A Randomized Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter Trial of Azasetron versus Ondansetron to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in the Prevention of Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Chemotherapy

Hee Yeon Lee; Hoon-Kyo Kim; Kyung Hee Lee; Bong-Seog Kim; Hong Suk Song; Sung Hyun Yang; Joon Hee Kim; Yeul Hong Kim; Jong Gwang Kim; Sang-We Kim; Dong-Wan Kim; Si-Young Kim; Hee Sook Park

doi:10.4143/crt.2014.46.1.19

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 46(1); 2014 > Article

Original Article A Randomized Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter Trial of Azasetron versus Ondansetron to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in the Prevention of Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Chemotherapy: Hee Yeon Lee, MD¹, Hoon-Kyo Kim, MD¹, Kyung Hee Lee, MD², Bong-Seog Kim, MD³, Hong Suk Song, MD⁴, Sung Hyun Yang, MD⁵, Joon Hee Kim, MD⁶, Yeul Hong Kim, MD⁷, Jong Gwang Kim, MD⁸, Sang-We Kim, MD⁹, Dong-Wan Kim, MD¹⁰, Si-Young Kim, MD¹¹, Hee Sook Park, MD¹²; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2014;46(1):19-26.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2014.46.1.19
Published online: January 15, 2014

¹Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.

²Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University Medical Center, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

³Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Veterans Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

⁴Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

⁵Department of Internal Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, Korea.

⁶Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

⁷Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

⁸Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

⁹Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

¹⁰Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

¹¹Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

¹²Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence: Hoon-Kyo Kim, MD. Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, 93 Jungbu-daero, Paldal-gu, Suwon 442-723, Korea.
Tel: 82-31-249-7127, Fax: 82-31-253-8898, miongsok@catholic.ac.kr

• Received: May 10, 2013 • Accepted: June 12, 2013

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

12,284 Views
70 Download
8 Web of Science
9 Crossref
8 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of azasetron compared to ondansetron in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
Materials and Methods
This study was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind and parallel-group trial involving 12 institutions in Korea between May 2005 and December 2005. A total of 265 patients with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included and randomly assigned to either the azasetron or ondansetron group. All patients received azasetron (10 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg intravenously) on day 1 and dexamethasone (4 mg orally every 12 hours) on days 2-4. The azasetron group received azasetron (10 mg orally) with placebo of ondansetron (orally every 12 hours), and the ondansetron group received ondansetron (8 mg orally every 12 hours) with placebo of azasetron (orally) on days 2-6.
Results
Over days 2-6, the effective ratio of complete response in the azasetron and ondansetron groups was 45% and 54.5%, respectively (95% confidence interval, -21.4 to 2.5%). Thus, the non-inferiority of azasetron compared with ondansetron in delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was not proven in the present study. All treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected drug-related adverse events were reported. The most common adverse events related to the treatment were constipation and hiccups, and there were no differences in the overall incidence of adverse events.
Conclusion
In the present study, azasetron showed inferiority in the control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared with ondansetron whereas safety profiles were similar between the two groups.
Key words: Vomiting, Vomiting/chemically induced, Vomiting/prevention and control, Antineoplastic agents, Serotonin antagonists, Azasetron, Ondansetron

Introduction

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant concern for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and can result in various metabolic and nutritional problems and sometimes even discontinuation of chemotherapy [1]. CINV is classified as anticipatory, acute (within 24 hours after the initiation of chemotherapy), and delayed emesis (2-5 days later). The 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists have exhibited efficacy and safety in the prevention of CINV, as well as postoperative and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting [2-4]. Azasetron, a selective potent 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, is a derivative of benzamide with a different chemical structure from other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, such as ondansetron, granisetron, ramosetron, and tropisetron, and has a longer duration of action and a higher affinity for the 5-HT₃ receptor [5,6]. Azasetron has shown efficacy and safety in the prevention of CINV and postoperative nausea and vomiting, while that in delayed CINV has not been confirmed in a prospective randomized controlled trial [3,7,8]. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of azasetron compared with ondansetron for the prevention of delayed CINV.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients and treatment

