Slovak
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.

Články môžu prekladať iba registrovaní používatelia
Prihlásiť Registrácia
Odkaz sa uloží do schránky
Jin Kang
Jung Kwon
Yun-Gyoo Lee
Keon Park
Ho An
Joohyuk Sohn
Young Seol
Hyunwoo Lee
Hwan-Jung Yun
Jin Ahn

Kľúčové slová

Abstrakt

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.

Pripojte sa k našej
facebookovej stránke

Najkompletnejšia databáza liečivých bylín podporovaná vedou

  • Pracuje v 55 jazykoch
  • Bylinné lieky podporené vedou
  • Rozpoznávanie bylín podľa obrázka
  • Interaktívna GPS mapa - označte byliny na mieste (už čoskoro)
  • Prečítajte si vedecké publikácie týkajúce sa vášho hľadania
  • Vyhľadajte liečivé byliny podľa ich účinkov
  • Usporiadajte svoje záujmy a držte krok s novinkami, klinickými skúškami a patentmi

Zadajte príznak alebo chorobu a prečítajte si o bylinách, ktoré by vám mohli pomôcť, napíšte bylinu a pozrite sa na choroby a príznaky, proti ktorým sa používa.
* Všetky informácie sú založené na publikovanom vedeckom výskume

Google Play badgeApp Store badge