction of anesthesia. Incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the NK1 group compared to the ONS group 0–2, 0–24, and 0–48 hours after surgery (2 versus 17%, 2 versus 28%, and 2 versus 29%, resp.). However, no significant differences in PONV, complete response, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea score were observed between groups 0–48 hours after surgery. In moderate to high PONV risk patients, fosaprepitant decreased the incidence of vomiting and was superior to ondansetron in preventing postoperative vomiting 0–48 hours after surgery.

Use of long term aprepitant as a treatment for refractory nausea following oesophageal stent insertion – a case report

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632110652
Author(s):  
Richard Shoulder ◽  
Joseph Taylor ◽  
Hilary Stiel
Keyword(s):  
Symptomatic Improvement ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Stent Insertion ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Routes Of Administration ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Neurokinin 1 ◽  
Oral Diet ◽  
Oesophageal Stent

Background: Aprepitant, a substance P neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is licenced for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly and moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. Case: A 33 year-old male with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer had multiple admissions for refractory nausea and vomiting following insertion of an oesophageal stent. Action: Mechanical issues with the stent, stent removal and central causes were excluded. Multiple anti-emetic agents were trialled in combination and with varying routes of administration without significant symptomatic improvement. Formulation: A trial of aprepitant was proposed as an off-licence therapy. Outcome: One hundred sixty-five milligrammes of aprepitant was given orally every 3 days and then up titrated to once daily with significant symptomatic improvement enabling the patient to tolerate an oral diet. The patient remained stable at 12 weeks and has been accepted into two clinical trials for potential further cancer treatment. Lessons: Aprepitant can be effective in refractory nausea and vomiting outside of emetogenic chemotherapy and safely used as a chronic treatment. The prevalence of refractory nausea and vomiting as a rare adverse outcome post-oesophageal stent insertion should be studied. What now? Further research of neurokinin-1 inhibitors for indications other than chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is indicated.

scholarly journals Unscheduled hydrations: redefining complete response in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolph M Navari ◽  
Eric J Roeland
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Antiemetic Agent ◽  
Chemotherapy Administration ◽  
Antiemetic Guidelines ◽  
Intravenous Hydration ◽  
Antiemetic Agents

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is nausea and/or vomiting occurring within 5 days of chemotherapy administration despite using guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetic agents. It is highly prevalent (30–40%), usually requiring immediate treatment or “rescue” medication. If breakthrough CINV occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend using an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, along with intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. Data supporting these guideline recommendations are limited. Importantly, costs associated with breakthrough CINV can be substantial (i.e., unscheduled hydrations). Two retrospective analyses evaluating guideline-adherent CINV prophylaxis suggest that the initial antiemetic selection may decrease breakthrough CINV. Here we review optimal CINV prophylactic strategies and introduce unscheduled hydration as a potential important surrogate for breakthrough CINV aligning with cost-effective cancer care.

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.

A phase II pilot study of fosaprepitant (F) for the rescue of acute nausea and vomiting with moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in adults.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20627-e20627
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Bubalo ◽  
Ian D. Schnadig ◽  
Gabrielle Meyers ◽  
Andy I. Chen ◽  
Brandon M. Hayes-Lattin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Study Design ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Rescue Therapy ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Attractive Potential ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Rescue Agent

e20627^ Background: Patients receiving MEC or HEC continue to have breakthrough nausea and emesis despite antiemetic prophylaxis. Few trials have evaluated the efficacy of rescue antiemetics after failed prophylaxis. F, a prodrug of the neurokinin-1 antagonist (NK1a), aprepitant is FDA-approved for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with MEC and HEC. F’s safety and efficacy in the prophylactic setting make F an attractive potential rescue therapy. Methods: F 150mg was infused as the initial rescue agent in eligible patients receiving MEC or HEC who had either emesis or nausea despite guideline-based prophylaxis with a 5HT-3 antagonist and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was improved nausea on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 2 hours. Secondary endpoints included: VAS at 12 and 24 hrs, rescue medication use, emesis, nutritional intake, adverse events, and proof of the study design as a viable methodology. Results: Eleven adult patients, 6 males and 5 females, were treated per protocol and evaluable for the 24 hour study period. Chemotherapy regimens included HiDAC, R-CHOP, epirubicin/ifosfamide, EPOCH, R-ICE, 7+3, VAC, and HyperCVAD. 3 patients were treated for emesis and 8 for nausea. 91% of patients had improved nausea at 2 hrs, 100% at 12 hrs and 63.6% at 24 hrs. F prevented further emesis in 2 of 3 patients and no patient with initial nausea had subsequent emesis. 9 of 11 (81.8%) patients required additional rescue medication during the study period, mainly due to nausea. Appetite was improved in 8/11 patients. Food and fluid intake improved in 5/11. Adverse effects included headache 18%, dizziness 18%, hiccups 9%, indigestion 9%, and 1 case ifosfamide encephalopathy. The study design required greater than anticipated consented patients due to the success rates of standard antiemetic therapy. Conclusions: F improves breakthrough nausea and related symptoms, and may prevent further emesis but was suboptimal as a single agent in that the majority of patients required a second rescue agent within 24 hrs. Complete response, defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, may be a more clinically relevant primary endpoint in future trial designs. Clinical trial information: NCT00939302.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document