Search

Background: Current clinical trial data on PARP inhibitors (PARPis)-related acute renal failure (ARF) are not entirely representative of real-world situations. Therefore, in this study, the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) was used to evaluate PARPis-related ARF., Research Design and Methods: Data were obtained from 1 January 2015, to 30 September 2023. ARF event reports were analyzed based on four algorithms. The time-to-onset (TTO) and clinical outcomes of PARPis-associated ARF were assessed., Results: The total included cases were 2726. Significant signals were observed for olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib (reporting odds ratio (ROR): 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.49-1.78, 1.25, 95% CI: 1.19-1.32 and 1.59, 95% CI: 1.47-1.72 respectively). The median TTO of ARF onset was 57, 36, and 85 days for olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib, respectively. The proportion of deaths with olaparib (9.88%) was significantly higher than for niraparib (2.52%) and rucaparib (2.94%) ( p  < 0.005). The proportion of life-threatening adverse events associated with niraparib (4.89%) was significantly higher than for rucaparib (0.98%) ( p  < 0.005)., Conclusions: ARF and PARPi were related, with the exception of talazoparib. More emphasis should be given to PARPis-related ARF due to the high proportion of serious AEs and delayed adverse reactions.

Background: Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease., Methods: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non‑platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations., Results: Non‑platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non‑platinum-based regimens., Conclusion: High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JW reports personal fees for serving on an advisory board for Tesaro in the past 36 months, not related to the submitted work. JB and RB have nothing to disclose. KM reports personal fees and other from Astra Zeneca, grants, personal fees and other from Genentech/Roche, grants, personal fees and other from Immunogen, grants, personal fees and other from Clovis, grants, personal fees and other from Tesaro, personal fees and other from Pfizer, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Aravive, personal fees from VBL Therapeutics, personal fees and other from Onco Med, personal fees from Samumed, grants and other from Lilly, personal fees from Eisai, all outside the submitted work; . BM reports personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Advaxis, personal fees from Agenus, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Aravive, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Asymmetric Therapeutics, from Boston Biomedical, personal fees from ChemoCare, personal fees from ChemoID, personal fees from Circulogene, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Conjupro, personal fees from Easai, personal fees from Geistlich, personal fees from Genmab/Seattle Genetics, personal fees from GOG Foundation, personal fees from ImmunoGen, personal fees from Immunomedics, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from Janssen/Johnson&Johnson, personal fees from Laekna Health Care, personal fees from Mateon (formally Oxigene), personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Mersana, personal fees from Myriad, personal fees from Nucana, personal fees from Oncomed, personal fees from Oncoquest, personal fees from Oncosec, personal fees from Perthera, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Precision Oncology, personal fees from Puma, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Roche/Genentech, personal fees from Samumed, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Tesaro/GSK, personal fees from VBL, personal fees from Vigeo, all outside the submitted work. KT reports personal fees and non-financial support from Genentech, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, personal fees and non-financial support from Clovis, personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro, non-financial support from Abbie, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra-Zeneca, non-financial support from Morphotek, personal fees and non-financial support from Genmab, all outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS), olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC)., Methods: A decision-analytic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for niraparib versus RS, olaparib, and rucaparib from a US payer perspective. The model considered recurrent OC patients with or without germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut), who were responsive to their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Model health states were: progression-free disease, progressed disease and dead. Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using parametric survival distributions based on ENGOT-OV16/NOVA (niraparib phase III trial), ARIEL3 (rucaparib phase III trial) and Study 19 (olaparib phase II trial). Mean overall survival (OS) benefit was estimated as double the mean PFS benefit based on the relationship between PFS and OS observed in Study 19. Costs included: drug, chemotherapy, monitoring, adverse events, and terminal care. EQ-5D utilities were estimated from trial data., Results: Compared to RS, niraparib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$68,287/QALY and US$108,287/QALY for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. Compared to olaparib and rucaparib, niraparib decreased costs and increased QALYs, with a cost saving of US$8799 and US$22,236 versus olaparib and US$198,708 and US$73,561 versus rucaparib for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively., Conclusions: Niraparib was estimated to be less costly and more effective compared to olaparib and rucaparib, and the ICER fell within an acceptable range compared to RS. Therefore, niraparib may be considered a cost-effective maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent OC.

