ABSTRACT
Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced vomiting. Meth-ods:A multi-center, randomized, double-blind, and self-cross-over positively controlled clinical trial design was used. All patients were randomized into two groups, as follows:Regiment A (61 cases) and Regiment B (64 cases). Regimen A with palonosetron hydrochlo-ride injection (test agent) was used in the treatment cycle A, whereas granisetron hydrochloride injection (control drug) was used in the cycle B. Treatments were randomly administered on the patients of the two groups. Regimen B was on the contrary, the control drug was used in the cycle A, and the test agent was used in the treatment cycle B. All patients treated with the test agent were classified as the test group, whereas those treated with the control drug were classified as the control group. Complete control rate and adverse reac-tion of acute and delayed vomiting in the two groups during the two cycles of chemotherapy regimen were compared. Results: In Group One, the complete control rate of delayed vomiting was significantly higher in the palonosetron administration cycles than in the granisetron cycles (76.92%vs. 55.38%, P=0.0110). In the same group, the frequency of vomiting was significantly less in palonosetron cycles than in the granisetron cycles during day 1 to day 5 (1.32±3.42 vs. 1.94±3.03, P=0.0096). The incidences of adverse effects were low in both groups. No grades 3 and 4 adverse effects were observed. Conclusion: Palonosetron showed efficacy in preventing the acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting. The drug is superior to granisetron, specifically in delaying vomiting in Group One. Palonosetron hydrochloride showed slight adverse effects. Hence, this drug can be used in clinic.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>To evaluate and compare the effects and toxicity of the domestic product of recombinant mutant human tumor necrosis factor (rmhTNF) combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Two hundred patients with NSCLC in multicenter were randomly devided into trial group (150 cases) and control group (50 cases). Chemotherapy with CAP regimen was given to the patients. Meanwhile, rmhTNF injection of 4×10⁶U/m² was also given from the 1st to 7th days, the 11th to 17th days on the chemotherapy cycle in the trial group. The control patients received chemotherapy alone. Twenty-one days were as a cycle, 2 cycles were given to each patient. The chemotherapeutic effects and toxicity were observed and compared between the two groups after the therapy.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>of the 200 patients, 5 cases in the trial group and 3 cases in the control group were out of the trial because of economy. The other 192 cases (145 cases in the trial group and 47 cases in the control group) could be analyzed and evaluated the clinical effects and toxicity. The response rate of chemotherapy was 46.90% (68/145) in the trial group and 17.02% (8/47) in the control group respectively ( P =0.001). The KPS scores was 86.02±9.74 in the trial group, and 80.14±9.10 in the control group ( P =0.025). No significant difference of degree III+IV toxicity was observed between the two groups ( P > 0.05). The side effects related to rmhTNF included slight fever, cold-like symptoms, pain and red and swelling in the injection site. All of them were mild and didn't need any treatment and disappeared after the therapy. There were no severe abnormality of liver and kidney function and ECG in both groups.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The results demonstrate that the effects of domestic rmhTNF combined with chemotherapy are remarkably higher than that of chemotherapy alone in the treatment of NSCLC. rmhTNF can increase the sensitivity to chemotherapy and improve the quality of life of the patients with slight toxicity. Hence rmhTNF is worth expanding clinical use.</p>