Cargando…

Pooled analysis of phase III clinical studies of palonosetron versus ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

PURPOSE: Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is integral to treatment success in patients with cancer. This analysis was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus older 5HT(3) RAs in preventing CINV associated with moderately or highly emetog...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwartzberg, Lee, Barbour, Sally Y., Morrow, Gary R., Ballinari, Gianluca, Thorn, Michael D., Cox, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24141698
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1999-9
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is integral to treatment success in patients with cancer. This analysis was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus older 5HT(3) RAs in preventing CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: Patient-level data from four randomized, double-blind, phase III trials comparing palonosetron 0.25 or 0.75 mg with ondansetron 32 mg, dolasetron 100 mg, or granisetron 40 μg/kg were analyzed. Endpoints included complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) in the acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h), and overall (0–120 h) postchemotherapy periods (primary), complete control (CC: no emesis, no rescue antiemetics, and no more than mild nausea), number of emetic episodes, and nausea severity. RESULTS: CR rates were significantly higher for palonosetron (n = 1,787) versus older 5HT(3) RAs (n = 1,175) in the delayed (57 vs 45 %, P < 0.0001) and overall periods (51 vs 40 %, P < 0.0001); odds ratios (95 % CI) in the acute, delayed, and overall periods were 1.15 (0.98–1.34), 1.62 (1.40–1.88), and 1.56 (1.34–1.81), respectively. Significant differences in CC rates and nausea severity were observed for the delayed and overall periods and in emetic episodes for all three periods. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar with palonosetron (0.25 mg, 20.0 %; 0.75 mg, 26.5 %) and older 5HT(3) RAs (27.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron is more effective than older 5HT(3) RAs for controlling CINV in the delayed and overall postchemotherapy periods.