Suppr超能文献

雷莫司琼联合阿瑞匹坦和地塞米松对比帕洛诺司琼预防高度致吐性化疗所致恶心呕吐的疗效观察。

Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

机构信息

Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Jul;52(3):907-916. doi: 10.4143/crt.2019.713. Epub 2020 Mar 18.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较雷莫司琼(RAM)、阿瑞匹坦(APR)和地塞米松(DEX)[RAD]与帕洛诺司琼(PAL)、APR 和 DEX[PAD]在控制高度致吐性化疗(HEC)引起的恶心和呕吐方面的效果。

材料和方法

患者按 1:1 随机分配(随机分组)接受 RAD 或 PAD:RAM(静脉内 0.3 mg)或 PAL(静脉内 0.25 mg),D1,联合 APR(口服 125 mg,D1 和 80 mg 口服,D2-3)和 DEX(口服或静脉内 12 mg,D1 和 8 mg 口服,D2-4)。患者按性别、顺铂类化疗和给药方案分层。主要终点是总体完全缓解(CR),定义为 HEC 期间 5 天内无呕吐且无解救方案。次要终点是总体完全保护(CP;CR+恶心评分<25 mm)和总控制(TC;CR+恶心评分<5 mm)。在 D0 和 D6 通过功能性生活指数呕吐(FLIE)问卷评估生活质量。

结果

共评估了 279 例接受 RAD(n=137)或 PAD(n=142)的患者。RAD 和 PAD 组的总体 CR 率分别为 81.8%和 79.6%(风险差[RD],2.2%;95%置信区间[CI],-7.1 至 11.4)。RAD 和 PAD 的总体 CP 和 TC 率分别为 56.2%和 58.5%(RD,-2.3%;95%CI,-13.9 至 9.4)和 47.5%与 43.7%(RD,3.8%;95%CI,-7.9 至 15.5)。RAD 和 PAD 的 FLIE 总分≥108(对日常生活无影响)分别为 73.9%和 73.4%。两组的不良事件相似。

结论

在疗效、安全性和生活质量的各个方面,RAD 与 PAD 相比,在控制接受 HEC 的癌症患者的 CINV 方面均不劣效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5e0f/7373869/04c8d52e9275/crt-2019-713f1.jpg

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