Midori Nakagaki1, Michael Barras2,3, Cameron Curley4, Jason P Butler4, Glen A Kennedy3,4. 1. Pharmacy Department, Level 1 Ned Hanlon Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia. midori.nakagaki@health.qld.gov.au. 2. Pharmacy Department, Level 1 Ned Hanlon Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia. 3. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, Level 5 Joyce Tweddell Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine, palonosetron and ondansetron infusion (standard of care) for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). METHOD: It was a randomized open-label prospective study. Sixty-two patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 32-mg infusion over 24 h, or olanzapine wafer 10 mg once daily in addition to ondansetron 8 mg IV three times a day or a single dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg IV instead of ondansetron. All groups were allowed rescue antiemetics. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of no emesis, no use of rescue medication, and nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. The secondary endpoint was nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. Both endpoints were measured at 24 and 48 h after initiation of the study treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted using a double-sided Fisher's exact test. RESULT: The primary endpoint was achieved in 6, 45, and 18 %, and 6, 64, and 18 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. The secondary outcome was observed in 17, 60, and 62 %, and 35, 71, and 43 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. Serious adverse drug reactions were not reported in any arms. Time to engraftment was not significantly different between the arms. CONCLUSIONS:Olanzapine was an effective treatment of breakthrough CINV. A single dose of palonosetron significantly reduced nausea up to 24 h.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine, palonosetron and ondansetron infusion (standard of care) for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). METHOD: It was a randomized open-label prospective study. Sixty-two patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 32-mg infusion over 24 h, or olanzapine wafer 10 mg once daily in addition to ondansetron 8 mg IV three times a day or a single dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg IV instead of ondansetron. All groups were allowed rescue antiemetics. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of no emesis, no use of rescue medication, and nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. The secondary endpoint was nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. Both endpoints were measured at 24 and 48 h after initiation of the study treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted using a double-sided Fisher's exact test. RESULT: The primary endpoint was achieved in 6, 45, and 18 %, and 6, 64, and 18 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetronpatient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. The secondary outcome was observed in 17, 60, and 62 %, and 35, 71, and 43 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetronpatient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. Serious adverse drug reactions were not reported in any arms. Time to engraftment was not significantly different between the arms. CONCLUSIONS:Olanzapine was an effective treatment of breakthrough CINV. A single dose of palonosetron significantly reduced nausea up to 24 h.
Authors: Rudolph M Navari; Rui Qin; Kathryn J Ruddy; Heshan Liu; Steven F Powell; Madhuri Bajaj; Leah Dietrich; David Biggs; Jacqueline M Lafky; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexander Molassiotis; Matti Aapro; Mario Dicato; Pere Gascon; Sylvia A Novoa; Nicolas Isambert; Thomas A Burke; Anna Gu; Fausto Roila Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: S A Giralt; K F Mangan; R T Maziarz; J S Bubalo; R Beveridge; D D Hurd; F L Mendoza; E B Rubenstein; T J DeGroot; M W Schuster Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M Musso; R Scalone; A Crescimanno; V Bonanno; V Polizzi; F Porretto; C Bianchini; T Perrone Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Patrick J Stiff; Mary P Fox-Geiman; Karen Kiley; Karen Rychlik; Mala Parthasarathy; Donna Fletcher-Gonzalez; Nancy Porter; Aileen Go; Scott E Smith; Tulio E Rodriguez Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: N Bouganim; G Dranitsaris; S Hopkins; L Vandermeer; L Godbout; S Dent; P Wheatley-Price; C Milano; M Clemons Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Ashley Leak Bryant; Erin Coffman; Brett Phillips; Xianming Tan; Elizabeth Bullard; Rachel Hirschey; Joshua Bradley; Antonia V Bennett; Angela M Stover; Lixin Song; Thomas C Shea; William A Wood Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ronald Chow; Jørn Herrstedt; Matti Aapro; Leonard Chiu; Henry Lam; Elizabeth Prsic; Michael Lock; Carlo DeAngelis; Rudolph M Navari Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.359