Pirfenidone and nintedanib are oral antifibrotic agents approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Real-world data on factors that influence IPF treatment decisions are limited. Physician characteristics associated with antifibrotic therapy initiation following an IPF diagnosis were examined in a sample of US pulmonologists. An online, self-administered survey was fielded to pulmonologists between April 10, 2017, and May 17, 2017. Pulmonologists were included if they spent >20% of their time in direct patient care and had ≥5 patients with IPF receiving antifibrotics. Participants answered questions regarding timing and reasons for considering the initiation of antifibrotic therapy after an IPF diagnosis. A total of 169 pulmonologists participated. The majority (81.7%) considered initiating antifibrotic therapy immediately after IPF diagnosis all or most of the time (immediate group), while 18.3% considered it only some of the time or not at all (delayed group). Pulmonologists in the immediate group were more likely to work in private practice (26.1%), have a greater mean percentage of patients receiving antifibrotic therapy (60.8%), and decide to initiate treatment themselves (31.2%) versus those in the delayed group (16.1%, 30.5%, and 16.1%, respectively). Most pulmonologists consider initiating antifibrotic treatment immediately after establishing an IPF diagnosis all or most of the time versus using a "watch-and-wait" approach. Distinguishing characteristics between pulmonologists in the immediate group versus the delayed group included practice setting, percentage of patients receiving antifibrotic therapy, and the decision-making dynamics between the patient and the pulmonologist.

Introduction: Studies indicate similar survival and toxicity between pazopanib and sunitinib, but few have examined real-world outcomes among elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The purpose of this retrospective claims analysis was to assess real-world overall survival (OS), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and healthcare costs (both all-cause and associated with RCC diagnosis) among elderly advanced RCC patients starting pazopanib or sunitinib treatment., Methods: Advanced RCC patients aged 65 years or older who started first-line treatment with pazopanib or sunitinib (index drug; the initiation date was the index date) were identified from the 100% Medicare database plus Part D linkage (January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014). Patients were stratified by index drug and matched 1:1 with use of propensity scores based on baseline characteristics. OS was assessed from the index date to death and compared by Kaplan-Meier analyses and univariable Cox models; patients were censored at the end of eligibility/data. Monthly HRU and costs from an intent-to-treat perspective were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests., Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced after matching (both N = 522). Treatment with pazopanib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared with treatment with sunitinib (18.2 months vs 14.6 months, respectively; log-rank p = 0.015). Pazopanib was associated with significantly lower monthly all-cause costs compared with sunitinib ($8845 vs $10,416, respectively), as well as lower inpatient costs associated with RCC diagnosis ($1542 vs $2522), fewer monthly inpatient admissions (0.179 vs 0.262), and shorter length of inpatient stay (1.375 days vs 1.883 days; all p ≤ 0.004)., Conclusions: Among elderly Medicare patients with advanced RCC, first-line pazopanib tretament was associated with significantly longer OS, as well as lower healthcare costs and HRU, compared with first-line sunitinib treatment.

Objective: To review and summarize data on cobimetinib, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2015 for use in combination with vemurafenib for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAFV600E or V600K mutation., Data Sources: A literature search using PubMed was conducted using the terms cobimetinib, MEK inhibitor, and melanoma from January 2000 to June 2016., Study Selection and Data Extraction: The literature search was confined to human studies published in English. Trials of cobimetinib for melanoma were prioritized., Data Synthesis: Cobimetinib is a reversible inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2. Its FDA approval was based on a phase III, randomized trial of vemurafenib monotherapy (n = 248) or vemurafenib and cobimetinib (n = 247) in unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma with a BRAFV600 mutation. Cobimetinib was administered as 60 mg orally daily for 21 days/7 days off, whereas vemurafenib was administered as 960 mg twice daily. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib were associated with an objective response rate of 68%, and median progression-free survival of 9.9 months. The overall survival was not reached at the time of first interim analysis. Clinically relevant grade ≥3 adverse events were diarrhea (6%), rash (6%), photosensitivity (2%), elevated liver function tests (LFTs) (8%-12%), increased creatine kinase (11%), and retinal detachment (3%)., Conclusion: Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib is an alternative BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAFV600 mutation. The role of cobimetinib in melanoma and other solid tumors is likely to expand as the results from ongoing studies become available.

