189 357

Cited 0 times in

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

Authors
 Jin Hyoung Kang  ;  Jung Hye Kwon  ;  Yun-Gyoo Lee  ;  Keon Uk Park  ;  Ho Jung An  ;  Joohyuk Sohn  ;  Young Mi Seol  ;  Hyunwoo Lee  ;  Hwan-Jung Yun  ;  Jin Seok Ahn  ;  Ji Hyun Yang  ;  Hunho Song  ;  Dong-Hoe Koo  ;  Jin Young Kim  ;  Gun Min Kim  ;  Hwa Jung Kim 
Citation
 CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, Vol.52(3) : 907-916, 2020-07 
Journal Title
CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
ISSN
 1598-2998 
Issue Date
2020-07
MeSH
Adult ; Aged ; Antiemetics / therapeutic use* ; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / adverse effects* ; Aprepitant / therapeutic use ; Benzimidazoles / therapeutic use ; Dexamethasone / therapeutic use ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nausea / chemically induced ; Nausea / drug therapy* ; Nausea / pathology ; Neoplasms / drug therapy* ; Neoplasms / pathology ; Palonosetron / therapeutic use ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Quality of Life* ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Vomiting / chemically induced ; Vomiting / drug therapy* ; Vomiting / pathology ; Young Adult
Keywords
Antiemetics ; Aprepitant ; Nausea ; Neoplasms ; Palonosetron ; Ramosetron ; Vomiting
Abstract
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.
Files in This Item:
T202007200.pdf Download
DOI
10.4143/crt.2019.713
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Gun Min(김건민) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9167-8682
Sohn, Joo Hyuk(손주혁) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2303-2764
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/183884
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links