Patients were recruited for this trial from 12 institutions in Korea between May 2005 and December 2005. Eligibility criteria were men and women aged between 19 and 75 with confirmed malignancy, who planned to receive moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic drug (Hesketh level 3-5) on day 1, and who were naive to chemotherapy or had previous chemotherapy≥3 weeks prior to screening [9]. Patients were required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 1-2, a life expectancy≥3 months, and adequate hepatic and renal function (aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase≤2.5×upper normal limit [UNL], bilirubin ≤1.5×UNL, and creatinine≤1.5×UNL).

Exclusion criteria were as follows: severe uncontrolled concurrent illness other than malignancy; other causes of nausea and vomiting (hypercalcemia, intestinal obstruction); current medications for active peptic ulcer; metastatic or primary tumor in the central nervous system (CNS); any nausea or vomiting within 24 hours before chemotherapy; grade 3 or higher nausea or vomiting according to Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Event, ver. 3.0 (CTCAE V.3) in previous chemotherapies within 6 months; a known hypersensitivity to 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists or dexamethasone; medications that may affect the gastrointestinal (GI) tract or CNS in the previous 48 hours; radiotherapy within 3 weeks or unstable state after surgery; and participation in another drug study.

All patients were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups before chemotherapy and instructed to take a daily dose of antiemetics according to the regimens listed in Table 1. Patients who developed nausea or vomiting requiring rescue therapy discontinued the study and were managed appropriately in each institution.

The study was approved by the ethics committee of each institution and all patients gave written informed consent.

2. Assessment

Patients recorded episodes of nausea and vomiting, and visual analogue scale (VAS) in self diaries for 6 days (days 1-6). Patients visited the hospital on day 7 (+2) and week 4 (±1 week), and laboratory examinations (complete blood cell count [CBC], blood chemistry [BC], and urinalysis [UA]), electrocardiogram (ECG), and physical examinations including vital signs were checked.

The primary end point was the effective ratio of complete response (CR) for CINV (ratio of CR on days 2-6 to during 24 hours). The secondary end points were degree of nausea by treatment day (grade 0-3), complete control (CC, CR of vomiting and nausea of grade 0-1) by treatment day, physician's global assessment (PGA) on day 7 (absent, very mild, mild, moderate, severe), and VAS by treatment day.

Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to CTCAE V.3, and the relationship to the study treatments was assessed by the investigators.

3. Statistical analysis

The intention-to-treat (ITT) set included all randomized patients who received the study drug≥1 time, and the safety set included all randomized patients who received the study drug≥1 time and in whom the safety profile was checked≥1 time. The baseline data and efficacy results are based on the ITT set and the safety results on the safety set.

Chi-square test or t-test was used to compare baseline data. The primary efficacy postulation was that azasetron was not inferior to ondansetron in the control of delayed CINV (days 2-6) using the estimated lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) in comparison with the predefined non-inferiority margin of -15%. The degree of nausea, CC, and VAS by treatment day were compared between the two groups using t-test, PGA using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, and safety was compared using Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was set at two-sided; p<0.05. All statistical analyses were done by use of the SAS ver. 8.1 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results

1. Patients

A total of 283 patients enrolled in the study, but 18 patients did not receive the treatment; thus 265 patients were randomized (131 in the azasetron group and 134 in the ondansetron group). Three patients were excluded from the safety set, so safety was assessed in 262 patients (Fig. 1).

Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 2. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sex, age, ECOG performance status, emetogenicity, alcohol intake, and previous and current medical history including previous chemotherapy and current anti-cancer treatments. In laboratory examinations (CBC, BC, and UA), ECG, and physical examinations, no significant differences were identified between the two groups.

