Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
- Author:
Jin Hyoung KANG
1
;
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
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Cancer Research and Treatment 2020;52(3):907-916
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:0
-
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 gender, 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.
