Comparison of L-758,298, a prodrug for the selective neurokinin-1 antagonist, L-754,030, with ondansetron for the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis

Substance P is localised in brainstem regions associated with emesis. Based on studies in the ferret, it was postulated that a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist would have antiemetic activity as monotherapy in humans receiving chemotherapy. L-758,298 is a water-soluble, intravenous (i.v.) prodrug for L-754,030, a potent and selective NK1 receptor antagonist. This double-blind, randomised, active-agent (ondansetron)-controlled study enrolled 53 cisplatin-na?ve patients and evaluated the prevention of both acute (0-24 h) and delayed (days 2-7) emesis after cisplatin treatment (50-100 mg/m(2)). All patients received i.v. L-758,298 (60 or 100 mg) (n=30) or ondansetron (32 mg) (n=23) before cisplatin and efficacy was evaluated up to day 7 post-cisplatin. Nausea was assessed by means of a four-point ordinal scale at intervals over the 7 day period. In the acute period, the proportion of patients without emesis in the L-758,298 and ondansetron groups was 37 and 52%, respectively (no significant difference between the groups). Comparing the distribution of average nausea scores over the entire first 24 h revealed no significant difference between the groups. In the delayed period, the proportion of patients without emesis in the L-758,298 and ondansetron treatment groups was 72 and 30%, respectively (P=0.005). The distribution of average nausea scores in the delayed period was lower in the L-758,298 group compared with the ondansetron group (P=0.15 for the entire delayed period and P=0.043 for day 2 only). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298. A single dose of L-758,298 substantially suppressed the delayed nausea and vomiting characteristic of high dose cisplatin and also appeared to reduce acute emesis post-cisplatin. The data also support the proposition that the underlying mechanism(s) of acute and delayed emesis are different.     

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis by the oral neurokinin-1 antagonist, MK-869, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone or with dexamethasone alone.

PURPOSE: The NK1-receptor antagonist MK-869 (L-754,030) has demonstrated antiemetic activity in humans receiving chemotherapy. Objectives of the present trial included the first assessment of oral MK-869 plus dexamethasone compared with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone for prevention of acute and delayed emesis after high-dose cisplatin. Furthermore, the study sought to confirm that addition of MK-869 to a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone was more effective than just the 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone for prevention of acute and delayed emesis. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial in 351 cisplatin-na?ve patients evaluated prevention of acute (0 to 24 hours) and delayed emesis (primary efficacy parameter; days 2 to 5) after cisplatin (> or =70 mg/m(2)). Patients were randomized to four groups (I to IV) (n = number randomized; number evaluable): granisetron (10 microg/kg intravenously) pre-cisplatin followed by placebo on days 2 to 5 (group I) (n = 90; 90); granisetron and MK-869 (400 mg PO [by mouth]) pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group II) (n = 86; 84); MK-869 (400 mg PO) the evening before and pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group III) (n = 89; 88); or MK-869 (400 mg PO) pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group IV) (n = 86; 84). All patients also received dexamethasone (20 mg PO) before cisplatin. Additional medication was available to treat emesis or nausea at any time. RESULTS: In the acute period, 57%, 80%, 46%, and 43% of patients were without emesis in groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P <.01 for group II v group I). In the delayed period, the proportion of patients without emesis in groups I, II, III, and IV was 29%, 63%, 51%, and 57%, respectively (P <.01 for groups II, III, and IV v group I). The distribution of nausea scores in the delayed period was lower when comparing group II with group I (P <.05 for days 1 to 5 and days 2 to 5). One serious adverse event (dizziness) was rated as possibly related to MK-869. CONCLUSION: Once daily oral administration of MK-869 was effective in reducing delayed emesis and nausea after high-dose cisplatin. However, the combination of the 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone was numerically superior to MK-869 plus dexamethasone in reducing acute emesis. Confirming and extending previous findings, the triple combination of a 5HT(3) antagonist, MK-869, and dexamethasone provided the best control of acute emesis.     