2. Efficacy

The primary end point was the effective ratio of CR. Table 3 illustrates the effective ratio of CR: 45% in the azasetron group; 54.5% in ondansetron (95% CI, -21.4 to 2.5%). The estimated lower boundary of the 95% CI was -21.4%, which was lower than the predefined non-inferiority margin of -15%; thus, the non-inferiority of azasetron compared to ondansetron in the control of CINV was not validated in the current study. Subgroup analysis for the effective ratio of CR according to previous chemotherapy (naïve and non-naïve), sex, and institution was conducted and the results did not confirm the non-inferiority of azasetron (Table 3).

The results of secondary end points (degree of nausea; CC; PGA on day 7; and VAS) are summarized in Tables 4-6. Although the degree of nausea and the CC by treatment day were not significantly different between the two groups, the azasetron group showed trends of higher degree of nausea than ondansetron (Table 4). The visit on day 7 was missed by 21 patients, so PGA assessment was available in 244 patients. The PGA on day 7 and VAS were not significantly different between the two groups, while more patients were graded 'very mild' on PGA in the ondansetron group than in the azasetron group (Tables 5 and 6).

3. Safety

Azasetron and ondansetron showed similar safety profiles in regards to total, treatment-related, and serious AEs. Treatment-related AEs are summarized in Table 7. Constipation and hiccups were more common in the azasetron group (6.2%, each) and hiccups followed by constipation in the ondansetron group (10.6% and 6.8%, respectively). Additionally, physical examinations including vital signs and laboratory examinations on visiting days (day 7 and week 4) were not different between the two groups.

Discussion

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of azasetron compared to ondansetron in the prevention of delayed CINV. The current study showed inferiority of azasetron in the prevention of delayed CINV (the effective ratio of CR) compared to ondansetron, while the degree of nausea, CC, and VAS by treatment day and safety profile were similar between the two groups. In this respect, the little CNS distribution of azasetron compared to ondansetron and the possibility of inadequate dosing schedule should be considered. Previous studies have revealed that azasetron showed far less brain distribution and little correlation between blood and brain, whereas ondansetron exhibited good correlation between plasma and cerebrospinal fluid [10-12]. The mechanisms of delayed CINV have not been well defined; however, the concept that CINV is primarily mediated by neurotransmitter in the GI tract and the CNS has been widely accepted. The 5-HT₃ receptor is located in both the GI tract and the CNS, while the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists predominantly act on peripheral sites, which is well illustrated in animal models and accounts for the ineffectiveness of these drugs in delayed CINV [4,13,14]. Additionally, the antiemetic duration of action of azasetron compared to ondansetron was not much different in a preclinical study, and a study of dosage regimens revealed that the divided (twice) and continuous infusion regimens are more effective than the bolus (once) regimen, thus the once daily schedule of azasetron could have been insufficient in comparison with the twice daily schedule of ondansetron [15,16].

In acute CINV, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists including azasetron and ondansetron have shown efficacy and safety and are a current standard in combination with dexamethasone±aprepitant [17-20]. However, the pathophysiology of delayed CINV and the role of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists have remained elusive and the aforementioned lack of central effects of these drugs has been accepted [4,14]. Three large-scale studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Italian Group for Antiemetic Research concluded that adding a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist to dexamethasone beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy has no significant benefit in the control of delayed CINV [21-23]. Additionally, neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists have shown superiority to 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists in delayed CINV and thus are a current standard in combination with dexamethasone. In contrast to 5-HT₃, substance P binds to NK₁ receptor mainly in the medulla and triggers emesis. Substance P also binds to receptors in the gut, but has an accessory role in CINV [24]. Moreover, NK₁ receptor antagonists (aprepitant, fosaprepitant) penetrate the blood brain barrier and are retained in brain tissues more than 48 hours in an animal study [25]. Therefore, further studies with 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist in the delayed CINV do not seem to be worthwhile.

