Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and VomitingRamosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
- Other Titles
- Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
- Authors
- Kang, JH[Kang, Jin Hyoung]; Kwon, JH[Kwon, Jung Hye]; Lee, YG[Lee, Yun-Gyoo]; Park, KU[Park, Keon Uk]; An, HJ[An, Ho Jung]; Sohn, J[Sohn, Joohyuk]; Seol, YM[Seol, Young Mi]; Lee, H[Lee, Hyunwoo]; Yun, HJ[Yun, Hwan-Jung]; Ahn, JS[Ahn, Jin Seok]; Yang, JH[Yang, Ji Hyun]; Song, H[Song, Hunho]; Koo, DH[Koo, Dong-Hoe]; Kim, JY[Kim, Jin Young]; Kim, GM[Kim, Gun Min]; Kim, HJ[Kim, Hwa Jung]
- Issue Date
- Jul-2020
- Publisher
- KOREAN CANCER ASSOCIATION
- Keywords
- Ramosetron; Palonosetron; Aprepitant; Antiemetics; Nausea; Vomiting; Neoplasms
- Citation
- CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, v.52, no.3, pp.907 - 916
- Indexed
- SCIE
SCOPUS
KCI
- Journal Title
- CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
- Volume
- 52
- Number
- 3
- Start Page
- 907
- End Page
- 916
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/skku/handle/2021.sw.skku/4023
- DOI
- 10.4143/crt.2019.713
- ISSN
- 1598-2998
- 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 quality of life, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving HEC.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - Medicine > Department of Medicine > 1. Journal Articles
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.