Suppr超能文献

奥氮平与阿瑞匹坦预防化疗引起的恶心和呕吐:一项随机III期试验

Olanzapine versus aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized phase III trial.

作者信息

Navari Rudolph M, Gray Sarah E, Kerr Andrew C

机构信息

Indiana University School of Medicine South Bend, South Bend, IN, USA.

出版信息

J Support Oncol. 2011 Sep-Oct;9(5):188-95. doi: 10.1016/j.suponc.2011.05.002. Epub 2011 Sep 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine (OLN) and aprepitant (APR) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

A phase III trial was performed in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m(2) or cyclophosphamide ≥ 500 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin ≥ 50 mg/m(2), comparing OLN to APR in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX). The OLN, PAL, DEX (OPD) regimen was 10 mg of oral OLN, 0.25 mg of IV PAL, and 20 mg of IV DEX prechemotherapy, day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral OLN alone on days 2-4 postchemotherapy. The APR, PAL, DEX (APD) regimen was 125 mg of oral APR, 0.25 mg of IV PAL, and 12 mg of IV DEX, day 1, and 80 mg of oral APR, days 2 and 3, and 4 mg of DEX BID, days 2-4. Two hundred fifty-one patients consented to the protocol and were randomized. Two hundred forty-one patients were evaluable.

RESULTS

Complete response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue) was 97% for the acute period (24 hours postchemotherapy), 77% for the delayed period (days 2-5 postchemotherapy), and 77% for the overall period (0-120 hours) for 121 patients receiving the OPD regimen. CR was 87% for the acute period, 73% for the delayed period, and 73% for the overall period in 120 patients receiving the APD regimen. Patients without nausea (0, scale 0-10, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory) were OPD: 87% acute, 69% delayed, and 69% overall; APD: 87% acute, 38% delayed, and 38% overall. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. CR and control of nausea in subsequent chemotherapy cycles were equal to or greater than cycle 1 for both regimens. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Nausea was better controlled with OPD.

DISCUSSION

In this study, OLN combined with a single dose of DEX and a single dose of PAL was very effective at controlling acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. CR rates were not significantly different from a similar group of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and an antiemetic regimen consisting of APR, PAL, and DEX.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较奥氮平(OLN)和阿瑞匹坦(APR)在接受高致吐性化疗的患者中预防化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)的效果。

方法

在未接受过化疗的患者中进行了一项III期试验,这些患者接受顺铂≥70mg/m²或环磷酰胺≥500mg/m²以及多柔比星≥50mg/m²的化疗,将OLN与APR联合帕洛诺司琼(PAL)和地塞米松(DEX)进行比较。OLN、PAL、DEX(OPD)方案为化疗前第1天口服10mg OLN、静脉注射0.25mg PAL和静脉注射20mg DEX,化疗后第2 - 4天仅口服10mg/天的OLN。APR、PAL、DEX(APD)方案为化疗第1天口服125mg APR、静脉注射0.25mg PAL和静脉注射12mg DEX,第2天和第3天口服80mg APR,第2 - 4天口服4mg DEX,每日两次。251名患者同意该方案并被随机分组。241名患者可进行评估。

结果

接受OPD方案的121名患者在急性期(化疗后24小时)的完全缓解(CR)(无呕吐、无补救治疗)率为97%,延迟期(化疗后第2 - 5天)为77%,总体期(0 - 120小时)为77%。接受APD方案的120名患者在急性期的CR率为87%,延迟期为73%,总体期为73%。无恶心(0分,0 - 10分,MD安德森症状量表)的患者,OPD方案:急性期87%,延迟期69%,总体期69%;APD方案:急性期87%,延迟期38%,总体期38%。无3级或4级毒性反应。两种方案在后续化疗周期中的CR和恶心控制情况均等于或优于第1周期。在控制CINV方面,OPD与APD相当。OPD对恶心的控制更好。

讨论

在本研究中,OLN联合单剂量DEX和单剂量PAL在控制接受高致吐性化疗患者的急性和延迟性CINV方面非常有效。CR率与接受高致吐性化疗并采用由APR、PAL和DEX组成的止吐方案的类似患者组无显著差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验