Dataset Information

Effect of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has an important role in the overall management of cancer treatment.

Objective

To evaluate whether adding aprepitant to palonosetron and dexamethasone can further prevent the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting caused by FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) or FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy regimens among women with gastrointestinal cancer at higher risk.

Design, setting, and participants

This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited young women (age ≤50 years) who drank little or no alcohol and had gastrointestinal cancer for which they received FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy. A total of 248 women were enrolled and assigned in the ratio 1:1 to intervention and control groups from August 4, 2015, to March 31, 2020. Intention-to-treat analysis was used to evaluate patient baseline characteristics and efficacy. The analysis was conducted on October 30, 2020.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to the aprepitant group (aprepitant, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 6 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1) or the placebo group (placebo, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally on each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 12 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1).

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was the complete response (CR) rate, defined as the proportion of patients without emesis episodes or rescue medication use during the overall phase of the first cycle. Other efficacy indicators, such as no vomiting and no nausea, were measured as the secondary and exploratory end points.

Results

A total of 248 women from 4 clinical centers in China entered this study, and 243 patients (aprepitant regimen, 125 patients [51.4%]; placebo regimen, 118 patients [48.5%]) were evaluable for efficacy and safety; mean (SD) age of the total population was 40.1 (7.3) years. The CR rate was significantly higher in the aprepitant group vs the control group overall (107 [87.0%] vs 80 [66.7%]; P < .001) and in the acute (114 [92.7%] vs 91 [75.8%]; P = .001) and delayed (109 [88.6%] vs 84 [70.0%]; P = .001) phases of the trial. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (100 [80.0%] vs 96 [81.3%]; P = .79), and no grade 3 or 4 aprepitant treatment-related adverse events were observed. Multivariable analysis revealed that aprepitant use was the only independent factor associated with CR during the overall phase.

Conclusions and relevance

The combination of aprepitant with palonosetron and dexamethasone provided increased antiemetic efficacy in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen and was well tolerated by younger women with gastrointestinal cancer who have a history of little or no alcohol consumption.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03674294.

SUBMITTER: Wang DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8035650 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCoadministration of different antiemetics proved to decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). This trial compared aprepitant/dexamethasone (A/D) combination vs mirtazapine/dexamethasone (M/D) combination vs dexamethasone (D) alone for prevention of PONV in morbidly obese patients undergoing LSG.MethodsNinety patients scheduled for LSG were randomly allocated to receive 8 mg dexamethasone intravenous infusion (IVI) only in the D group or in addition to 80 mg aprepitant capsule in the A/D group or in addition to 30 mg mirtazapine tablet in the M/D group. Assessment of PONV was carried out at 0-2 h (early) and 2-24 h (late). The primary outcome was the complete response 0-24 h after surgery. Collective PONV, postoperative pain, side effects and patient satisfaction score were considered as secondary outcomes.ResultsThe A/D and M/D groups were superior to the D group for a complete response within 0-24 h after surgery (79.3% for the A/D group, 78.6% for the M/D group, and 20.7% for the D group). The D group was inferior to the A/D and M/D groups regarding collective PONV and use of rescue antiemetic 0-24 h after surgery (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). The peak nausea scores (2-24 h) were significantly reduced in the M/D group in comparison to the D group (P=0.005). Patients in the M/D group showed high sedation scores, while those in the A/D group showed low pain scores (2-24 h) and less analgesic requirements (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). The A/D and M/D groups were superior to the D group with regard to the patient satisfaction score (P < 0.001).ConclusionAprepitant/dexamethasone combination and mirtazapine/dexamethasone combination were superior to dexamethasone alone in alleviating postoperative nausea and vomiting in morbidly obese patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04013386.

