Icelandic
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Cancer Research and Treatment 2020-Mar

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

Aðeins skráðir notendur geta þýtt greinar
Skráðu þig / skráðu þig
Krækjan er vistuð á klemmuspjaldið
Jin Kang
Jung Kwon
Yun-Gyoo Lee
Keon Park
Ho An
Joohyuk Sohn
Young Seol
Hyunwoo Lee
Hwan-Jung Yun
Jin Ahn

Lykilorð

Útdráttur

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

Skráðu þig á
facebook síðu okkar

Heillasta gagnagrunnur lækningajurtanna sem studdur er af vísindum

  • Virkar á 55 tungumálum
  • Jurtalækningar studdir af vísindum
  • Jurtaviðurkenning eftir ímynd
  • Gagnvirkt GPS kort - merktu jurtir á staðsetningu (kemur fljótlega)
  • Lestu vísindarit sem tengjast leit þinni
  • Leitaðu að lækningajurtum eftir áhrifum þeirra
  • Skipuleggðu áhugamál þitt og vertu vakandi með fréttarannsóknum, klínískum rannsóknum og einkaleyfum

Sláðu inn einkenni eða sjúkdóm og lestu um jurtir sem gætu hjálpað, sláðu jurt og sjáðu sjúkdóma og einkenni sem hún er notuð við.
* Allar upplýsingar eru byggðar á birtum vísindarannsóknum

Google Play badgeApp Store badge