Conclusion

The present study showed the inferiority of azasetron in the prevention of delayed CINV in comparison with ondansetron. However, azasetron and ondansetron have similar safety profiles and, in regards to acute CINV, the efficacy and safety of azasetron are well known. The pathophysiology of delayed CINV and the role of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists are unclear. Additionally, NK₁ receptor antagonists are a current standard due to their superiority over 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists. Thus, further studies of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists in terms of delayed CINV do not seem to be necessary.

NOTES

This study was funded by the Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical Corporation with azasetron.

REFERENCES

1. Sun CC, Bodurka DC, Weaver CB, Rasu R, Wolf JK, Bevers MW, et al. Rankings and symptom assessments of side effects from chemotherapy: insights from experienced patients with ovarian cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13:219–227. PMID: 15538640Article PubMed
2. Cheirsilpa A, Sinthusake T, Songsakkaesorn A, Visawaprasit S, Chulaka K, Changkuingdee N. Comparison of ramosetron and granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed emesis in cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005;35:695–699. PMID: 16319109Article PubMed
3. Yun MJ, Kim YH, Kim AR. Comparison of azasetron and ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51:88–92. PMID: 20046519Article PubMed PMC
4. Navari RM. Pathogenesis-based treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: two new agents. J Support Oncol. 2003;1:89–103. PMID: 15352652PubMed
5. Sakamori M, Takehara S, Setoguchi M. High affinity binding of Y-25130 for serotonin 3 receptor. Nihon Yakurigaku Zasshi. 1992;100:137–142. PMID: 1330854Article PubMed
6. Tsukagoshi S. Pharmacokinetics of azasetron (Serotone), a selective 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1999;26:1001–1008. PMID: 10396331PubMed
7. Hayakawa T, Sato M, Konaka M, Makino A, Hirohata T, Totsu S, et al. Comparison of ramosetron and azasetron for prevention of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis in lung cancer patients. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2006;33:633–638. PMID: 16685162PubMed
8. Kimura E, Niimi S, Watanabe A, Tanaka T. Clinical effect of two azasetron treatment methods against nausea and vomiting induced by anticancer drugs including CDDP. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1997;24:855–859. PMID: 9170525PubMed
9. Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Grunberg SM, Beck T, Hainsworth JD, Harker G, et al. Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:103–109. PMID: 8996130Article PubMed
10. Ishiwata K, Ishii K, Ishii S, Senda M. Synthesis of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, [11C] Y-25130 and [11C] YM060. Appl Radiat Isot. 1995;46:907–910. PMID: 7581293Article PubMed
11. Yang SH, Lee MG. Dose-independent pharmacokinetics of ondansetron in rats: contribution of hepatic and intestinal first-pass effects to low bioavailability. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2008;29:414–426. PMID: 18697186Article PubMed
12. Simpson KH, Murphy P, Colthup PV, Whelan P. Concentration of ondansetron in cerebrospinal fluid following oral dosing in volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1992;109:497–498. PMID: 1365869Article PubMed
13. Rudd JA, Naylor RJ. Effects of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists on models of acute and delayed emesis induced by cisplatin in the ferret. Neuropharmacology. 1994;33:1607–1608. PMID: 7760983Article PubMed
14. Geling O, Eichler HG. Should 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists be administered beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy to prevent delayed emesis? Systematic re-evaluation of clinical evidence and drug cost implications. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1289–1294. PMID: 15718327Article PubMed
15. Haga K, Inaba K, Shoji H, Morimoto Y, Fukuda T, Setoguchi M. The effects of orally administered Y-25130, a selective serotonin3-receptor antagonist, on chemotherapeutic agent-induced emesis. Jpn J Pharmacol. 1993;63:377–383. PMID: 8107329Article PubMed
16. Yamada Y, Fujita M, Okuyama K, Takayanagi R, Ozeki T, Yokoyama H, et al. Analysis of antiemetic effect of various dosage regimens of azasetron hydrochloride based on 5-HT₃ receptor occupancy of serotonin. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2007;127:353–357. PMID: 17268155Article PubMed
17. Perez EA. Review of the preclinical pharmacology and comparative efficacy of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced emesis. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1036–1043. PMID: 7707101Article PubMed
18. Tsukuda M, Mochimatsu I, Furukawa M, Kohno H, Kawai S, Enomoto H, et al. A randomized crossover comparison of azasetron and granisetron in the prophylaxis of emesis induced by chemotherapy including cisplatin. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1995;22:1959–1967. PMID: 7487127PubMed
19. Kimura E, Niimi S, Watanabe A, Akiyama M, Tanaka T. Study on clinical effect of a continuous intravenous infusion of azasetron against nausea and vomiting induced by anticancer drugs including CDDP. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1996;23:477–481. PMID: 8678501PubMed
20. Navari R, Gandara D, Hesketh P, Hall S, Mailliard J, Ritter H, et al. The Granisetron Study GroupComparative clinical trial of granisetron and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1242–1248. PMID: 7738628Article PubMed
21. Latreille J, Pater J, Johnston D, Laberge F, Stewart D, Rusthoven J, et al. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials GroupUse of dexamethasone and granisetron in the control of delayed emesis for patients who receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1174–1178. PMID: 9508205Article PubMed
22. Pater JL, Lofters WS, Zee B, Dempsey E, Walde D, Moquin JP, et al. The role of the 5-HT₃ antagonists ondansetron and dolasetron in the control of delayed onset nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 1997;8:181–185. PMID: 9093728Article PubMed
23. The Italian Group for Antiemetic ResearchDexamethasone alone or in combination with ondansetron for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1554–1559. PMID: 10824073Article PubMed
24. Diemunsch P, Grelot L. Potential of substance P antagonists as antiemetics. Drugs. 2000;60:533–546. PMID: 11030465Article PubMed
25. Huskey SE, Dean BJ, Bakhtiar R, Sanchez RI, Tattersall FD, Rycroft W, et al. Brain penetration of aprepitant, a substance P receptor antagonist, in ferrets. Drug Metab Dispos. 2003;31:785–791. PMID: 12756213Article PubMed