Project description:BackgroundNeurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3 ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT3 RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK1 RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK1 RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).Materials and methodsThis was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.ResultsNoninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.ConclusionThis pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.Implications for practiceIn the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK1 RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK1 RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Project description:BackgroundDespite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who received moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), some of these patients still suffer from CINV. We evaluated whether aprepitant combined with palonosetron can improve the efficacy in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving MEC.MethodsThis was a single-centre, open-label, phase III, randomized controlled trial, which was done at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University of China. The registered patients planned to receive mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) but had not received any chemotherapy previously. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the aprepitant group (aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, 80 mg on day 2-3) and the dexamethasone group (dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously on day 1, 5 mg on days 2 and 3), both groups with palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously on day 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the overall phase (0-120 h). The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded all patients who used estazolam within 24 h before registration and those who refused to keep a diary documenting the severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting, and the use of rescue therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02909478.FindingsBetween Sep 1, 2017, and Oct 23, 2019, 320 patients were enrolled, and 315 patients were evaluated. The proportion of patients who achieved CR was significantly higher with aprepitant than that noted with dexamethasone in the overall phase (88.8% vs. 74.2%; P = 0.0010; rate difference, RD 15%, 95% CI, 6% to 23%) and in the delayed phase (25-120 h), 90.6% vs. 75.5%, (P < 0.0001; RD 15%, 95%CI, 7% to 23%). No significant difference of CR rate was observed in the acute phase (0-24 h), 93.8% vs. 93.5%, (P = 0.94; RD 0%, 95% CI, -5% to 6%)). In the overall phase, the incidence of insomnia (P < 0.0010), dyspepsia (P = 0.038), and flushing (P = 0.0010) reported by the patients was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than that in the aprepitant group.InterpretationAprepitant combined with palonosetron is superior to dexamethasone combined with palonosetron in patients who received the MEC regimen mFOLFOX6 in terms of preventing CINV.FundingThe National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFC1316000) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81974369).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a side effect, and has negative effect on quality of life and continuation of chemotherapy. Despite new regimen and drugs, the problems still remain and standard guidelines, effective treatment and supportive care for refractory CINV are still not yet established. Persian medicine, the old Iranian medical school, offer Persumac (prepared from Rhus Coriaria and Bunium Persicum Boiss). OBJECTIVE:The specific objectives were to assess the effect of Persumac on the number and severity of nausea and vomiting in refractory CINV in acute and delayed phase. METHODS:This randomized, double blind, crossover clinical trial study was carried out on 93 patients with breast cancer and refractory CINV, who received outpatient high emetogenic chemotherapy in Imam Reza hospital, Mashhad, Iran from October 2015 to May 2016. The study has three stages: in stage I patients received a questionaire and completed it after chemotherapy. In stage II they were randomly divided into intervention group with Persumac and control group with placebo (lactose were used). In stage III, wash out and crossover was conducted. Both groups in all stages received standard antiemetic therapy for CINV. The following were set as the inclusion criteria of the study: female, Age ?18 years, clinical diagnosis of breast cancer, history of refractory CINV, normal blood tests and at least three courses of chemotherapy remaining. Exclusion criteria of this study were: Total or upper abdominal radiation therapy along with chemotherapy, drugs/therapy for nausea and vomiting not prescribed in this study, hypersensitivity to Sumac or Bunium Persicum, use of sumac and Bunium Persicum in seven days prior to the intervention, clinical diagnosis of digestion disorders, non-chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, milk allergy, loss of two consecutive or three intermittent doses of Persumac or placebo. Outcomes were gathered by Persian questionnaire. Number and severity of nausea and vomiting was measured with a self-reporting tool; visual analog scale. RESULTS:Demographic data and other characters in both groups have no significant diffrence. Eighty of 93 eligible patients in stage I completed the study and in stage II, eleven declined participation for stage III (crossover). P value of carry over, period and treatment effects demonstrated that they had not affected the results before and after crossover. The mean severity of nausea in acute phase was in stage I: 4.83 ± 1.40, stage II: 4.54 ± 2.0 and stage III: 4.15 ± 0.92 in sequence AB (first Persumac and then placebo in crossover), and in sequence BA (first placebo and then Persumac in crossover) was respectively 4.83 ± 1.40, 4.54 ± 2.0, 4.15 ± 0.92 with p value of carry over effect: 0.03 and period effect: 0.22. Except for severity of nausea in acute phase, the mean number and severity of nausea and vomiting scores significantly decreased in acute and delayed phase of CINV. CONCLUSION:Persumac may control the refractory CINV. The implicable and clinical importance of this research is that another option exists for refractory CINV. Higher doses, different cancers, patients with more various features, and more complete methodology and tools can provide appropriate designs for new research on this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was registered at the Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT02787707. FUNDING:This study is part of a Ph.D. thesis and under grant; No: 930735 of Research Chancellery of MUMS.