甲泼尼龙合用昂丹司琼防治顺铂引起的急性、迟发性恶心呕吐

目的 :观察甲泼尼龙 (methylprednisolone,甲强龙 )合用昂丹司琼 (恩丹西酮 )治疗以顺铂为主联合化疗引起的呕吐的效果和安全性。方法 :采用随机自身交叉对照方法。 47例患者中 2 3例第 1周期先用甲泼尼龙 80mg和昂丹司琼 8mg ,第 2周期单用昂丹司琼 8mg ;2 4例第 1周期单用昂丹司琼 8mg ,第 2周期用甲泼尼龙 80mg和昂丹司琼 8mg。以上药物均于化疗前 2 0分钟静脉给予 ,每天 1次。每一患者两周化疗药及其剂量相同 (其中顺铂80mg/m2 ) ,止吐药使用天数相同 (一般 2～ 3天 )。结果 :甲泼尼龙合用昂丹司琼和单用昂丹司琼治疗急性呕吐的有效率分别为 93 6 %和 70 2 % (P <0 0 1 ) ,治疗迟发性呕吐的有效率分别为 85 1 %和 65 9% (P <0 0 5) ;对由患者按线性分级计分所得的恶心、食欲、精神状态的疗效合用组明显优于单用组 (P <0 0 1 )。两组治疗不良反应发生率相似且合用组程度较轻。结论 :甲泼尼龙能加强昂丹司琼治疗由大剂量顺铂引起的急性和迟发性呕吐的止吐疗效 ,且能使患者恶心、食欲、精神状态得到明显改善 ,副作用较轻 ,是一较理想的止吐方案     

Prevention of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with acute emesis

The rates of delayed nausea and vomiting by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with previous experience of acute emesis are usually quite high. This is a pilot study aiming to evaluate the safety of a new antiemetic schedule to prevent delayed emesis in this subset of patients. During 5 consecutive cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, we evaluated 50 patients (15 males) who experienced acute emesis in the first cycle of treatment. The regimen for prevention of delayed emesis consisted of daily tropisetron (5 mg orally from d 2 to d 6 of each chemotherapeutic cycle) associated to ACTH-Depot (1 mg intramuscularly 24 and 68 h after the initiation of chemotherapy). In 77% of chemotherapy cycles, there was a total elimination of nausea and vomiting, whereas in the remaining 23% of cycles, there was a major response defined as ≤ 2 vomiting episodes per cycle or nausea grade 1 according to the WHO. The efficacy of the antiemetic regimen persisted during the entire treatment program without the appearance of toxic effects. The proposed antiemetic regimen is highly active in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting episodes in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Moreover, no toxic effects were observed. These promising results require confirmation by a randomized trial.     

A randomized controlled trial of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis with metoclopramide, dexamethasone and prochlorperazine

Forty patients with advanced lung cancer who had received chemotherapy containing cisplatin (80 mg/m2) were accrued for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the additional effect of prochlorperazine on the combination of high-dose metoclopramide and dexamethasone for the treatment of acute cisplatin-induced emesis. The effect of intravenous metoclopramide and dexamethasone in emesis occurring more than 24 hours after cisplatin administration was also evaluated. Excellent emetic control (no emesis during 24 hours after cisplatin administration) was achieved in 70% (14/20) and 76% (16/21) of the patients who received the combination of prochlorperazine, metoclopramide and dexamethasone and the combination of metoclopramide and dexamethasone, respectively. The overall toxicities associated with both regimens were not serious and were similar. Patients treated with metoclopramide and dexamethasone on days 2-7 experienced less delayed emesis, nausea and anorexia compared with those treated with a placebo (delayed emesis, 25% versus 50%, respectively, p = 0.105; more than 4 days of nausea, 10% versus 35%, respectively, p = 0.059; less than 3 days of anorexia, 80% versus 50%, respectively, p = 0.048). It was concluded that metoclopramide and dexamethasone showed an excellent antiemetic effect on acute drug-induced emesis, as well as on delayed emesis, induced by cisplatin.     

Role of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in chemotherapy-induced emesis: summary of clinical trials

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life, and although the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, delayed nausea and vomiting remain a significant clinical problem. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, it improves the complete response rate of acute CINV. Aprepitant also improves the complete response of delayed CINV when used in combination with dexamethasone compared to dexamethasone alone. The use of aprepitant in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy will await the review and analysis of recently completed phase III trials. The control of nausea is improved in some studies with the use of aprepitant when it is combined with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, but nausea control remains suboptimal. The current data suggest that the mechanism of action of the NK-1s appears to be different from the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Future studies may explore the use of aprepitant and other NK-1s in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.     