Fig. 1

Trial profile. ITT, intention-to-treat.

Table 1

Treatment regimens

Regimen	Study medication	Dose

		Day 1	Days 2-6
Azasetron	Azasetron	10 mg iv 30 min-2 hr prior to chemotherapy	10 mg po
	Ondansetron		Placebo po bid
	Dexamethasone	20 mg iv 30 min prior to chemotherapy	4 mg po bid on days 2-4
Ondansetron	Azasetron	10 mg iv 30 min-2 hr prior to chemotherapy	Placebo po
	Ondansetron		8 mg po bid
	Dexamethasone	20 mg iv 30 min prior to chemotherapy	4 mg po bid on days 2-4

iv, intravenously; po, orally; bid, every 12 hours.

Table 2

Patient characteristics

	Azasetron	Ondansetron	p-value
Total	131	134
Male	100 (76.3)	97 (72.4)	0.462
Mean age (yr)	58 (20-75)	57.9 (23-75)	0.939
ECOG
0	15 (11.5)	19 (14.2)	0.611
1	108 (82.4)	104 (77.6)
2	8 (6.1)	11 (8.2)
Emetogenicity by Hesketh level
3	8 (6.1)	9 (6.7)	0.629
4	12 (9.2)	17 (12.7)
5	111 (84.7)	108 (80.6)
Alcohol intake (times/wk)	57 (43.5)	54 (40.3)	0.596
Previous chemotherapy
≤1	16 (12.2)	15 (11.2)
2-3	12 (9.2)	12 (9)
≥4	14 (10.7)	11 (8.2)
Current anti-cancer treatments within 4 wk
Chemotherapy	8 (6.1)	2 (1.5)	0.058
Radiotherapy	1 (0.8)	1 (0.7)	1
Surgery	15 (11.5)	14 (10.4)	0.794
Present illness	89 (67.9)	95 (70.9)
Cardiovascular	25 (19.1)	27 (20.1)	0.827
Gastrointestinal	22 (16.8)	27 (20.1)	0.482
Hepatobiliary	19 (14.5)	15 (11.2)	0.421
Musculoskeletal	17 (13)	26 (19.4)	0.156
Endocrine	17 (13)	16 (11.9)	0.798
Respiratory	12 (9.2)	17 (12.7)	0.358
Neurologic	4 (3.1)	4 (3)	1
Renal	4 (3.1)	0 (0)	0.058
Hematologic	3 (2.3)	2 (1.5)	0.682
Psychiatric	1 (0.8)	0 (0)	0.494

