» Articles » PMID: 25743855

Aprepitant Versus Metoclopramide, Both Combined with Dexamethasone, for the Prevention of Cisplatin-induced Delayed Emesis: a Randomized, Double-blind Study

Overview
Journal Ann Oncol
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Oncology
Date 2015 Mar 7
PMID 25743855
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: A 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 Methods: A 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.

Results: Due 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.

Conclusions: In 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.

Clinicaltrialsgov Number: NCT00869310.

Citing Articles

Identification of optimal contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis for doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in Chinese cancer patients: post-hoc analysis of 3 prospective studies.

Yeo W, Li L, Lau T, Lai K, Chan V, Wong K Cancer Biol Med. 2021; .

PMID: 33710814 PMC: 8330523. DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0241.


Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

Kang J, Kwon J, Lee Y, Park K, An H, Sohn J Cancer Res Treat. 2020; 52(3):907-916.

PMID: 32192275 PMC: 7373869. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2019.713.


Fixed combination of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron) for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy: Efficacy data from 2 randomized, double-blind phase III....

Schwartzberg L, Karthaus M, Rossi G, Rizzi G, Borroni M, Rugo H Cancer Med. 2019; 8(5):2064-2073.

PMID: 30968588 PMC: 6536946. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2091.


ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult patients.

Razvi Y, Chan S, McFarlane T, McKenzie E, Zaki P, DeAngelis C Support Care Cancer. 2018; 27(1):87-95.

PMID: 30284039 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4464-y.


Applicability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Guidelines for Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Southeast Asia: A Consensus Statement.

Chan A, Abdullah M, Ishak W, Ong-Cornel A, Villalon A, Kanesvaran R J Glob Oncol. 2017; 3(6):801-813.

PMID: 29244998 PMC: 5735961. DOI: 10.1200/JGO.2016.005728.