Comparison of ramosetron and azasetron for prevention of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis in lung cancer patients

We performed a retrospective study that compared the efficacy and safety of ramosetron with azasetron in a case of acute and delayed emesis induced by cisplatin (CDDP)-included chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer. The study subjects were 100 lung cancer patients treated with combination therapy of cisplatin, ifosfamide, irinotecan (CIC therapy). The ramosetron group and azasetron group received, respectively, ramosetron 0.3 mg or azasetron 10 mg intravenous injection, 30 minutes prior to CDDP. All patients received 32 mg of dexamethasone intravenously. Protection from emesis showed no significant difference between two treatment groups. However, the grade of nausea was significantly lower in the ramosetron group than in the azasetron group. Furthermore, chlorpromazine hydrochloride for use as a rescue medication was required by significantly fewer in the ramosetron group than in the azasetron group. Adverse effects were observed in 27 cases in the ramosetron group and 24 cases in the azasetron group. However, because the symptoms were all mild, we did not consider there was any safety problem. In conclusion, it was suggested that ramosetron is a clinically useful treatment for acute and delayed emesis induced by cisplatin-induced chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer.     

Serotonin receptor antagonists in prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic, single-day chemotherapy: a randomized study

In this randomized study, the efficacy of a single dose of three serotonin antagonists were compared in prophylaxis of acute and delayed vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic, single-day chemotherapy in chemotherapy-na?ve patients. A total of 54 patients were entered. Eighteen patients received ondansetron, 17 received tropisetron, and 19 received granisetron. Antiemetics were administered as 15-minute intravenous infusion before chemotherapy. Complete control of acute vomiting was achieved in 38.8% with ondansetron, 58.8% with tropisetron, and 73.7% with granisetron. Major response rates were 83.3%, 82.3%, and 89.5%, respectively. For the delayed control of emesis, complete control of delayed vomiting was achieved in 38.8% with ondansetron, 52.9% with tropisetron, and 73.7% with granisetron. The major response rates were 71.8%, 70.5%, and 100%, respectively. The adverse effects were rare and mild in all groups. The authors conclude that there may be clinically important differences among serotonin antagonists used for chemotherapy-induced emesis.     

A combined anti-emesis therapy of oral prednisolone and alprazolam for cisplatin-induced delayed emesis

To evaluate the efficacy of a combined therapy of prednisolone and alprazolam for controlling cisplatin-induced delayed emesis, a study involving 14 non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin (80 mg/m2) was conducted. Seven of these patients were given oral prednisolone at a dose of 30 mg/day for 5 days, then, 15 mg/day for 2 days, and with alprazolam at a dose 1.2 mg/day for 7 days. The other 7 patients were given an oral metoclopramide at a dose of 1 mg/kg/day for 5 days, and at 0.5 mg/kg/day for 2 days. All patients received 2 courses of chemotherapy and the same assigned regimen. Five of the 7 patients who had received prednisolone and alprazolam experienced no emesis, in contrast to only 1 patient who experienced no emesis from taking oral metoclopramide (p less than 0.05). Further, the duration of anorexia was shorter in those who received oral prednisolone with alprazolam. Thus, a combined therapy of oral prednisolone and alprazolam appears to be effective for controlling cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. Further evaluation and study, however, are necessary.     

Prevention of apomorphine- or cisplatin-induced emesis in the dog by a combination of methylnaltrexone and morphine

Purpose: Morphine can have either an emetic or an antiemetic effect. The emetic effect of morphine can be blocked by methylnaltrexone (MNTX), a quaternary opioid antagonist with peripheral action. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that administering MNTX to block the peripheral emetic effect of morphine would unmask the central antiemetic effect of the morphine. The net result, we hypothesized, would be a reduction in apomorphine- or cisplatin-induced emesis. Methods: MNTX 0.25 mg/kg and morphine 1 mg/kg were administered to conscious dogs which were then challenged with the potent emetic agents apomorphine or cisplatin. Emesis was assessed by the presence of characteristic retching motions accompanied by the regurgitation of gastric contents. Results: We observed that apomorphine challenges of 0.1 mg/kg and of 0.03 mg/kg produced 100% emesis in control animals. After pretreatment with MNTX and morphine, the frequency of emesis with the larger dose of apomorphine was reduced to 50% and with the smaller dose to 22%. MNTX alone did not block apomorphine-induced emesis. In animals challenged with cisplatin 3 mg/kg, the emetic response was 100%. Emesis did not occur in animals pretreated with MNTX 0.25 mg/kg and morphine 1 mg/kg before cisplatin. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that MNTX combined with morphine reduces apomorphine-induced emesis and blocks cisplatin-induced emesis. These results support the hypothesis that the emetic effect of morphine is peripheral and its antiemetic action is central. In combination, MNTX and morphine may have a clinical role in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Received: 28 August 1997 / Accepted: 12 November 1997     