Background: For first-line therapy options for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), clinical trials have demonstrated similar efficacy for pazopanib and sunitinib as well as differing side-effect profiles, which may affect patient persistence in self-administration of these oral medications. However, the treatment patterns of each drug in real-world clinical practice, as opposed to the controlled environment of a trial, have not been directly compared., Objective: To compare persistence and compliance (adherence) with pazopanib versus sunitinib in a real-world setting., Methods: This was a retrospective claims analysis using 2 databases: Optum Research Database and Impact National Benchmark Database. Eligible patients included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with ≥ 2 RCC diagnoses and evidence of first-line therapy with ≥ 1 subsequent pharmacy claim for pazopanib or sunitinib between October 2009 and July 2012. The date of the first pazopanib or sunitinib claim was defined as the index date. Additional requirements included continuous enrollment in the health plan for 2 months prior (baseline period) through 6 months after (follow-up period) the index date and no cancers other than those associated with RCC. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias. Persistence with the index drug was compared using days to discontinuation, estimated level of persistence (ELPT) at 180 days, and proportion of days covered (PDC). PDC was defined by dividing the number of days covered with the index drug by the number of follow-up days. Compliance was estimated using medication possession ratio (MPR). For matched cohort pairs with > 1 fill, MPR was defined by dividing the number of days covered with the index drug by the number of days between the first and last index medication fill., Results: We identified 84 matched pairs among 97 patients prescribed pazopanib and 349 prescribed sunitinib. Among the matched population, mean comorbidity index score was 5.8 (95% CI = 1.8-6.0) for pazopanib, and 6.1 (95% CI =1.8-6.0) for sunitinib (P = 0.133). Evidence of any radiation therapy during the baseline period was significantly higher among the sunitinib cohort prior to matching (9% vs. 18%, P = 0.043), and evidence of surgery was higher in the pazopanib cohort after matching (12% vs. 7%, P = 0.046). Cohorts were balanced according to demographic and clinical characteristics with mean (SD) age of 63.0 (9.0) years and 77.4% male. During the 6-month period after drug initiation, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) by drug cohort in the duration of index drug therapy or the percentage of patients who discontinued their index drugs. The mean (SD) time to discontinuation was 133.4 (62.8) days and 139.9 (55.6) days among the matched pazopanib and sunitinib cohorts, respectively (P = 0.445). In both cohorts, more than 40% of patients discontinued their index drugs (46.4% pazopanib and 44.1% sunitinib, P = 0.732). In addition, there was no significant difference by drug cohort in the ELPT at any time examined between 30 and 180 days after initiation of therapy. PDC with the index drug during the fixed 6-month follow-up was also examined. Although the mean PDC was significantly higher among the sunitinib cohort (0.77 vs. 0.68 for pazopanib, P = 0.037), there was no difference by cohort in the percentage of patients with high PDC (defined as ≥ 80%): 52.4% versus 56.0% for pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively (P = 0.622). Mean MPR among matched pairs with at least 2 fills for the index drug was significantly higher among the sunitinib cohort, although there was no difference by cohort in the percentage of patients with high MPR (defined as ≥ 80%): 81.4% versus 93.2% for pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively (P > 0.071)., Conclusions: In the first 6 months of treatment, persistence and compliance to pazopanib and sunitinib were similar. Future studies are needed, including those assessing larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods.

Introduction: Sertindole was taken off the market by its manufacturer in 1998 due to concerns of its association with prolongation of QT intervals and serious dysrhythmia. After extensive post-marketing analysis and epidemiological studies regarding its safety, sertindole was relaunched in Europe in 2005., Areas Covered: Sertindole is an efficacious antipsychotic that possesses superior efficacy compared with haloperidol, similar efficacy compared with risperidone, and slightly inferior efficacy compared with olanzapine. Sertindole has been shown in seven randomized, double-blind clinical trials to be a well-tolerated antipsychotic with placebo-level sedation and extrapyramidal symptoms. The long-term effectiveness and tolerability of sertindole was documented in a 52-week clinical trial. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), however, has yet to accept the manufacturer's claims that sertindole reduces the risk of suicide and that it is safe for patients with schizophrenia. The safety concerns for sertindole, especially focusing on cardiac adverse events, are addressed through contemporary database search along with cross-reference check., Expert Opinion: While it has been reapproved by the European Commission, concerns still exist regarding its association with prolongation of QT intervals and dysrhythmias. Moreover, a consensus has not yet been established for clinical practice. The most conservative clinical use of sertindole at this time should be only after at least one antipsychotic medication failure and with a clear benefit/risk evaluation.

