Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 119,120

of 'Prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults'

Comparison of an extended-release formulation of granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 trial.
Raftopoulos H, Cooper W, O'Boyle E, Gabrail N, Boccia R, Gralla RJ
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Mar;23(3):723-32. Epub 2014 Sep 2.
PURPOSE: Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).
METHODS: Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530-palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than -15 % indicated noninferiority.
RESULTS: In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [-9.8, 9.3]and 76.9 % [-7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [-11.5, 5.5]and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [-9.5, 12.1]vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation.
CONCLUSIONS: A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC.
Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, 450 Lakeville Road, Lake Success, NY, 11042, USA, hraftopo@nshs.edu.
Sustained antiemetic responses with APF530 (sustained-release granisetron) during multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy.
Boccia R, Cooper W, O'Boyle E
J Community Support Oncol. 2015 Feb;13(2):38-46.
BACKGROUND: A phase 3 trial in patients with cancer who received chemotherapy has shown that subcutaneous (SC) APF530, a sustained-delivery formulation of granisetron, is noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute (0-24 hours) and delayed (>24-120 hours) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the sustainability of APF530 antiemetic responses during multiple chemotherapy cycles.
METHODS: 1,395 patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively) were randomized either to APF530 250 or 500 mg SC (containing granisetron 5 or 10 mg, respectively) or palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously before cycle 1 of chemotherapy. Patients who received palonosetron in cycle 1 were rerandomized in cycles 2-4 to APF530 250 or 500 mg; those who received APF530 in cycle 1 continued their APF530 dose. Between-group response rates were compared using the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: Complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) for APF530 500 mg with HEC increased from 81.3% to 87.8% over 4 cycles in the acute phase of CINV, and from 67.1% to 83.1% in the delayed phase. Rates were slightly lower with MEC. Within-cycle CR rates between APF530 doses showed no significant differences. With HEC, APF530 500 mg provided sustained CRs through 4 cycles of chemotherapy in 68.4% of patients in the acute phase and in 57.9% in the delayed phase; with MEC, corresponding CRs were 56.5% and 41.3%. Nausea prevention was nearly as effective as emesis prevention.
LIMITATIONS: Chemotherapy emetogenicity was classified according to Hesketh criteria during the time of this study. However, subsequent post hoc analyses indicate that reclassification according to newer ASCO emetogenicity guidelines did not alter the original study noninferiority conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: CR rates with APF530 during the acute and delayed phases of CINV in MEC and HEC were maintained over multiple cycles.
Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. rboccia@ccbdmd.com.