Values are presented as number (%). ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Table 3

Effective ratio of complete response (CR)

	Azasetron (n=131)	Ondansetron (n=134)	95 % CI
Effective ratio of CR	59 (45)	73 (54.5)
Naïve to chemotherapy	74	80	‒21.4 to 2.5
Effective ratio of CR	34 (45.9)	47 (58.8)
Non-naïve to chemotherapy	57	54	‒28.5 to 2.9
Effective ratio of CR	25 (43.9)	26 (48.1)

Values are presented as number (%). CI, confidence interval.

Table 4

Degree of nausea and complete control by treatment day

Day	Degree of nausea		p-value	Complete control		p-value

	Azasetron (n=131)	Ondansetron (n=134)		Azasetron (n=131)	Ondansetron (n=134)
1	0.5±0.7	0.4±0.7	0.627	0.8±0.4	0.8±0.4	0.806
2	0.8±0.9	0.6±0.9	0.27	0.6±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.247
3	0.8±0.9	0.7±0.9	0.635	0.6±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.055
4	0.7±0.9	0.7±0.8	0.572	0.7±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.697
5	0.7±0.9	0.7±0.8	0.588	0.7±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.295
6	0.6±0.9	0.6±0.8	0.745	0.7±0.5	0.7±0.4	0.909

Values are presented as mean±SD.

Table 5

Physician's global assessment on day 7

PGA	Azasetron (n=120)	Ondansetron (n=124)	p-value
Absent	41 (34.2)	40 (32.3)	0.764
Very mild	41 (34.2)	52 (41.9)
Mild	25 (20.8)	21 (16.9)
Moderate	10 (8.3)	9 (7.3)
Severe	3 (2.5)	2 (1.6)

Values are presented as number (%).

Table 6

Visual analogue scale

	Azasetron (n=131)	Ondansetron (n=134)	p-value
Day 2-Day 1	‒6.5±17.2	‒5.2±17	0.554
Day 3-Day 1	‒7.1±19.9	‒7.7±24	0.841
Day 4-Day 1	‒7.2±20.5	‒8.3±24.2	0.679
Day 5-Day 1	‒9±25.6	‒7.9±25.1	0.726
Day 6-Day 1	‒5.7±25.2	‒5.3±24.4	0.897

Values are presented as mean±SD.

Table 7

Treatment-related adverse events developed in≥2% of patients in each group in the safety set (n=262)

Adverse events	Grade	Azasetron (n=129)	Ondansetron (n=133)	p-value
Constipation	1	3±2.3	0	1.000
	2	5±3.9	9±6.8
Hiccups	1	5±3.9	9±6.8	0.269
	2	3±2.3	4±3
	3	0	1±0.8
Flushing	1	4±3.1	1±0.8	0.491
	2	0	1±0.8
Increased AST	2	2±1.6	0	1.000
Increased ALT	1	1±0.8	2±1.5	1.000
	3	2±1.6	0