SCIO-469 is a selective p38α mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitor for preclinical models of acute pain. This prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical study compared efficacy and safety of oral SCIO-469, ibuprofen, and placebo in postsurgical dental pain. Subjects (n = 263) undergoing extraction of 1 or more impacted mandibular third molars received preoperative treatment with SCIO-469 (150, 210, or 300 mg), ibuprofen (400 mg), or placebo; the 210-mg group received 90 mg postoperatively. A 4-point categorical scale and a 100-mm visual analogue scale were used to measure pain intensity. The primary end point was median time from first incision to first rescue medication using the Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator. All SCIO-469 groups had significantly longer times to rescue medication compared with placebo; preoperative and postoperative treatment with 210 + 90 mg SCIO-469 resulted in 8.1 hours versus 4.1 hours to rescue for placebo (P = .003). Ibuprofen also increased time to rescue medication (6.6 hours) versus placebo (P = .04). Dizziness, headache, and nausea were the most frequently reported adverse events. This is the first clinical demonstration of antinociceptive effects in acute pain with preoperative administration of a p38α MAPK inhibitor.

Background: Physicians treating patients with migraine can now choose from among 7 triptans, which differ on a range of attributes that may be important for treatment selection., Objective: The aims of this study were to determine the relative importance of treatment attributes of the available triptans and assess their impact on deciding the most appropriate treatment for a particular patient with migraine., Methods: As part of the TRIPSTAR project, US primary care physicians were surveyed to elicit their views on the relative importance of a prespecified set of treatment attributes for making treatment choices in clinical practice. The treatment attributes assessed were those for which data from controlled clinical trials were available for subsequent comparison. The resulting attribute-importance weights were then combined with data on the performance of individual triptans across these attributes in a multiattribute decision model to assist selection of an oral triptan., Results: Efficacy attributes were considered more important than tolerability or consistency of effect in selecting an oral triptan. For triptan-naive but not triptan-experienced patients, tolerability was considered significantly more important than consistency (30% [95% CI, 27%-34%] vs 21% [19%-24%]). Sustained pain-free status and freedom from cardiovascular (chest) adverse events were the most important efficacy and tolerability attributes for both patient categories. When the relative importance of the treatment attributes was combined in a multiattribute decision model with meta-analysis data from controlled trials, almotriptan, eletriptan, and rizatriptan were significantly closer to the hypothetical ideal triptan than the reference product, sumatriptan 100 mg., Conclusion: Multiattribute decision-making models (such as that used in the TRIPSTAR project) that determine and apply the relative importance of treatment attributes to drug selection have considerable potential value as a decision support tool in the treatment of acute migraine.

