ROLAPITANT FOR PREVENTION OF CHEMOTHERAPY-INDUCED NAUSEA AND VOMITING IN PATIENTS RECEIVING MODERATELY EMETOGENIC CHEMOTHERAPY IN THE UNITED STATES- SUBGROUP ANALYSIS FROM A RANDOMIZED PHASE III TRIAL
Author(s)
Schwartzberg LS1, Powers D2, Arora S2, Harrow B2, Schnadig ID3
1The West Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA, 2TESARO, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA, 3Compass Oncology, US Oncology Research, Tualatin, OR, USA
OBJECTIVES: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect, impairing quality of life (QoL) and increasing healthcare resource utilization. In a global phase 3 trial in patients administered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), addition of rolapitant, a long-acting, selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, to standard antiemetic therapy improved CINV control. To evaluate rolapitant outcomes in US medical practices, this post-hoc subgroup analysis assessed US patients administered MEC (n=278). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a single 180-mg oral dose of rolapitant or placebo ~1-2 hours before chemotherapy on day 1; all patients received 2 mg oral granisetron plus 20 mg oral dexamethasone 30 minutes before chemotherapy on day 1 and 2 mg oral granisetron once daily on days 2 and 3. Endpoints included complete response (CR; no emesis or use of recuse medication) in the delayed (>24-120 hours), acute (≤24 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) phases post-chemotherapy. Health-related QoL was assessed using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. RESULTS: The CR rate was significantly higher with rolapitant (n=139) than with control (n=139) in the delayed phase (66.2% vs 51.1% [P=0.011]), acute phase (89.2% vs 77.7% [P=0.010]), and overall phase (64.0% vs 47.5% [P=0.006]). Rolapitant significantly improved QoL versus control based on mean FLIE total scores (117.7 vs 108.1 [P<0.001]) and nausea and vomiting domain subtotal scores (56.5 vs 51.2 [P=0.002] and 61.2 vs 56.9 [P<0.001], respectively). A greater proportion of patients reported no impact of CINV on daily life (FLIE total score >108) with rolapitant versus control (84.7% vs 68.1% [P=0.003]). In the rolapitant and control groups, 86.3% and 91.4% of patients, respectively, reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: In US patients administered MEC, rolapitant was well tolerated and superior to control in preventing CINV and reducing the negative impact of CINV on QoL.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2016-05, ISPOR 2016, Washington DC, USA
Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May 2016)
Code
PCN13
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
Oncology