Values are presented as mean±SD. AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Influence of ABCB1 genetic polymorphisms on the antiemetic response to ondansetron-based medication for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in South Indian cancer patients in a tertiary care hospital
Ayyar Porkodi, Deepak Gopal Shewade, Goud Alladi Charanraj
Current Issues in Pharmacy and Medical Sciences.2023; 36(3): 129. CrossRef
Hiccups in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: A Cross-Sectional Study
Mevlüde Ergen, Fatma Arikan, Rüya Fırat Çetin
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.2021; 62(3): e85. CrossRef
A Fast and Validated HPLC Method for the Simultaneous Analysis of Five 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists via the Quantitative Analysis of Multicomponents by a Single Marker
Fuchao Chen, Baoxia Fang, Peng Li, Sicen Wang, Amr M. Mahmoud
International Journal of Analytical Chemistry.2021; 2021: 1. CrossRef
Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis
Vanessa Piechotta, Anne Adams, Madhuri Haque, Benjamin Scheckel, Nina Kreuzberger, Ina Monsef, Karin Jordan, Kathrin Kuhr, Nicole Skoetz
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Effectiveness of Steroid Rotation in a Japanese Patient with Hiccups Caused by Dexamethasone: a Case Report
Hiroki Hosokawa, Hideaki Shimoda, Takayuki Ishii
YAKUGAKU ZASSHI.2019; 139(4): 647. CrossRef
Stability of azasetron-dexamethasone mixture for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting administration
Bao-Xia Fang, Fu-Chao Chen, Dan Zhu, Jun Guo, Lin-Hai Wang
Oncotarget.2017; 8(63): 106249. CrossRef
Gender Differences in Hiccup Patients: Analysis of Published Case Reports and Case-Control Studies
Gyeong-Won Lee, Rock Bum Kim, Se Il Go, Hyun Seop Cho, Seung Jun Lee, David Hui, Eduardo Bruera, Jung Hun Kang
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.2016; 51(2): 278. CrossRef
Cheaper Options in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
Bishal Gyawali, Bishesh Sharma Poudyal, Mahesh Iddawela
Journal of Global Oncology.2016; 2(3): 145. CrossRef
Recent developments in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a comprehensive review
K. Jordan, F. Jahn, M. Aapro
Annals of Oncology.2015; 26(6): 1081. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

A Randomized Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter Trial of Azasetron versus Ondansetron to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in the Prevention of Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Chemotherapy

Cancer Res Treat. 2014;46(1):19-26. Published online January 15, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2014.46.1.19

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
NOTES
REFERENCES

A Randomized Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter Trial of Azasetron versus Ondansetron to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in the Prevention of Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Chemotherapy

Fig. 1 Trial profile. ITT, intention-to-treat.

Fig. 1

A Randomized Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter Trial of Azasetron versus Ondansetron to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in the Prevention of Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Chemotherapy

Regimen	Study medication	Dose

		Day 1	Days 2-6
Azasetron	Azasetron	10 mg iv 30 min-2 hr prior to chemotherapy	10 mg po
	Ondansetron		Placebo po bid
	Dexamethasone	20 mg iv 30 min prior to chemotherapy	4 mg po bid on days 2-4
Ondansetron	Azasetron	10 mg iv 30 min-2 hr prior to chemotherapy	Placebo po
	Ondansetron		8 mg po bid
	Dexamethasone	20 mg iv 30 min prior to chemotherapy	4 mg po bid on days 2-4

	Azasetron	Ondansetron	p-value
Total	131	134
Male	100 (76.3)	97 (72.4)	0.462
Mean age (yr)	58 (20-75)	57.9 (23-75)	0.939
ECOG
0	15 (11.5)	19 (14.2)	0.611
1	108 (82.4)	104 (77.6)
2	8 (6.1)	11 (8.2)
Emetogenicity by Hesketh level
3	8 (6.1)	9 (6.7)	0.629
4	12 (9.2)	17 (12.7)
5	111 (84.7)	108 (80.6)
Alcohol intake (times/wk)	57 (43.5)	54 (40.3)	0.596
Previous chemotherapy
≤1	16 (12.2)	15 (11.2)
2-3	12 (9.2)	12 (9)
≥4	14 (10.7)	11 (8.2)
Current anti-cancer treatments within 4 wk
Chemotherapy	8 (6.1)	2 (1.5)	0.058
Radiotherapy	1 (0.8)	1 (0.7)	1
Surgery	15 (11.5)	14 (10.4)	0.794
Present illness	89 (67.9)	95 (70.9)
Cardiovascular	25 (19.1)	27 (20.1)	0.827
Gastrointestinal	22 (16.8)	27 (20.1)	0.482
Hepatobiliary	19 (14.5)	15 (11.2)	0.421
Musculoskeletal	17 (13)	26 (19.4)	0.156
Endocrine	17 (13)	16 (11.9)	0.798
Respiratory	12 (9.2)	17 (12.7)	0.358
Neurologic	4 (3.1)	4 (3)	1
Renal	4 (3.1)	0 (0)	0.058
Hematologic	3 (2.3)	2 (1.5)	0.682
Psychiatric	1 (0.8)	0 (0)	0.494