Objective: Comparative studies examining the use of oral serotonin type 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists for the management of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are limited. Therefore, we performed an experiential open-label pilot study at Stony Brook Hospital to allow clinicians to make informed formulary decisions at our institution and to stimulate further study. Specifically, the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of oral granisetron versus oral dolasetron for prophylaxis of acute CINV., Research Design and Methods: The study was conducted during the period of 1 February 2001 to 31 March 2001. Patients (n = 26) with lymphoma or malignancies of the lungs, larynx, or uterus undergoing moderately high and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were studied. Patients admitted during February (n = 13) were administered a single oral dose of 100 mg of dolasetron; those admitted in March (n = 13) received a single oral dose of 2mg of granisetron. All patients were administered intravenous dexamethasone 20 mg before the initiation of chemotherapy., Main Outcome Measures: Patients were monitored for at least 24 h by clinicians. The data recorded for each patient included age, sex, the number of episodes of nausea and emesis, the intensity of nausea (when applicable), and the number of doses of rescue antiemetic medication administered (when applicable)., Results: Overall, granisetron provided significantly greater control of acute CINV than dolasetron. More patients treated with granisetron experienced total control of nausea and vomiting (69.2 vs 23.1%, p < 0.05). Fewer granisetron-treated patients experienced emesis (7.7 vs 53.8%, p < 0.05) and nausea (30.8 vs 76.9%, p < 0.05). Of those patients who experienced nausea, intensity was significantly less with granisetron than with dolasetron (p < 0.05). Consequently, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with dolasetron required a rescue antiemetic and significantly more doses of rescue antiemetics (both p < 0.01)., Conclusions: These data suggest that oral granisetron may demonstrate improved CINV outcomes compared with oral dolasetron in patients undergoing moderately high and highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Objective: Concentrations of group IIA secretory phospholipase A, an inflammatory response mediator, are increased in the plasma of patients with sepsis and septic shock, and the extent of elevation is correlated with mortality. LY315920Na/S-5920 is a selective inhibitor of group IIA secretory phospholipase A that has been shown to inhibit serum group IIA secretory phospholipase A enzyme activity in patients with severe sepsis. The primary objectives of this study were to determine whether there was a dose-response relationship between two doses of LY315920Na/S-5920 compared with placebo in the reduction of 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis and to determine whether LY315920Na/S-5920 had an acceptable safety profile.(2) (2) (2), Design: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of two doses of LY315920Na/S-5920 in a parallel design., Patients: A total of 586 patients with severe sepsis at 72 institutions in the United States. INTERVENTIONS Patients enrolled within 72 hrs from onset of first sepsis-induced organ failure were randomized (1:1:1) to low-dose LY315920Na/S-5920 (target plasma concentration of 200 ng/mL, n = 196), high-dose LY315920Na/S-5920 (800 ng/mL, n = 194), or placebo (n = 196). Study medication was administered as a constant-rate intravenous infusion for 168 hrs., Measurements and Main Results: The study was stopped prematurely because it was unlikely that a statistically significant difference in mortality between LY315920Na/S-5920 and placebo would be found. There was no effect of LY315920Na/S-5920 on the primary end point of 28-day all-cause mortality across the entire study population. The 28-day all-cause mortality was distributed as follows: placebo group, 33.2% (65/196 patients); low-dose LY315920Na/S-5920, 37.2% (73/196); and high-dose LY315920Na/S-5920, 36.1% (70/194); p = .525. However, in a prospectively planned analysis, there was a favorable overall dose-response effect on 28-day all-cause mortality in patients administered LY315920Na/S-5920 within 18 hrs of onset of the first sepsis-induced organ failure. Among these patients, 28-day all-cause mortality was distributed as follows: placebo group, 43.5% (20/46 patients); low-dose LY315920Na/S-5920, 31.4% (16/51); and high-dose LY315920Na/S-5920, 20.8% (10/48); p = .018., Conclusions: Administration of LY315920Na/S-5920 had an acceptable safety profile in patients with severe sepsis. There was no overall survival benefit associated with the use of LY315920Na/S-5920 in this study. However, prospectively planned secondary analyses suggested that treatment with LY315920Na/S-5920 was associated with an improvement in survival in patients treated within 18 hrs of the first sepsis-induced organ failure.

Restless leg syndrome (RLS) is a disease of unknown etiology, characterized by paresthesias and an irresistible desire to move the legs. Dopaminergic mechanisms have been implicated in the pathogenesis of this disorder. Dopamine agonists have been used to treat RLS. This paper describes the use of ropinirole, a non-ergoline dopamine agonist, in the treatment of RLS. Polysomnograms after treatment, as well as patient assessment of their symptoms, showed clinical improvement.

