Complete Protection Rates Research Articles

Clinical Observation of Gene Polymorphism of Olanzapine or Aprepitant in Prevention of CINV.

ObjectiveThe present study aims to investigate the correlation between the gene polymorphisms of the multidrug resistance protein 1 (ABCB1), the intron region of transcriptional factor (GTF2E1) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), dopamine receptor (DRD2), and the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by olanzapine or aprepitant in a Chinese population under a fractionated cisplatin dosing pattern.MethodsAntiemetic treatment with 5 mg of olanzapine or aprepitant triplet therapy was conducted in 210 patients with malignancies receiving cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy. The general data on the patients were collected with the evaluation of the rate of complete protection (TP), complete remission (CR), complete control (TC), and time to first vomiting, the functional living index-emesis (FLIE) scale, and side effects in the acute and delayed phases. The DNA mass spectrometry detected the gene polymorphisms of ABCB1, GTF2E1, COMT, and DRD2, and the correlation with TP was analyzed.Results1) There were no statistically significant differences in the TP, CR, TC, time of first vomiting, and FLIE index at different phases between the 5mg of olanzapine group and the aprepitant group (P > 0.05). 2) The main side effect in the olanzapine group was drowsiness (P = 0.00), and in the aprepitant group was constipation (P = 0.02). 3) The distributions of each genotype were in the Hardy–Weinberg (H–W) equilibrium. Univariate analysis showed that in the olanzapine group, delayed-phase TP was correlated with the ABCB1 rs1045642 non-TT (P = 0.01) genotype.ConclusionThe present study revealed that females and the rs1045642TT genotype were independent risk factors for delayed-phase CINV in the northern Chinese population, which provided a scientific basis for subsequent CINV-related analysis of high-risk factors in Chinese patients.

A phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active control study of fosnetupitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC): CONSOLE.

12099 Background: Fosnetupitant (FN) is a phosphorylated pro-drug of netupitant that has high binding affinity for the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor and a long half-life of 70 h. This phase 3 study is the first head-to-head study to compare two NK-1 receptor antagonists, FN and fosaprepitant (FA), in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (JapicCTI-194611). Methods: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) -based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive FN 235 mg or FA 150 mg, in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone (9.9 mg on day 1, 6.6 mg on days 2-4). The stratification factors were sex, age category (<55 vs. ≥55 years), and site. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no emetic events and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, during the overall phase (0-120 h) to show the non-inferiority (margin, -10%) of FN to FA. The secondary endpoints were: CR rate, complete protection rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, no emetic events rate in each period [i.e., acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall, 0-168 h and 120-168 h], time to treatment failure, and safety, including injection site reactions (ISRs). Assessment of efficacy was continued until 168 h after the initiation of cisplatin. Some eligible patients were evaluated for safety and efficacy of FN for up to four cycles. Results: Between February 2019 and March 2020, total 795 patients were enrolled in the study. The study drug was administered to 785 patients (n=392 in FN vs. n=393 in FA), and all of them were evaluated for efficacy and safety. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the two groups. The adjusted overall CR rate was 75.2% in FN vs. 71.0% in FA [MH common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%), thus demonstrating non-inferiority of FN to FA. Regarding the other secondary endpoints of efficacy until 168 h, FN was favorable against FA, especially the CR rate during 0-168 h (73.2% in FN vs. 66.9% in FA) (Table). The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events were 22.2% in FN vs. 25.4% in FA, whereas those of ISRs with any cause or with treatment-related were 11.0% or 0.3% in FN vs 20.6% or 3.6% in FA, respectively ( p<0.001). Conclusions: FN demonstrated non-inferiority to FA, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for ISRs. For the period beyond 120 h after initiation of chemotherapy, FN may have the potential to improve the prevention of “beyond delayed” CINV. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-194611. [Table: see text]

Palonosetron is a Better Choice Compared With Ondansetron for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in a Resource-limited Pediatric Oncology Center: Results From a Randomized Control Trial.

