Trial reportCancer research and treatment2020
Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.
Trial report in Cancer research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.ESMO open · 2024Guideline
- 2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Global inequitable distribution of seminal studies of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Review
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of Palonosetron and Ramosetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Cardioprotective action of aprepitant in a rat model of ischemia-reperfusioninduced myocardial injury: role of PI3K-AkT-GSK-3β-HIF-1α signaling pathway.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2022Article
- Effect of Acupuncture on Delayed Emesis for the Patients Who Received High-Emetogenic Chemotherapy with Standard Antiemetic Prophylaxis (KHMC-HO-01): An Open-Label, Randomized Study.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Oliceridine is Associated with Reduced Risk of Vomiting and Need for Rescue Antiemetics Compared to Morphine: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials.Pain and therapy · 2021Article
- Ramosetron 3.0 μg/mL Combining with Dexamethasone (0.05, 0.1, 0.2 mg/mL) in Infusion Solutions: A Physicochemical Stability Study.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.
resultsA total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups.
conclusionIn all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.