Objective: Almotriptan, a new treatment for acute migraine attacks, may improve health outcomes while reducing expenditures on drug costs and the costs associated with unwanted adverse events. This article describes the clinical, humanistic, and economic data available for almotriptan and compares these data with published data for sumatriptan, which is considered the gold standard comparator for triptans., Patients and Methods: Clinical trial data and published materials describing the pharmacoeconomics of sumatriptan were reviewed., Results: Formulary and prescribing decision makers consider clinical, humanistic, and economic dimensions when evaluating migraine treatments. Within those dimensions, critical elements to consider include efficacy, tolerability, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, productivity, medication cost, and healthcare resource use. In direct comparisons, almotriptan has demonstrated efficacy, short-term health-related quality of life, and productivity results similar to sumatriptan 50 mg. Almotriptan also has an improved tolerability profile compared with sumatriptan, including a lower incidence of drug-related adverse events, a lower incidence of chest pain, and better patient satisfaction in terms of adverse events., Conclusions: Almotriptan and sumatriptan exhibit comparable efficacy for the treatment of acute migraine. The acquisition cost of almotriptan is lower than sumatriptan, and given its excellent tolerability profile, almotriptan may be preferred by patients for the treatment of migraine attacks.

Purpose: To assess the comparative antiemetic efficacy of single-dose intravenous (IV) dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron in preventing cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting., Patients and Methods: Cancer patients (n = 609) receiving first-course cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized to one of three treatments: 1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg dolasetron mesylate salt (equivalent to 1.3 and 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron base, respectively) or 32 mg ondansetron. Each treatment was infused over 15 minutes, 30 minutes before cisplatin administration. Patients were stratified to cisplatin doses of > or = 70 and less than 91 mg/m2 (n = 368) or > or = 91 mg/m2 (n = 241), administered over < or = 3 hours. Protocol-defined efficacy criteria included complete response (zero emetic episodes and no rescue medication), major response (1 to 2 emetic episodes and no rescue medication), and patients' report of nausea severity and satisfaction recorded on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS)., Results: The three treatments met protocol-specified criteria for equivalence. Complete response rates for dolasetron mesylate 1.8 mg/kg, 2.4 mg/kg, and ondansetron, respectively, were 49.2%, 45.6%, and 50.4% for patients in the lower cisplatin stratum (mean, 74.7 mg/m2) and 36.8%, 31.3%, and 31.8% in the higher cisplatin stratum (mean, 100.6 mg/m2). No significant differences were observed in the extent of nausea with either dolasetron dose compared with ondansetron. Less nausea was noted with 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron compared with the 2.4 mg/kg dose (P = .044) All three antiemetic treatments were well tolerated. Asymptomatic electrocardiogram changes were recorded with both dolasetron and ondansetron., Conclusion: A single IV dose of dolasetron mesylate (1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg) has comparable safety and efficacy to a single 32-mg IV dose of ondansetron in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy.

Purpose: Intravenous dolasetron has been shown to be an effective antiemetic agent in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Previous studies have suggested that 1.8 mg/kg is an optimal dose for achieving control of emesis and nausea. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a single intravenous (IV) dose of dolasetron with an equal divided multiple dose., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study, the efficacy and safety of a single 1.8-mg/kg dose of dolasetron given 30 min prior to high-dose cisplatin ( > or = 80 mg/m2) chemotherapy was compared with the same total amount of dolasetron administered in three separate doses (0.6 mg/kg each) over a 12-h interval commencing 30 min prior to beginning chemotherapy and ending 11.5 h later. Antiemetic efficacy, safety, and tolerability were compared in 55 patients with various malignancies during the 24 h following the initiation of chemotherapy. The number of emetic episodes was the primary efficacy parameter., Results: A single IV dose of dolasetron was generally more effective than a multiple-dose regimen in all measures of efficacy. There was a larger proportion of complete responders in the single-dose group compared with the multiple-dose group (48% vs 23%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Compared with the multiple-dose group, patients who received a single dose of dolasetron had a significantly (P = 0.034) longer median time to the first emetic episode (10.1 h vs > 24 h, respectively). Overall, 53% of patients had either a complete response or a major response to dolasetron, and only 40% of the total patient population received escape antiemetic medication in the 24 h after cisplatin administration. Except for headache, adverse events were similar with both regimens and were generally of mild or moderate intensity; no serious adverse events occurred. Neither dolasetron treatment regimen was associated with any clinically important events, trends in laboratory variables, or differences in safety profile., Conclusions: single-dose dolasetron was well tolerated and effectively controlled emesis and nausea in patients who received highly emetogenic, high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy. The greater antiemetic efficacy of a single prophylactic dose of dolasetron offers both convenience and potential cost savings, compared with a multiple-dose schedule of administration.