Palonosetron (PG) is a newer, safe, and effective long-acting 5-HT3 antagonist commonly used in adults, but data in children are limited. A randomized controlled trial was carried out among children with cancer during their first cycle of moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy to receive either PG or ondansetron (OG) with the aim of comparing their efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. In total, 200 children (mean age, 8 y, male:female=1.8:1) were recruited, 100 in each arm. Complete response, defined as no vomiting, in acute (<24 h), delayed (24 to 120 h), and overall phases (0 to 120 h) was observed in 88%, 88%, and 81% of cases, respectively, for PG versus 84%, 79%, and 72%, respectively, for OG (P=0.42, 0.09 and 0.21, respectively). Complete protection rates, defined as no nausea and vomiting in children above 6 years of age, in acute, delayed, and overall phases were 84%, 81%, and 73%, respectively, for PG versus 79%, 67%, and 60%, respectively, for OG (P=0.44, 0.06 and 0.10, respectively). Overall, the efficacy and safety of PG in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was comparable with OG, but PG was a more cost-effective and suitable choice for busy centers in resource-limited countries.

PWSC2-4 - Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Two Doses of Intravenous Granisetron Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of 1 mg to 3 mg granisetron injection for the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and to evaluate the tolerability of granisetron given at 1 mg in Japanese cancer patients.Methods: Patients with cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy were enrolled in this single-blind randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive granisetron at a single dose of 1 mg or 3 mg. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete protection from emetic events(no vomiting, no retching, and no need for rescue medication)during the first 24 hours following the initiation of chemotherapy.Results: There were 89 patients in the 1-mg group and 90 patients in the 3-mg group. Complete protection was achieved in 70 patients(78.7%) in the 1-mg group and 73(81.1%) patients in the 3-mg group. The one-sided test did not reveal non-inferiority of either dose of granisetron to the other at a 5.0% significance level.Conclusion: Our data failed to show the non-inferiority of 1 mg to 3 mg of granisetron administered as a single dose. However, the rate of complete protection from nausea and vomiting was similar in the two groups. Given the recommended dosage in the guidelines and the economic need for reduction of medical care expenses in Japan, prophylactic administration of granisetron at 1 mg may be an appropriate treatment alternative for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Safety and pharmacokinetic evaluation of repeated intravenous administration of palonosetron 0.75 mg in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

The aims of this study were to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of repeated doses of palonosetron 0.75 mg on days 1 and 3 in Japanese patients who received highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Twenty- six patients received palonosetron 0.75 mg intravenously before chemotherapy on days 1 and 3 plus dexamethasone (12-16 mg before chemotherapy on day 1 and 4-8 mg on days 2 and 3). The primary endpoints were safety and pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetics were evaluated in a subset of patients (n=6). Complete response and complete protection were evaluated as secondary endpoints. The accumulation ratios for C max and AUClast after the second dose on day 3 were 1.42 and 1.37, respectively. These values were consistent with the theoretical values expected from the half-life of palonosetron on day 1. Almost all of the patients had no nausea or vomiting in the acute phase (complete response (CR) rate, 96.2% [25/26]; CP rate, 92.3% [24/26]). In the delayed phase (24-192 h post-chemotherapy), the complete response and complete protection rates were 76.9% (20/26) and 61.5% (16/26), respectively. Treatment was well tolerated. This is the first study to report the pharmacokinetics of multiple doses of palonosetron 0.75 mg, given on days 1 and 3, in Japanese patients. Repeated treatment with palonosetron was safe and well tolerated by patients who received highly or moderately emetogenic anticancer chemotherapy.

Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Two Doses of Intravenous Granisetron (1 and 3 mg) for Acute Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Cancer Patients: A Non-inferiority Trial

The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of 1 mg to 3 mg granisetron (GRN) injection for the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and to evaluate the tolerability of GRN given at 1 mg in Japanese cancer patients. Patients with cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy were enrolled in this single-blind randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive GRN at a single dose of 1 or 3 mg. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete protection from emetic events (no vomiting, no retching and no need for rescue medication) during the first 24 h following the initiation of chemotherapy. There were 89 patients in the 1 mg group and 90 patients in the 3 mg group. Complete protection was achieved in 70 patients (78.7%) in the 1 mg group and 73 (81.1%) patients in the 3 mg group. The one-sided test did not reveal non-inferiority of either dose of GRN to the other at a 5% significance level. Our data failed to show the non-inferiority of 1 mg of GRN to 3 mg of GRN administered as a single dose. However, the rate of complete protection from nausea and vomiting was similar in the two groups. Given the recommended dosage in the guidelines and the economic need for reduction of medical care expenses in Japan, prophylactic administration of GRN at 1 mg may be an appropriate, alternative treatment for acute CINV in cancer patients.

Cisplatin-Related Hiccups: Male Predominance, Induction by Dexamethasone, and Protection Against Nausea and Vomiting

Dexamethasone is likely to play a role in the etiology of hiccups in patients receiving cisplatin-based regimens. Two hundred seventy-seven patients received three doses of ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (IV) at 4 hour intervals plus dexamethasone 20 mg IV from the start of chemotherapy, followed by dexamethasone 5 mg IV every 12 hours, until chemotherapy was complete. Hiccups were observed in 114 (41.2%) patients, of whom 97.4% were men. Nausea and vomiting showed inverse correlations with hiccups ( P < 0.0001 and P = 0.001, respectively). In 73 patients who experienced hiccups but lacked nausea/vomiting (H+N/V−), we discontinued dexamethasone in subsequent cycles. Sixty-six patients (90.4%) ceased hiccuping, but complete protection rates of nausea and vomiting decreased to 63% and 74%, respectively. For patients who experienced both hiccups and nausea/vomiting, the onset of nausea/vomiting usually was delayed to Day 3 or 4 and began after the cessation of hiccups. We conclude that cisplatin-related hiccups are predominant in males, dexamethasone-induced, and associated with protection against nausea/vomiting.

Recombinant Hymenoptera venom allergens.

Hymenoptera venoms, instead of the previously used whole body extracts, were introduced in the late 1970s for the diagnosis and treatment of IgE-mediated allergic reactions to stings by insects of the order Hymenoptera, such as honey bees and vespids (1, 2). Insect venom allergy is often considered as a model for IgE-mediated allergy: Diagnostic tests (skin tests and radioallergosorbant assays, RAST) are thought to be reliable, and specific immunotherapy with venoms is claimed to be safe and highly effective. However on closer looks the specificity of the main diagnostic tests (prick tests or intracutaneous skin tests with insect venom extracts, and tests for venom-specific serum IgE antibodies) is far from perfect. Up to 20% of individuals with no history of systemic sting reactions have positive tests. On the other hand only 30–50% of those with positive tests will react to a subsequent sting by the respective insect (3). According to a sting provocation test during venom immunotherapy around 95% of patients allergic to vespid stings are completely protected and do not develop any generalized allergic symptoms, while the complete protection rate achieved for those allergic to honey bee venom is only 80–90% (3, 4). Systemic allergic side-effects to immunotherapy injections may occur in 20–40% of patients during immunotherapy with honey bee venom and 5–10% during immunotherapy with vespid venoms (4). There is therefore considerable potential for improvement of both diagnosis and immunotherapy of Hymenoptera venom allergy. Thanks to modern molecular biology technology, recombinant venom allergens are available today and offer several promising approaches to achieve such an improvement. Expression of various recombinant allergens from Hymenoptera venoms

Initial high anti-emetic efficacy of granisetron with dexamethasone is not maintained over repeated cycles.

We have reported previously that the anti-emetic efficacy of single agent 5HT3 antagonists is not maintained when analysed with the measurement of cumulative probabilities. Presently, the most effective anti-emetic regimen is a combination of a 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone. We, therefore, assessed the sustainment of efficacy of such a combination in 125 patients, scheduled to receive cisplatin > or = 70 mg m(-2) either alone or in combination with other cytotoxic drugs. Anti-emetic therapy was initiated with 10 mg of dexamethasone and 3 mg of granisetron intravenously, before cisplatin. On days 1-6, patients received 8 mg of dexamethasone and 1 mg of granisetron twice daily by oral administration. Protection was assessed during all cycles and calculated based on cumulative probability analyses using the method of Kaplan-Meier and a model for transitional probabilities. Irrespective of the type of analysis used, the anti-emetic efficacy of granisetron/dexamethasone decreased over cycles. The initial complete acute emesis protection rate of 66% decreased to 30% according to the method of Kaplan-Meier and to 39% using the model for transitional probabilities. For delayed emesis, the initial complete protection rate of 52% decreased to 21% (Kaplan-Meier) and to 43% (transitional probabilities). In addition, we observed that protection failure in the delayed emesis period adversely influenced the acute emesis protection in the next cycle. We conclude that the anti-emetic efficacy of a 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone is not maintained over multiple cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and that the acute emesis protection is adversely influenced by protection failure in the delayed emesis phase.

Assessment of the emetogenic potential of intrathecal chemotherapy and response to prophylactic treatment with ondansetron.

The purpose of this study was to document the emetogenic potential of intrathecal chemotherapy (IC) in children and to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron in reducing nausea and vomiting with this chemotherapy treatment. Patients less than 18 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were eligible to participate in a survey project measuring the emetogenic potential of various chemotherapy treatments. Patients surveyed for 1 or more IC treatments were included in this report. The IC consisted of methotrexate, hydrocortisone and cytarabine, dosed according to patient age. A nausea/vomiting survey instrument was completed by each patient and/or parent following IC treatment. The instrument rated nausea, vomiting and daily activity interference (DAI) on a 4-point scale of 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe, and collected data on the number of vomiting and/or retching episodes in addition to the child's appetite following the chemotherapy treatment. When ondansetron was employed, it was administered in an i.v. infusion at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg before and after chemotherapy or as an oral dose of 4 mg or 8 mg before chemotherapy. Courses of IC without antiemetics were analyzed to determine the emetogenic potential of IC. For patients receiving IC both with and without ondansetron, courses were compared with each patient used as their own control to determine the influence of ondansetron upon survey responses. Statistical analysis consisted of nonparametric Friedman 2-way ANOVA for ordinal variables and a paired t-test for continuous variables. The binomial test was employed to analyze for differences between ondansetron and no antiemetic in the number of patients with complete control of both nausea and vomiting or vomiting alone. A total of 63 children with a mean age of 7.6 +/- 4.2 years were each studied on one or more occasions. Thirty-seven children were surveyed for 87 IC treatments without antiemetics (group I), and 17 children from this group were surveyed for 48 IC courses with i.v. ondansetron (group IA). An additional 18 children were subsequently surveyed for 39 IC courses with i.v. ondansetron (group II). Fifteen patients (7 of whom were members of group I) were surveyed following 33 IC courses with oral ondansetron (group III). The survey scores for group I patients were: nausea severity 1.3 +/- 1.1, vomiting severity 1.2 +/- 1.1, DAI 1.2 +/- 1.0 and mean number of emetic episodes 4.7 +/- 8.4. The mean appetite score was 1.5 +/- 1.1. For patients in group IA, nausea severity (0.8 +/- 0.9), vomiting severity (0.5 +/- 0.8), DAI (0.7 +/- 0.8), and the number of emetic episodes (1.4 +/- 2.8) were all significantly lower than with prior IC treatments without ondansetron. For complete protection, children receiving i.v. ondansetron had greater complete protection rates from both nausea and vomiting or vomiting alone than did patients receiving no antiemetic. Survey responses were also lower for patients receiving oral ondansetron, but insufficient control data did not allow for statistical analysis. IC results in mild to moderate nausea and vomiting in children. The emetogenic potential of IC is significantly reduced by i.v. ondansetron.

Dexamethasone improves the efficacy of granisetron in the first 24 h following high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy

The object of the study was to determine whether dexamethasone improved the efficacy of the serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist granisetron in controlling acute (within 24 h) emesis in cancer patients receiving high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy and to ascertain whether continuation of granisetron after 24 h reduces the occurrence of delayed emesis. This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, three-arm study was conducted at 21 medical centres. A group of 292 nausea- and emesis-free patients with cancer, who had never had chemotherapy and were scheduled to receive at least 50 mg/m2 cisplatin, were given 3 mg granisetron i.v. in a 15-min infusion with or without 10 mg dexamethasone i.v. completed 5 min prior to high-dose cisplatin and 1 mg granisetron p.o. at +6 h and +12 h. Primary study end-points were control of emesis and nausea. Patients completed a self-report diary every 6 h for the first 24 h. At the end of the 24-h period, the patients who received dexamethasone had a significantly higher complete protection rate from emesis (64% compared to 39%) than those who received no steroid. Similarly, the dexamethasone-treated group had a significantly higher complete plus partial (0-2 emetic episodes) protection rate (84% compared to 64%). This study shows that dexamethasone markedly enhances the antiemetic efficacy of granisetron for acute-onset emesis in high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

Dose-ranging evaluation of the serotonin antagonist dolasetron mesylate in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin.

This dose-ranging trial of intravenous dolasetron mesylate (MDL73,147EF) was performed to determine its adverse and antiemetic effects in patients receiving cisplatin at doses > or = 100 mg/m2. Eighty-nine patients treated with initial cisplatin received a single intravenous dose of dolasetron mesylate administered over 20 minutes beginning 30 minutes before chemotherapy. The following four dose levels were studied: 1.8, 2.4, 3.0, and 5.0 mg/kg. Emesis and adverse effects were measured for 24 hours after cisplatin. All adverse effects were mild and transient including loose stools, headache, serum AST/ALT elevations, and asymptomatic prolongation of ECG intervals. Among the dose levels, no-emesis rates from 24% to 52% were observed, and the percentage of patients having zero, one, or two emetic episodes ranged from 48% to 82%. Complete control of vomiting increased as the dose was escalated to 2.4 mg/kg, but did not improve further with higher doses. Dolasetron mesylate can be administered safely at doses up to 5.0 mg/kg, with comparable complete protection rates and increased adverse effects at doses greater than 2.4 mg/kg. Antiemetic activity was seen after cisplatin. Trials comparing single infusions of dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron are under way.

Progressive loss of antiemetic efficacy during subsequent courses of chemotherapy.

The maintenance of the antiemetic efficacy of a combined protocol (intravenous methylprednisolone, oral thiethylperazine and oral amitriptyline) during six consecutive courses of adjuvant FAC chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) was analysed in 107 female breast cancer patients who completed the six planned courses of treatment. A continuous decrease in complete (no vomiting episodes) and major protection rate (0-2 vomiting episodes) was evident during chemotherapy. Complete protection rate decreased from 62.6% in the first course to 48.6% in the sixth (P less than 0.05, chi 2 test). The respective figures for major protection rate were 76.6% and 58% (P less than 0.01, chi 2 test). These data, together with other from the literature, should be taken into consideration when reviewing the overall results of current antiemetic trials, which usually only mention the results obtained in the first course of chemotherapy.

A randomized, double-blinded study comparing six doses of batanopride (BMY-25801) with methylprednisolone in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Several agents in a new class of antiemetic compounds, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) antagonists, have shown promise as effective antiemetics with fewer side effects than metoclopramide. One of these agents, batanopride, produced no severe toxicity at doses that prevented emesis due to chemotherapy in early Phase I trials. We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, 7 arm clinical trial to: (1) identify the presence of a dose-response for complete protection from emesis, and (2) compare batanopride with a standard antiemetic, methylprednisolone if a dose-response was found not to exist. Prior to chemotherapy, six patient groups each received a single intravenous dose of batanopride ranging from 0.2 to 6.0 mg/kg whereas a seventh group received methylprednisolone 250 mg intravenously. Chemotherapy-naïve cancer patients scheduled to receive moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were eligible. Primary treatment outcomes that were recorded and analyzed included the number of episodes of emesis, the time to the first episode of emesis as well as the frequency and severity of nausea. Two hundred and eight patients accrued between April 1989 and February 1990 were evaluable for response. A significant dose-response effect for complete protection from emesis was not seen over the first 24 hours after chemotherapy (p = 0.102). However, a linear dose-response effect for time to first emesis was evident in a multivariate analysis (p = 0.029). While the highest batanopride dose group was associated with a higher complete protection rate (CPR) than the control group, this group also exhibited a higher incidence of diarrhea (p = 0.013), hypotension, and electrocardiographic abnormalities.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A single-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron, a selective serotonin antagonist, with intravenous metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

Ondansetron (GR 38032F), a selective antagonist of serotonin subtype 3 receptors, is effective in the prevention of emesis associated with cisplatin as well as other chemotherapeutic agents. In this randomized, single-blind, multicenter, parallel group study, we compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) ondansetron with IV metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose (greater than or equal to 100 mg/m2) cisplatin chemotherapy. Three hundred seven patients receiving their first dose of cisplatin, either alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents, were randomized to receive ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg IV every 4 hours for three doses or metoclopramide 2 mg/kg IV every 2 hours for three doses, then every 3 hours for three additional doses. The study prohibited the concurrent administration of other antiemetics or dexamethasone. Patients receiving ondansetron had a higher rate of complete protection from emesis (40% v 30%, P = .07), a higher complete plus major response rate (65% v 51%, P = .016), a lower rate of failure (21% v 36%, P = .007), and a lower median number of emetic episodes (one v two, P = .005) than did those receiving metoclopramide. The median time to the first emetic episode was longer on ondansetron (20.5 v 4.3 hours, P less than .001). Adverse events occurred in 48% of patients receiving ondansetron and 69% of those receiving metoclopramide (P less than .001). Akathisia and acute dystonic reactions occurred only on metoclopramide; headache (controlled with acetaminophen) was significantly more frequent with ondansetron. Ondansetron is more effective, produces fewer adverse events, and is easier to administer than metoclopramide for the prevention of emesis associated with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

The Antiemetic Efficacy of Thiethylperazine and Methylprednisolone Versus Thiethylperazine and Placebo in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Adjuvant Chemotherapy (Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide): A randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial

Forty-six women with breast cancer treated with adjuvant FAC (fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) entered a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial in which thiethylperazine (T) (6.5 mg p.o every 8 h x 3 days) plus methylprednisolone (MP) (250 mg i.v. x 2 doses) was compared with thiethylperazine plus placebo. Forty-four patients were evaluable for efficacy. T + MP was significantly better in reducing vomiting (p less than 0.01) and nausea (p less than 0.02). The complete protection rate against vomiting was 36% for T + MP compared to 18% for T + placebo, and the percentage of nausea grades 0 + 1 (none or slight) was 59% and 27% respectively. The patient preference after cross-over was strikingly in favor of T + MP (70% versus 13%) (p less than 0.001). The most important side-effects of T + MP were facial flushing (22%) and euphoria (27%). Other side-effects, such as dryness of the mouth and sedation, were common after both treatments. In conclusion, the study suggested that T + MP is superior to T alone in protecting from nausea and vomiting induced by FAC.

Alizapride Alone or Alizapride-Dexamethasone Compared with Metoclopramide-Dexamethasone in Patients at High Risk of Acute Emesis After Cisplatin. A Randomized Cross-over Study

Alizapride (ALZ) is a new benzamide derivative with promising antiemetic activity. In the present study, high-dose ALZ (16 mg/kg) alone or in combination with dexamethasone (DXM, 40 mg) was compared to a combination of DXM (40 mg) and metoclopramide (MCP, 4 mg/kg) in a randomized cross-over trial conducted on 21 out-patients at high emetic risk after moderate-dose cisplatin. All but 3 patients completed the planned cross-over trial for a total of 60 evaluable courses. The patients completed a self assessment questionnaire evaluating the severity and duration of both nausea and vomiting, the toxicity, as well as their subjective opinion of the antiemetic trial. At the dose and schedule employed, ALZ alone or in combination with DXM provided not only a significantly lower rate of complete protection against nausea and vomiting (0 and 4.8%) than MCP + DXM (28.6%) but was also less effective in reducing the number of vomiting episodes and the duration of the vomiting. In addition, the MCP - DXM regimen was the most frequently preferred. Except for one case of orthostatic hypotension following ALZ, benzamide-induced toxicity was mild, whereas that related to DXM was negligible. The results of this study suggest that high-dose ALZ gives no advantage compared to MCP in patients at high risk for emesis after moderate-dose cisplatin.