scholarly journals Control of delayed nausea and vomiting with granisetron plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparative study

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 661-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Goedhals ◽  
J.-F. Heron ◽  
J.-P. Kleisbauer ◽  
O. Pagani ◽  
C. Sessa
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Delayed Nausea

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 III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active control study of fosnetupitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC): CONSOLE.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12099-12099
Author(s):  
Yoshimasa Shiraishi ◽  
Akito Hata ◽  
Naoki Inui ◽  
Morihito Okada ◽  
Masahiro Morise ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Study Drug ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Age Category

12099 Background: Fosnetupitant (FN) is a phosphorylated pro-drug of netupitant that has high binding affinity for the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor and a long half-life of 70 h. This phase 3 study is the first head-to-head study to compare two NK-1 receptor antagonists, FN and fosaprepitant (FA), in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (JapicCTI-194611). Methods: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) -based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive FN 235 mg or FA 150 mg, in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone (9.9 mg on day 1, 6.6 mg on days 2-4). The stratification factors were sex, age category (<55 vs. ≥55 years), and site. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no emetic events and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, during the overall phase (0-120 h) to show the non-inferiority (margin, -10%) of FN to FA. The secondary endpoints were: CR rate, complete protection rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, no emetic events rate in each period [i.e., acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall, 0-168 h and 120-168 h], time to treatment failure, and safety, including injection site reactions (ISRs). Assessment of efficacy was continued until 168 h after the initiation of cisplatin. Some eligible patients were evaluated for safety and efficacy of FN for up to four cycles. Results: Between February 2019 and March 2020, total 795 patients were enrolled in the study. The study drug was administered to 785 patients (n=392 in FN vs. n=393 in FA), and all of them were evaluated for efficacy and safety. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the two groups. The adjusted overall CR rate was 75.2% in FN vs. 71.0% in FA [MH common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%), thus demonstrating non-inferiority of FN to FA. Regarding the other secondary endpoints of efficacy until 168 h, FN was favorable against FA, especially the CR rate during 0-168 h (73.2% in FN vs. 66.9% in FA) (Table). The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events were 22.2% in FN vs. 25.4% in FA, whereas those of ISRs with any cause or with treatment-related were 11.0% or 0.3% in FN vs 20.6% or 3.6% in FA, respectively ( p<0.001). Conclusions: FN demonstrated non-inferiority to FA, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for ISRs. For the period beyond 120 h after initiation of chemotherapy, FN may have the potential to improve the prevention of “beyond delayed” CINV. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-194611. [Table: see text]

Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting—Where We Stand Now

2013 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Rita Wickham ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Nucleus Tractus Solitarius ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Brain Structures ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Current View ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Guidelines ◽  
Delayed Nausea ◽  
Physical Consequences

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been a major supportive care concern since the development of cisplatin, which was probably the major factor that drove antiemetic research. If strategies, particularly using combination antiemetic therapy, had not been developed and studied, cancer chemotherapy research would also likely to have been stymied. The past 30 years or more have seen our understanding of the physiology of vomiting grow from the understanding of the medullary brain structures we call the chemoreceptor trigger zone and the vomiting center, as well as the neurotransmitters located about that site. The current view of chemotherapy-induced vomiting is that two main pathways are involved—a peripheral pathway from the gut to the vomiting center that is mediated by increased release of serotonin by enterochromaffin cells in the gastrointestinal tract mucosa that binds to vagal terminals terminating in the nucleus tractus solitarius, and a central pathway in the brain that involves substance P binding at neurokinin 1 receptors near the vomiting center. Development of antiemetics that target these specific receptors, plus the use of dexamethasone, has resulted in prevention of acute vomiting in 70–80 % of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The scientific evidence resulting from this antiemetic research, along with clinical application knowledge, forms the basis of current chemotherapy antiemetic guidelines. Although these are useful to clinical practice, they do no replace clinical assessment and follow up of individual patients. Furthermore, about half of patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy experience distressing delayed nausea, which can alter a patient’s life activities, cause debilitating physical consequences, and interfere with their ability and willingness to undergo chemotherapy.

Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting: A Double Blind, Randomized Crossover Study to Compare Pancopride (LAS 30451) and Pancopride plus Dexamethasone

1995 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 432-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Aranda ◽  
Isidoro C. Barneto ◽  
Ma. Jesus Rubio ◽  
Rosario Gonzalez ◽  
Antonio Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Order Of Administration ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

Aims Pancopride (PNC) is a new 5HT3 receptor antagonist which has demonstrated complete protection from nausea and vomiting in 25-73% of patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. A double-blind, randomized crossover study was carried out to assess whether the addition of dexamethasone (DXM) to PNC increases the antiemetic efficacy. Methods PNC (0.2 mg/kg. i.v. 30 min before chemotherapy) plus placebo (PLC) was compared with PNC (same dose and schedule) plus DXM (20 mg. i.v. immediately before PNC). In the second cycle, patients received the alternative antiemetic treatment. Eighty patients were included in the study (PNC+DXM=39, PNC+PLC=41), 29 of whom were women and 51 men. Fifty-four percent of the patients in the PNC+DXM group and 59% of those in the PNC+PLC group received chemotherapy containing cisplatin. Seventy-seven patients completed the first cycle and 70 the second. Results Complete protection was obtained in 19/16 patients (50/46%) with PNC+PLC and in 32/22 (82/63%) with PNC+DXM (P<0.001). Latency was significantly longer in the PNC+DXM group. The efficacy of both treatments was unaffected by the order of administration. Side effects were mild in both groups. Conclusions The combination of PNC+DXM is more efficacious than PNC+PLC in protection against highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced vomiting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document