Efficacy of droperidol in the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a double-blind, randomised parallel study

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel study comparing the antiemetic activity and tolerability of treatment with droperidol (2.5 mg d.i.v. twice daily for 5 days) and placebo, both combined with granisetron (3 mg d.i.v. on the first day) and dexamethasone (16 mg d.i.v. on the first day, 8 mg d.i.v. on days 2, 3, and 4 mg d.i.v. on days 4, 5). A total of 180 lung cancer patients receiving high-dose cisplatin (80 mg/m(2))-containing chemotherapy were enrolled in the study, and 171 of them were capable of being evaluated. The clinical characteristics of the patients in the two treatment arms were well balanced. Complete protection from nausea and vomiting was recorded in the acute phase in 97% of patients who treated with droperidol versus 98% of patients who given the placebo (P=0.920), and in 42% versus 38% in the delayed phase (P=0.615). The multiple logistic regression analysis showed that a history of motion sickness was a significant risk factor for cisplatin-induced delayed emesis (odds ratio [OR]=5.98; 95% CI=2.15 to 16.7, P=0.0006). Droperidol-containing treatment was well tolerated by most patients, however, the incidence of sleepiness in the droperidol group was higher than in the placebo group (69% versus 30%, P<0.0001). In conclusion, our data did not support the hypothesis that addition of droperidol to granisetron and dexamethasone reduces the delayed emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin.     

A multicentre, double-blind study comparing placebo, ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone for the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis

BACKGROUND:: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy andsafety of oral ondansetron, given alone or in combination withdexamethasone in the control of cisplatininduced delayed emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS:: This was an international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised,placebo-controlled, parallelgroup study. A total of 640 chemotherapy-naïvepatients received ondansetron 8 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20mg i.v. for the control of acute emesis prior to cisplatin (     

Differential involvement of neurotransmitters through the time course of cisplatin-induced emesis as revealed by therapy with specific receptor antagonists

Advances in antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced emesis have resulted in improved protection against symptoms occurring within 24 h of chemotherapy. However, the vomiting which tends to occur beyond 24 h after chemotherapy (delayed-phase vomiting) is still relatively poorly controlled by the currently available drugs, suggesting that more than one mechanism may mediate these symptoms. The standard antiemetic regimen currently recommended for prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis includes a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist and a corticosteroid. The neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) antagonist aprepitant represents a new class of antiemetic currently in clinical development. Using data obtained in 2 Phase II clinical trials of aprepitant in patients receiving chemotherapy based on the highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin, we compared the time course of antiemetic effect of aprepitant, a 5-HT(3) antagonist, or a combination of both. Over the entire observation period (up to 7 days post-cisplatin), patients who received the NK(1) antagonist had a superior prevention of emesis. However, in the first 24 h after cisplatin, emesis occurred in fewer patients who received the 5-HT(3) antagonist than in patients who did not receive this class of drug. Furthermore, the majority of treatment failures in patients who received the NK(1) antagonist occurred within the first 8-12 h of chemotherapy, whereas the treatment failures in patients who received a 5-HT(3) antagonist were more evenly distributed over time. Patients who received both drugs had superior control of symptoms compared with patients who received one or the other. The difference in the time course of emesis blockade observed with two different classes of receptor antagonists provides substantial evidence for involvement of separate pathophysiological mechanisms in chemotherapy-induced vomiting. Serotonin mediates the early vomiting process that occurs within 8-12 h following cisplatin-based chemotherapy, after which time substance P acting at NK(1) receptors becomes the dominant mediator of vomiting     

Randomised comparison of ondansetron plus dexamethasone with dexamethasone alone for the control of delayed cisplatin-induced emesis