	Azasetron (n=131)	Ondansetron (n=134)	95 % CI
Effective ratio of CR	59 (45)	73 (54.5)
Naïve to chemotherapy	74	80	‒21.4 to 2.5
Effective ratio of CR	34 (45.9)	47 (58.8)
Non-naïve to chemotherapy	57	54	‒28.5 to 2.9
Effective ratio of CR	25 (43.9)	26 (48.1)

Day	Degree of nausea		p-value	Complete control		p-value

	Azasetron (n=131)	Ondansetron (n=134)		Azasetron (n=131)	Ondansetron (n=134)
1	0.5±0.7	0.4±0.7	0.627	0.8±0.4	0.8±0.4	0.806
2	0.8±0.9	0.6±0.9	0.27	0.6±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.247
3	0.8±0.9	0.7±0.9	0.635	0.6±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.055
4	0.7±0.9	0.7±0.8	0.572	0.7±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.697
5	0.7±0.9	0.7±0.8	0.588	0.7±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.295
6	0.6±0.9	0.6±0.8	0.745	0.7±0.5	0.7±0.4	0.909

PGA	Azasetron (n=120)	Ondansetron (n=124)	p-value
Absent	41 (34.2)	40 (32.3)	0.764
Very mild	41 (34.2)	52 (41.9)
Mild	25 (20.8)	21 (16.9)
Moderate	10 (8.3)	9 (7.3)
Severe	3 (2.5)	2 (1.6)

	Azasetron (n=131)	Ondansetron (n=134)	p-value
Day 2-Day 1	‒6.5±17.2	‒5.2±17	0.554
Day 3-Day 1	‒7.1±19.9	‒7.7±24	0.841
Day 4-Day 1	‒7.2±20.5	‒8.3±24.2	0.679
Day 5-Day 1	‒9±25.6	‒7.9±25.1	0.726
Day 6-Day 1	‒5.7±25.2	‒5.3±24.4	0.897

Adverse events	Grade	Azasetron (n=129)	Ondansetron (n=133)	p-value
Constipation	1	3±2.3	0	1.000
	2	5±3.9	9±6.8
Hiccups	1	5±3.9	9±6.8	0.269
	2	3±2.3	4±3
	3	0	1±0.8
Flushing	1	4±3.1	1±0.8	0.491
	2	0	1±0.8
Increased AST	2	2±1.6	0	1.000
Increased ALT	1	1±0.8	2±1.5	1.000
	3	2±1.6	0

Table 1 Treatment regimens

iv, intravenously; po, orally; bid, every 12 hours.

Table 2 Patient characteristics

Values are presented as number (%). ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Table 3 Effective ratio of complete response (CR)

Values are presented as number (%). CI, confidence interval.

Table 4 Degree of nausea and complete control by treatment day

Values are presented as mean±SD.

Table 5 Physician's global assessment on day 7

Values are presented as number (%).

Table 6 Visual analogue scale

Values are presented as mean±SD.

Table 7 Treatment-related adverse events developed in≥2% of patients in each group in the safety set (n=262)

Values are presented as mean±SD. AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase.