Cargando…

Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)–induced nausea and vomiting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kang, Jin Hyoung, Kwon, Jung Hye, Lee, Yun-Gyoo, Park, Keon Uk, An, Ho Jung, Sohn, Joohyuk, Seol, Young Mi, Lee, Hyunwoo, Yun, Hwan-Jung, Ahn, Jin Seok, Yang, Ji Hyun, Song, Hunho, Koo, Dong-Hoe, Kim, Jin Young, Kim, Gun Min, Kim, Hwa Jung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Cancer Association 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7373869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32192275
http://dx.doi.org/10.4143/crt.2019.713
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)–induced nausea and vomiting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, −2.3%; 95% CI, −13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, −7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.