scholarly journals Ramosetron hydrochloride for the prevention of cancer chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: The Indian experience

2014 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 132-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayesh J. Sanmukhani ◽  
Prafulla Pawar ◽  
Ravindra Mittal

Abstract Background: Despite the advent of 5-HT 3 antagonists, control of delayed gastrointestinal adverse events with cancer chemotherapy is still not optimal. This open label, active controlled, multicentric clinical trial was undertaken to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of ramosetron with ondansetron for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with emetogenic cancer chemotherapy in adult patients in India. Materials and Methods: Enrolled patients received treatment with ramosetron hydrochloride 0.1 mg or ondansetron hydrochloride 4 mg tablets once daily in the morning for 5 days starting 1 h before the start of chemotherapy. Severity grades of nausea and vomiting were recorded on a daily basis for a period of 5 days and complete response rate (CRR) and effective rate (ER) were calculated. Clinical adverse events were recorded and hematological and biochemical investigations were performed for safety assessment. Results: A total of 114 patients in ramosetron group and 100 patients in ondansetron group completed the study and were eligible for efficacy and safety analysis. CRR and ERs show that while ramosetron is non-inferior to ondansetron in the control of early nausea and vomiting (occurring during the first 24 h) after the treatment with emetogenic chemotherapy, it is superior to ondansetron in the control of delayed nausea and vomiting (occurring after the first 24 h). The proportion of patients achieving a cumulative complete response (for the entire study period) is significantly greater in ramosetron group as compared to ondansetron group (27.2% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.001). Ramosetron was well tolerated by all the study participants. Conclusions: Ramosetron is significantly more effective than ondansetron for the control of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by emetogenic cancer chemotherapy.

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 5196-5196
Author(s):  
Brian Choi ◽  
Gabriela Borsaru ◽  
Daniel Voisin ◽  
Gianluca Ballinari ◽  
Nicola Di Renzo

Abstract Abstract 5196 Background: Patients undergoing chemotherapy (CT) commonly receive repeated cycles of treatment. While chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be a disruptive, unwanted side effect with negative consequences on patient quality of life, possible discontinuation of therapy, and associated increased health care resources, prevention of CINV in cycle 1 diminishes its potential in subsequent cycles. Therefore, optimizing antiemetic prophylaxis at initiation of CT is critical. Palonosetron (PALO), a potent 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) with a distinctly different pharmacokinetic and receptor binding profile, has demonstrated improved CINV protection compared to older 5-HT3 RAs in multiple phase 3 and 4 single-CT-cycle clinical trials; however, few studies have evaluated PALO over multiple cycles of CT. Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of single IV doses of PALO 0.25 mg in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas (NHL) scheduled to receive at least 2 repeated, consecutive cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (CHOP, R-CHOP or ProMACE-CytaBOM). Corticosteroids were part of the CT regimen but not administered as an antiemetic. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (0–120 h) following CT during each cycle. Secondary endpoints included CR during the acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) time periods, as well as evaluation of proportion of emesis-free patients and nausea severity (according to a 100 mm VAS) during all 3 time intervals. The safety profile and adverse events were also assessed. Results: A total of 88 patients with either B-cell (91%) or T-cell (9%) NHL received PALO for a total of 317 CT cycles (mean 3.6; median 4). The majority of patients were white (99%) males (60%) with a mean age of 59.7 yrs who received either CHOP (47%) or R-CHOP (52%). CR rates during the acute, delayed and overall phases were sustained across the 4 CT cycles (Table). High proportions of patients remained emesis-free and experienced less than significant nausea (0 to <25 mm VAS) during the 5 days post-CT throughout repeated CT cycles (Table). PALO was well tolerated over repeated cycles, with few adverse events considered possibly/probably/definitely related (TRAEs: treatment related adverse events) (8% of patients; none serious). The incidence of the typically frequent TRAEs of headache and constipation was low (1% and 2%) and there were no unexpected or relevant differences in TRAEs between cycles or in later cycles (6%, 3%, 0%, 4% cycles 1–4, respectively). Conclusion: A single, fixed IV dose of palonosetron was shown to be safe and effective in preventing CINV over repeated chemotherapy cycles in patients with NHL. Disclosures: Voisin: Helsinn Healthcare: Employment. Ballinari:Helsinn Healthcare: Employment.


