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

Medline ® Abstract for Reference 97

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

Aprepitant versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a randomized, double-blind study.
Roila F, Ruggeri B, Ballatori E, Fatigoni S, Caserta C, Licitra L, Mirabile A, Ionta MT, Massidda B, Cavanna L, Palladino MA, Tocci A, Fava S, Colantonio I, Angelelli L, Ciuffreda L, Fasola G, Zerilli F, Italian Group for Antiemetic Research
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jun;26(6):1248-53. Epub 2015 Mar 5.
BACKGROUND: A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137 M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P<0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P<0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity.
Medical Oncology Division, 'S. Maria' Hospital, Terni roila.fausto@libero.it.