Literature DB >> 26795844

Palonosetron versus ondansetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in paediatric patients with cancer receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority study.

Gábor Kovács1, Antonio E Wachtel2, Elena V Basharova3, Tulla Spinelli4, Pierre Nicolas4, Edita Kabickova5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Palonosetron has shown efficacy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in paediatric patients.
METHODS: In this multicentre, multinational, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study, paediatric patients aged between 0 and younger than 17 years, who were naive or non-naive to chemotherapy, and scheduled to undergo moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy for the treatment of malignant disease were randomised centrally (1:1:1) to receive up to four cycles of 10 μg/kg or 20 μg/kg palonosetron on day 1, or three 150 μg/kg doses of ondansetron on day 1, scheduled 4 h apart, according to a static central permuted block randomisation scheme by an interactive web response system. Randomisation was stratified according to age and emetogenicity. Treatment allocation was masked to project team members involved in data collection and analysis, and members of the investigator's team. The primary endpoint was complete response (no vomiting, retching, or use of rescue drugs) during the acute phase (0-24 h post-chemotherapy) of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle, as assessed in the population of randomly assigned patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and an active study drug. The primary efficacy objective was to show the non-inferiority of palonosetron versus ondansetron during the acute phase (0-24 h post-chemotherapy) of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle through comparison of the difference in the proportions of patients who achieved a complete response with palonosetron (πT) minus ondansetron (πR) versus a preset non-inferiority margin (δ -15%). To be considered as non-inferior to ondansetron, for at least one of the doses of palonosetron, the lower limit of the 97·5% CI for the weighted sum of the differences in complete response rates had to be superior to -15%. Safety was assessed, according to treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01442376, and has been completed.
FINDINGS: Between Sept 12, 2011, and Oct 26, 2012, we randomly assigned 502 patients; 169 were assigned to receive 10 μg/kg palonosetron, 169 to receive 20 μg/kg palonosetron, and 164 to receive 3 × 150 μg/kg ondansetron, of whom 166, 165, and 162, respectively, were included in the efficacy analysis. In the acute phase, complete responses were recorded in 90 (54%) patients in the 10 μg/kg palonosetron group, 98 (59%) in the 20 μg/kg palonosetron group, and 95 (59%) in the ondansetron group. Non-inferiority versus ondansetron was shown for 20 μg/kg palonosetron in the acute phase (weighted sum of the differences in complete response rates 0·36% [97·5% CI -11·7 to 12·4]; p=0·0022). Non-inferiority versus ondansetron was not shown for 10 μg/kg palonosetron in the acute phase (weighted sum of the differences in complete response rates -4·41% [97·5% CI -16·4 to 7·6]). In the first on-study treatment cycle, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 134 (80%) of 167 patients who received 10 μg/kg palonosetron, 113 (69%) of 163 who received 20 μg/kg palonosetron, and 134 (82%) of 164 who received ondansetron. The most common drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were nervous system disorders, mainly headache, which occurred in three (2%) patients who received 10 μg/kg palonosetron, one (<1%) patient who received 20 μg/kg palonosetron, and two (1%) patients who received ondansetron. The incidence of serious adverse events in the first on-study treatment cycle was lower in the 20 μg/kg palonosetron group (43 [26%]) than in the 10 μg/kg palonosetron group (52 [31%]) and the ondansetron group (55 [34%]).
INTERPRETATION: Non-inferiority was shown for 20 μg/kg palonosetron during the acute phase of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle. 20 μg/kg palonosetron is now indicated by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in paediatric patients aged 1 month to younger than 17 years. FUNDING: Helsinn Healthcare.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26795844     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00520-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  8 in total

Review 1.  Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients.

Authors:  Rudolph M Navari
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.022

2.  Comparison of Antiemetic Effectiveness of Palonosetron Versus Ondansetron in Patients on Cancer Chemotherapy: A Prospective Observational Study in South Indians.

Authors:  Abdul Aslam Parathoduvil; Asha Sisupalan; Padanayil Lekshmikutty Rema
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-05-01

3.  A randomized, open-label non-inferiority study to compare palonosetron and ondansetron for prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children with cancer receiving moderate or high emetogenic chemotherapy.

Authors:  Sandeep Jain; Gauri Kapoor; Sahitya Koneru; Gayatri Vishwakarma
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  FLOT (a chemotherapy regimen for gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer): to be treated as a highly emetogenic regimen or a moderately emetogenic one? Comparison of the emetogenic potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC regimens.

Authors:  Marziyeh Ghorbani; Mehdi Dehghani; Noushin Fahimfar; Soha Namazi; Ali Dehshahri
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children.

Authors:  L Lee Dupuis; Lillian Sung; Alexander Molassiotis; Andrea D Orsey; Wim Tissing; Marianne van de Wetering
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Smartphone App to Self-Monitor Nausea During Pediatric Chemotherapy Treatment: User-Centered Design Process.

Authors:  Astrid Eliasen; Mikkel Kramme Abildtoft; Niels Steen Krogh; Catherine Rechnitzer; Jesper Sune Brok; René Mathiasen; Kjeld Schmiegelow; Kim Peder Dalhoff
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 4.773

Review 7.  Latest Update on Prevention of Acute Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Farha Sherani; Catherine Boston; Nkechi Mba
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  Effect of Palonosetron on Physical Symptoms of Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ruichao Chu
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-03-27       Impact factor: 2.238

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.