Hata Akito, Shiraishi Yoshimasa, Inui Naoki, Okada Morihito, Morise Masahiro, Akiyoshi Kohei, Takeda Masayuki, Watanabe Yasutaka, Sugawara Shunichi, Shinagawa Naofumi, Kubota Kaoru, Saeki Toshiaki, Tamura Tomohide
Department of Thoracic Oncology, Kobe Minimally Invasive Cancer Center, 8-5-1 Minatojima-minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0047, Japan.
Research Institute for Diseases of the Chest, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Oncol Ther. 2022 Jun;10(1):253-262. doi: 10.1007/s40487-022-00188-2. Epub 2022 Mar 4.
We describe the results of an exploratory analysis performed on the first head-to-head study (JapicCTI-194611) comparing two different intravenous (IV) neurokinin 1 (NK) receptor antagonists, fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant, in combination with palonosetron (PALO) and dexamethasone (DEX) for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This analysis was performed to validate the findings of the primary analysis (previously published) utilizing a last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach for missing values for the efficacy endpoint of complete response (no emetic event and no rescue medication), while also evaluating the time periods encompassing the 0-168-hour (h) "extended overall phase" interval.
Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to fosnetupitant 235 mg or fosaprepitant 150 mg in combination with PALO 0.75 mg and DEX. Complete response rates were calculated and compared (stratified by age category and sex with a Mantel-Haenszel test) during the study's primary overall phase (0-120 h) and during additional time intervals of interest [acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), extended delayed (> 24-168 h), beyond delayed (120-168 h), and extended overall (0-168 h)].
A total of 785 patients were included (fosnetupitant N = 392, fosaprepitant N = 393). Complete response rates were numerically higher for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant for all time intervals and statistically significant for the extended overall phase. Complete response rates for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant during the overall, acute, delayed, extended delayed, beyond delayed, and extended overall phases were 75.5% vs. 71.0% (p = 0.1530), 93.9% vs. 92.6% (p = 0.4832), 77.0% vs. 72.8% (p = 0.1682), 74.7% vs. 68.4% (p = 0.0506), 86.7% vs. 81.7% (p = 0.0523), and 73.5% vs. 66.9% (p = 0.0450), respectively.
In this exploratory analysis, fosnetupitant appeared to be more effective than fosaprepitant in preventing CINV associated with cisplatin-based HEC during the extended 7-day period following chemotherapy. INFOGRAPHIC.
我们描述了一项探索性分析的结果,该分析是在第一项头对头研究(JapicCTI-194611)中进行的,该研究比较了两种不同的静脉注射神经激肽1(NK)受体拮抗剂福沙匹坦和磷丙泊酚二钠,联合帕洛诺司琼(PALO)和地塞米松(DEX)用于预防高致吐性化疗(HEC)引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)。进行该分析是为了利用末次观察值结转(LOCF)方法验证主要分析(先前已发表)的结果,该方法用于完全缓解(无呕吐事件且无救援药物)疗效终点的缺失值,同时还评估了涵盖0至168小时“延长总阶段”间隔的时间段。
计划接受基于顺铂化疗的患者按1:1随机分为接受235毫克福沙匹坦或150毫克磷丙泊酚二钠联合0.75毫克PALO和DEX。在研究的主要总阶段(0至120小时)以及其他感兴趣的时间间隔[急性期(0至24小时)、延迟期(24至120小时)、延长延迟期(>24至168小时)、超延迟期(120至168小时)和延长总阶段(0至168小时)]计算并比较完全缓解率(按年龄类别和性别分层,采用Mantel-Haenszel检验)。
共纳入785例患者(福沙匹坦组N = 392,磷丙泊酚二钠组N = 393)。在所有时间间隔内,福沙匹坦的完全缓解率在数值上均高于磷丙泊酚二钠,在延长总阶段具有统计学意义。福沙匹坦与磷丙泊酚二钠在总阶段、急性期、延迟期、延长延迟期、超延迟期和延长总阶段的完全缓解率分别为75.5%对71.0%(p = 0.1530)、93.9%对92.6%(p = 0.4832)、77.0%对72.8%(p = 0.1682)、74.7%对68.4%(p = 0.0506)、86.7%对81.7%(p = 0.0523)和73.5%对66.9%(p = 0.0450)。
在这项探索性分析中,在化疗后的延长7天期间,福沙匹坦在预防与基于顺铂的HEC相关的CINV方面似乎比磷丙泊酚二钠更有效。信息图。