The role of 5-hydroxytryptamine₃ (HT₃) antagonists in the treatment of delayed emesis is still controversial. To evaluate whether 5-HT₃ antagonists can add to the efficacy of corticosteroids in controlling delayed emesis, we performed a randomised, prospective, open study comparing ondansetron plus dexamethasone with dexamethasone alone in cisplatin-treated patients. 149 cisplatin-naïve patients with lung cancer received at least 60 mg/m² of cisplatin and were treated with dexamethasone 32 mg intravenously (i.v.) and granisetron 3 mg i.v. on day 1. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either dexamethasone 16 mg i.v. alone (arm A) or dexamethasone plus ondansetron 8 mg daily (arm B) on days 2–4. None of the efficacy variables related to control of delayed emesis differed significantly between the two arms. In conclusion, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to support the prolonged use of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists after 24 h of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.     

A multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial comparing ondansetron versus ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis

The aim was to compare the efficacy of ondansetron and a combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis over three consecutive courses of chemotherapy. Cancer patients scheduled to receive for the first time cisplatin (>50 mg/m(2)) in combination with other cytotoxic agents, were recruited in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind study and treated with ondansetron 8 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. Twenty-four hours after the start of chemotherapy, patients were randomised to treatment either with oral ondansetron 8 mg bd plus placebo on days 2-5 (group A) or with oral ondansetron 8 mg bd plus oral dexamethasone 8 mg bd on days 2-3, and 4 mg bd on days 4 and 5 (group B). Two hundred and thirty-six cancer patients were recruited into the study. Complete protection from delayed vomiting/nausea in group A and group B was Obtained in 50/39% and in 63/42% of patients, respectively in the first course; in 55/34% and in 64/40% in the second and in 49/31% and 60/37% in the third. Logistic regression analysis reveals a statistically significant difference in incidence of emesis between the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone and ondansetron alone (P<0.05). The same model, however, shows no difference in incidence of nausea between the two treatment regimens. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone reduces the risk of delayed emesis following cisplatin chemotherapy as compared to ondansetron alone.     

Aprepitant versus metoclopramide,both combined with dexamethasone,for the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a randomized,double-blind study

BackgroundA combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis.Patients and methodsA randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2–4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2–3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2–5 after chemotherapy.ResultsDue to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137 M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2–5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments.ConclusionsIn cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT00869310.     

Comparative efficacy of three 5-HT3 antagonists (granisetron, ondansetron, and tropisetron) plus dexamethasone for the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis: a randomized crossover study

The purpose of this study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy of three 5-HT3 antagonists (granisetron, ondansetron, tropisetron) plus dexamethasone for the prevention of acute emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy. This was a randomized, open label, crossover study. Recruited into the study were 94 chemotherapy-naive patients of whom five were excluded because chemotherapy was not given, noncisplatin regimen was used instead, or presence of anticipatory vomiting. The remaining 89 evaluable patients were mostly (86.5%) male, and were all treated for head and neck cancers. The antiemetic regimens consisted of 1) granisetron 3 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. on day 1 (GRADEX); 2) tropisetron 5 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. on day 1 (TRODEX); and 3) ondansetron 8 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. to be followed by ondansetron 8 mg p.o. x 2 on day 1 (ONDEX). Patients were randomized to receive one of the three regimens in the first cycle, and treatment was crossed over to the other two regimens in subsequent cycles. Antiemetic efficacy was assessed using self-report diaries recording the number of vomiting episodes as well as duration and severity of nausea within the first 24 hours. Complete response was defined as no vomiting with or without mild nausea, and major response was defined as one vomiting episode and/or moderate to severe nausea. Major efficacy refers to either complete or major response. A total of 219 cycles was given to 89 patients: 16 received one cycle only, 16 received two cycles, and 57 received three cycles. No carryover effects were observed between cycles. Using pooled data from all cycles, the complete response rates to GRADEX, TRODEX, and ONDEX were 81%, 68%, and 71%, respectively (p = 0.11); the corresponding major efficacy rates were 91%, 93%, and 86%, respectively (p = 0.36). When only the first cycle was considered, the complete response rates to GRADEX, TRODEX, and ONDEX were 81%, 75%, and 74%, respectively (p = 0.58); the corresponding major efficacy rates were 92%, 94%, and 84%, respectively (p = 0.38). Analysis of the crossover data showed that the majority of patients achieved complete response or major efficacy with the different pairs of regimens, and there were no significant differences between different regimens in terms of complete response or major efficacy. The only exception was GRADEX versus TRODEX, in which 15.5% of patient achieved complete response with GRADEX as compared with 1.7% with TRODEX (p = 0.025). The majority of patients (53%) did not report any preference, whereas 14% preferred GRADEX, 15% preferred TRODEX, and 18% preferred ONDEX. The three 5-HT3 antagonists, when used in combination with steroids, had similar major efficacy for prophylaxis against cisplatin-induced acute emesis. Although GRADEX was superior to TRODEX in terms of complete response, this may not be of clinical significance. The choice of antiemetic regimens should therefore depend on patient preference and drug cost.     

Randomized,double-blind,dose-ranging trial of the oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting

BackgroundCasopitant mesylate is a novel, oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist with demonstrated antiemetic efficacy. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled phase II trial to evaluate three casopitant doses as part of a triple-therapy regimen for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose cisplatin. The aim of the study was to detect a dose response.Patients and methodsA total of 493 patients with solid tumors receiving a first cycle of cisplatin ≥70 mg/m² were randomly assigned among six treatment arms. The primary analysis compared a control arm [ondansetron/dexamethasone (Ond/Dex)] with three investigational treatments (Ond/Dex plus oral casopitant 50, 100, or 150 mg administered daily for 3 days). Two exploratory arms were included: one evaluating a single oral casopitant dose of 150 mg added to standard Ond/Dex and another with 3-day oral aprepitant-based therapy (Ond/Dex plus aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2–3).ResultsThe complete response (CR) rate (defined as no vomiting, retching, rescue therapy, or premature discontinuation) was significantly increased in each casopitant arm relative to control over the 120-h evaluation period: 76% (50 mg), 86% (100 mg), 77% (150 mg), and 60% with control (P = 0.0036). The CR rate for the single oral dose regimen was similar to the CR rate reported for the 3-day regimens. No differences were observed in the incidence of nausea or significant nausea among groups in the primary analysis. The most common adverse events related to treatment included headache (n = 10) and hiccups (n = 14).ConclusionAll doses of oral casopitant as a 3-day regimen (and likely as a 150-mg single oral dose) in combination with Ond/Dex provided significant improvement in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis.     

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a double-blind multicenter randomized crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone.

Ondansetron (OND) is a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that give complete protection from emesis/nausea in approximately 50% of cisplatin (CDDP)-treated patients. To evaluate if dexamethasone (DEX) added to OND increases antiemetic efficacy, we carried out a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity of OND with OND plus DEX. One hundred two chemotherapy-naive patients (44 women and 58 men) scheduled to receive CDDP chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 entered the study. Eighty-nine patients completed both cycles with the following results: complete protection from emesis/nausea was obtained in 57/59 patients (64.0%/66.3%) with OND and in 81/79 (91.0%/88.8%) with OND plus DEX (P = .0005/P = .0021). At the end of the study, 53% of the patients expressed a treatment preference, and of these, 74% chose OND plus DEX compared with 26% who preferred OND alone, a statistically significant difference (P less than .003). Side effects were very mild and not significantly different between the two treatments. We conclude that OND plus DEX is more efficacious than OND in protecting patients from CDDP-induced emesis and nausea.     

Double-blind,randomized crossover study of metoclopramide and batanopride for prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis

Summary We conducted a double-blind, randomized crossover study to compare the toxicity and antiemetic efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine₃ receptor antagonist batanopride with that of metoclopramide in 21 chemotherapy-naive patients receiving at least 70 mg/m² cisplatin. The study was terminated when hypotension was observed following the infusion of batanopride at other institutions testing similar drug schedules. Although we observed no hypotension following treatment with batanopride in this trial, we did note asymptomatic prolongation of the corrected QT interval (QTc), PR interval, and QRS complex on the EKG in the batanopride arm. Of 15 evaluable patients, 8 experienced 2 episodes of emesis within 24 h of the first batanopride infusion, whereas 9/15 subjects experienced 2 emetic episodes following the administration of metoclopramide. Overall, the evidence suggests that this dosing schedule for batanopride may be too toxic for clinical used.