Rapoport Bernardo L
The Medical Oncology Centre of Rosebank , Johannesburg , South Africa.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2014 Sep;30(9):1875-81. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2014.925866. Epub 2014 Jun 12.
To determine the variability in treatment responses to antiemetic therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone vs ondansetron and dexamethasone plus aprepitant) given with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
Post hoc subgroup analysis of data from a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trial evaluated whether the efficacy of aprepitant triple therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone plus aprepitant) versus control (ondansetron and dexamethasone) varies by gender, age, or region in 848 men and women ≥18 years old with histologically confirmed malignancies and who were naïve to moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents. Endpoints compared were the incidences of no vomiting, complete response, and no use of rescue therapy, all during the overall period (0-120 h).
Regardless of age, gender, or region, the aprepitant regimen provided better control for the no-vomiting and complete-response (no vomiting, no rescue therapy) endpoints.
The aprepitant regimen provided better control for the no-vomiting and complete-response (no vomiting, no rescue therapy) endpoints. Overall response rates were higher in men and in older (≥55 y) patients, but treatment differences were greater among women and younger patients, known to be at increased chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk. Aprepitant showed a benefit versus control across regions, although the between-treatment difference appeared to be smaller for patients in Central/South America versus North America or international regions.
Although we acknowledge that subset numbers in this post hoc analysis may be too small to allow definitive conclusions, the data suggest that aprepitant triple therapy provides a benefit over control therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC)- or non-AC-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy across age, gender, and region. (Original trial results available at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00337727.).
确定在接受中度致吐性化疗时,使用止吐疗法(昂丹司琼和地塞米松对比昂丹司琼、地塞米松加阿瑞匹坦)的治疗反应变异性。
对一项III期随机双盲临床试验的数据进行事后亚组分析,评估阿瑞匹坦三联疗法(昂丹司琼、地塞米松加阿瑞匹坦)与对照组(昂丹司琼和地塞米松)在848例年龄≥18岁、经组织学确诊为恶性肿瘤且未曾接受中度或高度致吐性化疗药物治疗的男性和女性中的疗效是否因性别、年龄或地区而异。比较的终点是在整个时间段(0 - 120小时)内无呕吐、完全缓解和未使用救援治疗的发生率。
无论年龄、性别或地区如何,阿瑞匹坦方案对无呕吐和完全缓解(无呕吐、无救援治疗)终点的控制效果更好。
阿瑞匹坦方案对无呕吐和完全缓解(无呕吐、无救援治疗)终点的控制效果更好。总体缓解率在男性和年龄较大(≥55岁)的患者中较高,但在已知化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)风险增加的女性和年轻患者中,治疗差异更大。阿瑞匹坦在各地区均显示出优于对照组的效果,尽管中南美洲患者与北美或国际地区患者相比,治疗组间差异似乎较小。
尽管我们承认在这项事后分析中的亚组数量可能太少,无法得出确定性结论,但数据表明,阿瑞匹坦三联疗法在预防接受蒽环类和环磷酰胺(AC)或非AC方案的中度致吐性化疗的患者的CINV方面,比对照疗法更具优势,且不受年龄、性别和地区影响。(原始试验结果可在ClinicalTrials.gov获取:NCT00337727。)