J Moukharskaya1, D M Abrams2, T Ashikaga3, F Khan4, J Schwartz5, K Wilson4, C Verschraegen4, T Openshaw6, J Valentine7, J Eneman8, P Unger9, S Ades10,11. 1. Harold Alfond Center for Cancer Care, Maine General Health, Augusta, ME, USA. 2. Hematology/Oncology, Harrison Health Partners, Poulsbo, WA, USA. 3. Medical Biostatistics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 4. University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT, USA. 5. Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Vermont Campus, Colchester, VT, USA. 6. Eastern Maine Medical Center Cancer Care of Maine, Bangor, ME, USA. 7. Central Vermont Medical Center, Barre, VT, USA. 8. York Hospital Oncology and Infusion Center, York, ME, USA. 9. Champlain Valley Hematology Oncology, Colchester, VT, USA. 10. University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT, USA. steven.ades@uvm.edu. 11. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Vermont Cancer Center, Given Building, E214C, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT, USA. steven.ades@uvm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Bone pain is a common side effect of pegfilgrastim and can interfere with quality of life and treatment adherence. This study investigated the impact of antihistamine prophylaxis on pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain. METHODS: This is a two-stage enrichment trial design. Patients receiving an initial dose of pegfilgrastim after chemotherapy were enrolled into the observation (OBS) stage. Those who developed significant back or leg bone pain (SP) were enrolled into the treatment (TRT) stage and randomized to daily loratadine 10 mg or placebo for 7 days. SP was defined by Brief Pain Inventory as back or leg pain score ≥5 and a 2-point increase after pegfilgrastim. The primary end point of TRT was reduction of worst back or leg bone pain with loratadine, defined as a 2-point decrease after treatment compared to OBS. RESULTS:Two hundred thirteen patients were included in the final analysis. Incidence of SP was 30.5 %. The SP subset had a worse overall Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Pain score (33.9 vs. 51.7, p < 0.001) and a higher mean white blood cell count (15.4 vs. 8.4 K/cm(3), p = 0.013) following pegfilgrastim than those without SP. Forty-six patients were randomized in the TRT. Benefit was 77.3 % with loratadine and 62.5 % with placebo (p = 0.35). Baseline NSAID use was documented in four patients (18.2 %) in loratadine arm and two patients (8.3 %) in placebo arm, with baseline non-NSAID use documented in five (22.7 %) and six (25 %) patients, respectively. Eight additional patients used NSAIDS by day 8 compared to day 1 (six in the loratadine and two in the placebo arm). A total of six additional patients used non-NSAIDS by day 8 compared to day 1 (four in the loratadine and two in the placebo arm). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of prophylactic loratadine does not decrease the incidence of severe bone pain or improve quality of life in a high-risk patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01311336.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Bone pain is a common side effect of pegfilgrastim and can interfere with quality of life and treatment adherence. This study investigated the impact of antihistamine prophylaxis on pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain. METHODS: This is a two-stage enrichment trial design. Patients receiving an initial dose of pegfilgrastim after chemotherapy were enrolled into the observation (OBS) stage. Those who developed significant back or leg bone pain (SP) were enrolled into the treatment (TRT) stage and randomized to daily loratadine 10 mg or placebo for 7 days. SP was defined by Brief Pain Inventory as back or leg pain score ≥5 and a 2-point increase after pegfilgrastim. The primary end point of TRT was reduction of worst back or leg bone pain with loratadine, defined as a 2-point decrease after treatment compared to OBS. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen patients were included in the final analysis. Incidence of SP was 30.5 %. The SP subset had a worse overall Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Pain score (33.9 vs. 51.7, p < 0.001) and a higher mean white blood cell count (15.4 vs. 8.4 K/cm(3), p = 0.013) following pegfilgrastim than those without SP. Forty-six patients were randomized in the TRT. Benefit was 77.3 % with loratadine and 62.5 % with placebo (p = 0.35). Baseline NSAID use was documented in four patients (18.2 %) in loratadine arm and two patients (8.3 %) in placebo arm, with baseline non-NSAID use documented in five (22.7 %) and six (25 %) patients, respectively. Eight additional patients used NSAIDS by day 8 compared to day 1 (six in the loratadine and two in the placebo arm). A total of six additional patients used non-NSAIDS by day 8 compared to day 1 (four in the loratadine and two in the placebo arm). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of prophylactic loratadine does not decrease the incidence of severe bone pain or improve quality of life in a high-risk patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01311336.
Entities:
Keywords:
Antihistamine; Bone pain; Loratadine; Pegfilgrastim; Prophylaxis; Taxane
Authors: Thomas J Smith; James Khatcheressian; Gary H Lyman; Howard Ozer; James O Armitage; Lodovico Balducci; Charles L Bennett; Scott B Cantor; Jeffrey Crawford; Scott J Cross; George Demetri; Christopher E Desch; Philip A Pizzo; Charles A Schiffer; Lee Schwartzberg; Mark R Somerfield; George Somlo; James C Wade; James L Wade; Rodger J Winn; Antoinette J Wozniak; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F A Holmes; J A O'Shaughnessy; S Vukelja; S E Jones; J Shogan; M Savin; J Glaspy; M Moore; L Meza; I Wiznitzer; T A Neumann; L R Hill; B C Liang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey J Kirshner; Charles E Heckler; Michelle C Janelsins; Shaker R Dakhil; Judith O Hopkins; Charlotte Coles; Gary R Morrow Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mova Leung; Joy Florendo; Jessica Kano; Tiffany Marr-Del Monte; Brian Higgins; Robert Myers; Trishala Menon; Glenn Jones Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michael A Pulsipher; Pintip Chitphakdithai; Brent R Logan; Bronwen E Shaw; John R Wingard; Hillard M Lazarus; Edmund K Waller; Matthew Seftel; David F Stroncek; Angela M Lopez; Dipnarine Maharaj; Peiman Hematti; Paul V O'Donnell; Alison W Loren; Susan F Leitman; Paolo Anderlini; Steven C Goldstein; John E Levine; Willis H Navarro; John P Miller; Dennis L Confer Journal: Blood Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Julie A Garrison; Jeannine S McCune; Robert B Livingston; Hannah M Linden; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Howard L West Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: Jeffrey J Kirshner; Maxwell C McDonald; Flavio Kruter; Andrew S Guinigundo; Linda Vanni; Cathy L Maxwell; Maureen Reiner; Terry E Upchurch; Jacob Garcia; Phuong Khanh Morrow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ling Deng; Xiang Mao; Dan Liu; Xin-Qiang Ning; Yi Shen; Bo Chen; Hong-Fang Nie; Dan Huang; Hui-Bo Luo Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Kevin C Kemp; Anastasia Georgievskaya; Kelly Hares; Juliana Redondo; Steven Bailey; Claire M Rice; Neil J Scolding; Chris Metcalfe; Alastair Wilkins Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 17.694