2015 ◽  
Vol 04 (01) ◽  
pp. 007-010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin Hingmire ◽  
Nirmal Raut

Abstract Context: Currently, there is limited data on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Indian population with aprepitant containing regimens. Aims: The aim was to assess the Efficacy and Safety of Aprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) regimens. Settings and Design: Investigator initiated, multicentric, open-label, prospective, noncomparative, observational trial. Subjects and Methods: Triple drug regimen with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasaone administration was assessed for the prevention of CINV during acute, delayed, and the overall phase (OP) for HEC/MEC Regimens. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) and the key secondary endpoint was the complete control (CC; no emesis, no rescue medication and no more than mild nausea) during the OP. Statistical Analysis Used: Perprotocol efficacy was analyzed for the first cycle with results represented in terms of CR/CC rates using descriptive statistics. Results: Seventy-five patients were included in the study with median age of 49.7 years and 89.7% being females. The CR rate (OP) for patients administered HEC or MEC regimens during the first cycle were 92% and 90.9%, respectively. Similarly, the CC rates (OP) were 75% and 90% for these regimens, respectively. 7 (9.2%) patients reported adverse drug reactions that were mild and transient with no reports of any serious adverse events. Conclusions: Use of aprepitant containing regimen for patients receiving HEC/MEC regimen resulted in significantly high CR and CC response rates, which further consolidate its potential role to improve patient quality of life and compliance to disease management.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9111-9111 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Grunberg ◽  
M. Dugan ◽  
H. B. Muss ◽  
M. Wood ◽  
S. Burdette-Radoux ◽  
...  

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]


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31) ◽  
pp. 3558-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lingyun Zhang ◽  
Xiujuan Qu ◽  
Yuee Teng ◽  
Jing Shi ◽  
Ping Yu ◽  
...  

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.


Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 5179-5179
Author(s):  
Zhi-Xiang Shen ◽  
Hua Yan ◽  
Linna Wang

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma-cell malignancy and overall survival for patients who have relapsed after initial therapy is approximately 2 years. Bortezomib (VELCADE TM) is a first-in-class proteasome inhibitor that has demonstrated significant anti-tumor activity in MM patients. Here we report the results of an observational study of the efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based regimens in Chinese relapsed/refractory MM patients. Methods: This was a multi-center, open-label, phase IV observational study designed to enroll 550 patients with relapsed or refractory MM. From Mar 2006 to May 2008, 500 patients with relapsed or refractory MM were enrolled from 43 medical centers in China and 395 of them were evaluated. Bortezomib (0.7 to 1.6 mg/m2 i.v.) was given on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 in in a 21-day cycle, up to a maximum of 8 cycles, combined with other agents, mainly with the addition of dexamethasone (60.1%). Major endpoint included response rate, safety and time to response. Responses of 62% patients were determined by European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria (EBMT). Bortezomib withheld if patients developed neutropenia fever, grade 4 haematologic adverse events (AEs), or grade 3 non-haematologic AEs, and re-administered at 75% of the initial dosage after recovery. Results: In 395 evaluable cases, the median age was 59 years (range 35–82) and the male/female ratio was 1.5:1. 90% of patients were in late stage(stage II/III) and 50% of them were IgG subtype. Patients had received various prior therapies before bortezomib treatment, including VAD (31.3%), VBMCP (M2, 15.1%) and thalidomide-based regimens(14.9%), with best response rate of 10.4% complete response (CR) and 42.3% partial response (PR) from prior therapies. 311 (82%) cases of patients received 1.0–1.4mg/m2 bortezomib-based regimens treatment and 38.5% of them received at least 4 cycles of treatment. 364 patients were evaluable for response, the overall response rate was 287/364 (78.8%), 89 patients (24.5%) achieved a CR, 30(8.24%) had a nearly complete response (nCR), 168 (46.2%) had a PR, 39 (10.7%) had minimal response (MR), 24 (6.6%) had stable disease (SD), and the other 14 (3.9%) had progressive disease (PD). Median time to response was 1 cycle of treatment (range 1–6). Patients who received 4 or more cycles of bortezomib treatment achieved a higher response rate (CR+PR: 81.5%) compared to those who received fewer cycles (partly due to adverse events). And prognosis-related analysis showed that the dosage of bortezomib at 1.0 mg/m2 or more had a significant influence on the time to response and response rate, but no obvious effect on response duration, time to progress or the survival time. Drug related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 50.4% of patients during treatment, including hematologic AEs (mainly thrombocytopenia, 22.5%), gastrointestinal AEs (24.8%), and peripheral neuropathy (22.5%). The rates of grade 3–4 AEs of them were 46.1%, 11.2% and 15.7%, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 33 (8.4%) cases and 23 (70%) patients recovered finally. Most AEs were predictable and manageable. Conclusion: Bortezomib-based regimen is effective treatment with higher response rate and is well tolerated in most Chinese patients with relapsed and refractory MM patients. Long-term follow-up is continuing.


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 2958-2958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenming Chen ◽  
Jian Hou ◽  
Yaozhong Zhao ◽  
Lugui Qiu ◽  
Xiaoyan Ke ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2958 Background: Circularly permuted TRAIL (CPT) is a recombinant mutant of human Apo2L/TRAIL developed by Beijing Sunbio Biotech Co. Ltd. as a targeted therapy for multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies. CPT is a dual pro-apoptotic receptor agonist that directly activates both pro-apoptotic receptors TRAIL-R1 (DR4) and TRAIL-R2 (DR5). CPT selectively induces apoptosis in a variety of cancer cells, while sparing most normal cells in preclinical models. Objective: CPT as a mono-therapy has shown definitive activities for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (Rel/Ref MM) in phase I and phase II studies. The aim of this study is to observe the effect and safety of CPT in combination with thalidomide for Rel/Ref MM patients. Methods: In this multiple-center, open-label, single arm phase II study, 43 Rel/Ref MM patients who had received prior therapies and were resistant to thalidomide were recruited. These patients were divided into three groups, and received CPT 5.0mg/kg, 8.0mg/kg, and 10.0mg/kg on days1–5 of each 21-day cycle, respectively, until having finished six cycle‘s treatment or progression disease or intolerant adverse events. All the patients received thalidomide 100mg daily until to the disease progression or intolerant adverse events. Clinical responses of CPT were assessed by an independent review committee according to the criteria of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Results: Among the 43 patients, 41 patients can be evaluated. There were 11, 15 and 15 patients in the three groups respectively. Among the 41 patients, two patients achieved complete response (CR), three showed near complete responses (nCR), four exhibited partial responses (PR), and five obtained minor responses (MR). The total response rates were 34% (including MR or better than MR), or 22% (including PR or better than PR). Among the three groups, the dose of 10mg/kg seemed to be optimal with 26.7% response rate (including PR or better than PR), superior to the other two groups. Duration of response of CPT was not evaluated accurately, because most patients who achieved PR, nCR, or CR were progression free at the end of the trial. The common treatment related adverse events (≥10%) were neutropenia, leucopoenia, fever, AST/ALT/LDH elevation, and thrombocytopenia. The grade 3 non-haematological toxicities were AST elevation (4.65%) and LDH elevation (2.33%). The elevation of AST and LDH seems to be related to tumor lysis, but not to liver injury. The grade 4 haematological toxicities were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (2.33%, respectively) which might be related to thalidomide. Conclusions: The CPT combined with thalidomide was well-tolerated and an effective regimen for the treatment of Rel/Ref MM. The combination of CPT and thalidomide seems to be superior to CPT alone in CR/nCR response rate. Disclosures: Zheng: Beijing Sunbio Biotech Co., Ltd.: Employment. Zhu:Beijing Sunbio Biotech Co., Ltd.: Employment. Yang:Beijing Sunbio Biotech Co., Ltd.: Employment.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS820-TPS820
Author(s):  
Wenjing Wang ◽  
Jiayu Ling ◽  
Yue Cai ◽  
Jianwei Zhang ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
...  

