Dataset Information

Exploratory Analysis Comparing Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study (CONSOLE).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

We describe the results of an exploratory analysis performed on the first head-to-head study (JapicCTI-194611) comparing two different intravenous (IV) neurokinin 1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists, fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant, in combination with palonosetron (PALO) and dexamethasone (DEX) for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This analysis was performed to validate the findings of the primary analysis (previously published) utilizing a last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach for missing values for the efficacy endpoint of complete response (no emetic event and no rescue medication), while also evaluating the time periods encompassing the 0-168-hour (h) "extended overall phase" interval.

Methods

Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to fosnetupitant 235 mg or fosaprepitant 150 mg in combination with PALO 0.75 mg and DEX. Complete response rates were calculated and compared (stratified by age category and sex with a Mantel-Haenszel test) during the study's primary overall phase (0-120 h) and during additional time intervals of interest [acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), extended delayed (> 24-168 h), beyond delayed (120-168 h), and extended overall (0-168 h)].

Results

A total of 785 patients were included (fosnetupitant N = 392, fosaprepitant N = 393). Complete response rates were numerically higher for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant for all time intervals and statistically significant for the extended overall phase. Complete response rates for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant during the overall, acute, delayed, extended delayed, beyond delayed, and extended overall phases were 75.5% vs. 71.0% (p = 0.1530), 93.9% vs. 92.6% (p = 0.4832), 77.0% vs. 72.8% (p = 0.1682), 74.7% vs. 68.4% (p = 0.0506), 86.7% vs. 81.7% (p = 0.0523), and 73.5% vs. 66.9% (p = 0.0450), respectively.

Conclusion

In this exploratory analysis, fosnetupitant appeared to be more effective than fosaprepitant in preventing CINV associated with cisplatin-based HEC during the extended 7-day period following chemotherapy. INFOGRAPHIC.

SUBMITTER: Hata A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9098704 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploratory Analysis Comparing Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study (CONSOLE).

Hata Akito A Shiraishi Yoshimasa Y Inui Naoki N Okada Morihito M Morise Masahiro M Akiyoshi Kohei K Takeda Masayuki M Watanabe Yasutaka Y Sugawara Shunichi S Shinagawa Naofumi N Kubota Kaoru K Saeki Toshiaki T Tamura Tomohide T

Oncology and therapy 20220304 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>We describe the results of an exploratory analysis performed on the first head-to-head study (JapicCTI-194611) comparing two different intravenous (IV) neurokinin 1 (NK<sub>1</sub>) receptor antagonists, fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant, in combination with palonosetron (PALO) and dexamethasone (DEX) for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This analysis was performed to validate the findings of the primary analysis (previ ...[more]

PMID: 35246827

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo establish the role of antiemetic therapy with neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (RAs) in nonanthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC)-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens, this study evaluated single-dose intravenous (i.v.) fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with non-AC MEC.Patients and methodsIn this international, phase III, double-blind trial, adult cancer subjects scheduled to receive ≥1 non-AC MEC on day 1 were randomized to a regimen comprising single-dose i.v. fosaprepitant 150 mg or placebo along with ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; control regimen recipients received ondansetron on days 2 and 3. Primary end points were the proportion of subjects achieving a complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (25-120 h after MEC initiation) and safety. Secondary end points included CR in the overall and acute phases (0-120 and 0-24 h after MEC initiation, respectively) and no vomiting in the overall phase. Nausea and the Functional Living Index-Emesis were assessed as exploratory end points.ResultsThe fosaprepitant regimen improved CR significantly in the delayed (78.9% versus 68.5%; P < 0.001) and overall (77.1% versus 66.9%; P < 0.001) phases, but not in the acute phase (93.2% versus 91.0%; P = 0.184), versus control. In the overall phase, the proportion of subjects with no vomiting (82.7% versus 72.9%; P < 0.001) and no significant nausea (83.2% versus 77.9%; P = 0.030) was also significantly improved with the fosaprepitant regimen. The fosaprepitant regimen was generally well tolerated.ConclusionSingle-dose fosaprepitant added to a 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone was well tolerated and demonstrated superior control of CINV (primary end point achieved) associated with non-AC MEC. This is the first study to evaluate NK1 RA therapy as an i.v. formulation in a well-defined non-AC MEC population.ClinicaltrialsgovNCT01594749 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01594749).

Project description:Background Various predictive models have been developed which incorporates patient risk factors into the selection of optimal antiemetic therapy, one of which is chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk scoring system developed by Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). Patients and Methods Consecutive patients with gastrointestinal malignancy who had not received previous chemotherapy were eligible for enrollment in the study if they were scheduled to receive at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The CINV risk assessment tool was used to collect the study data and to assess CINV risk score. Results Ninety-eight patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in this study, out of which 57% were males, median age was 48 years (range: 28-77). Colorectal cancer (32.7%) was the most common diagnosis followed by gastric cancer (27.6%). Gemcitabine/cisplatin and CAPOX regimen were the most common regimen being administered in 19.4% each. As per MASCC guidelines, 19.4% patients received highly emetogenic chemotherapy, 69.4% moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, while 11.2% received regimen with low emetogenicity. CINV risk module characterized 52% patients to have high risk for CINV, while 48% to have low risk of CINV, thus, 52% had the discrepancy in risk assigned by two methods, and this was statistically significant ( p = 0.025). In subgroup analysis, although patient cohort with acute nausea had no statistically significant discrepancy ( p = 0.123), but statistically significant discrepancy was found in patient cohort with delayed nausea ( p = 0.001), acute ( p = 0.038), and delayed ( p < 0.001) vomiting. Conclusion A significant percentage of patients who receive chemotherapy continue to experience nausea and vomiting despite receiving antiemetic treatment as per standard guidelines. The study generates a hypothesis for future large randomized studies looking at change in antiemetic prophylaxis based on CINV risk tool, leading to improvement in complete response rates of acute and delayed CINV.

Dataset Information

Exploratory Analysis Comparing Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study (CONSOLE).

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Exploratory Analysis Comparing Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study (CONSOLE).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets