The oncologist · 2021
A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАPragmatic Clinical TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zelek Laurent, Debourdeau Philippe, Bourgeois Hugues, Wagner Jean Philippe, Brocard Fabien, Lefeuvre-Plesse Claudia, Chauffert Bruno, Leheurteur Marianne, Bachet Jean-Baptiste, Simon Hélène, Mayeur Didier, Scotté Florian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3 ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT3 RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK1 RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK1 RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.
RESULTS: Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.
CONCLUSION: This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK1 RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK1 RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.
RESULTS: Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.
CONCLUSION: This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK1 RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK1 RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.