TPS820 Background: Addition of aprepitant, an NK1 receptor antagonist to a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone regimen was shown to be effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Little is known about the efficacy of aprepitant when used without dexamethasone. Dexamethasone is widely used to prevent both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. However, multi-period use of dexamethasone could be associated with side effect, such as hyperglycemia, dyspepsia and insomnia. This randomized phase III trial studies antiemetic therapy with aprepitant and tropisetron to see how well they work compared to dexamethasone plus tropisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with colorectal cancer receiving FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy. Methods: This trial is an open-label, single-center, randomized phase 2 study. Eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, no prior chemotherapy and scheduled to receive FOLFOX, Age ≥ 18 years, ECOG Performance Status 0, 1 or 2. Up to 298 patient will be enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive aprepitant (125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg orally on days 2 and 3) plus tropisetron (5mg IV of day1) or dexamethasone (10 mg IV on day 1 and 5 mg IV on days 2, 3) plus Tropisetron (5mg IV of day1). The primary objective of this study is complete response defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication. The second objectives include nausea score, time to first vomiting episode or use of rescue medication, frequency of rescue medication and functional Living Index -Emesis (FLIE). Clinical trial information: NCT02909478.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS8556-TPS8556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Zafar Usmani ◽  
Evangelos Terpos ◽  
Wojt Janowski ◽  
Hang Quach ◽  
Sarah West ◽  
...  

TPS8556 Background: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is the standard of care for transplant-eligible and TI NDMM, but relapse is usually inevitable. The median progression-free survival (PFS) is ~3 years for patients with TI NDMM, and with each relapse, the duration of response (DoR) diminishes, highlighting the need for novel, effective, targeted agents. Single-agent belantamab mafodotin is a first-in-class B-cell maturation antigen–binding, humanized, afucosylated, monoclonal immunoconjugate, showing deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma ( Lancet Oncol2020). Preclinical work suggests belantamab mafodotin plus bortezomib or lenalidomide enhances anti-myeloma activity. Therefore, studying clinical activity of belantamab mafodotin in combination with these agents is warranted. Methods: DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is a two-part, open-label study to determine efficacy and safety of single-agent belantamab mafodotin with VRd vs. VRd alone in patients with TI NDMM. Patients aged ≥18 years with ECOG status 0–2 and adequate organ system functions will be eligible. Part 1 (dose selection) will evaluate safety/tolerability of belantamab mafodotin with VRd administered by single (Day 1) or split dosing (Days 1 and 8) in ≤5 cohorts (n = 12/cohort): 1.9 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg split and single, and 3.4 mg/kg split and single. Six more patients may be added to cohort(s) most likely to be selected as recommended Phase III dose (RP3D). Dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events (AEs) will be assessed, and belantamab mafodotin RP3D determined through modified toxicity probability interval criteria. Part 2 (randomized Phase III) will determine efficacy and safety of belantamab mafodotin at RP3D with VRd vs. VRd alone (n = 750) in two arms randomized 1:1. Dual primary endpoints will be rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and PFS. Secondary endpoints will be response rates (overall response, complete response, very good partial response or better, sustained MRD negativity), DoR, time to progression, and overall survival. Safety assessment will include AEs, serious AEs and ocular findings. In both parts, belantamab mafodotin will be given with VRd for eight induction cycles and then with Rd for maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline (209664). Drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Clinical trial information: NCT04091126 .


1995 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
E ESSEBOOM ◽  
R ROJER ◽  
J BORM ◽  
L STATIUSVANEPS

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document