SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “CINV”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Early Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Chemotherapy With Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide Followed by Docetaxel Versus an Anthracycline-Free Regimen With Docetaxel, Cyclophosphamide-Results From a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important side effect despite new antiemetic drugs. This study tried to understand the occurrence of CINV in patients receiving two different chemotherapy regimens. As part of the randomized controlled clinical trial SUCCESS C (NCT00847444), 1582 of the 3463 patients completed CINV diaries. Patients were randomized to receive either chemotherapy with FEC (5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel) or TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide). CINV was evaluated hourly using a specially designed questionnaire. Endpoints of the study were complete response (no emesis) and total control (no nausea and no emesis) and were assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses over three chemotherapy cycles. Eight hundred fourteen patients received FEC and 768 received TC; patients and tumor characteristics were similar in both groups. Patients receiving FEC had significantly more nausea and vomiting, with the main difference in the first 12 h. In the first cycle, the 0-12-h nausea/emesis-free rates were 70%/41% for FEC and 91/76% for TC. By 24 h after chemotherapy, the rates were 65%/33% (FEC) and 85%/60% (TC). The differences were similar in cycles 2 and 3. The detailed analysis of CINV in the study is unique and paves the way for modern CINV analysis of new therapeutics such as antibody-drug conjugates.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Effects of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation versus acupressure on the trajectories of multidimensional adverse reactions to chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for breast cancer often induces multidimensional adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances. These symptoms are interrelated and may evolve dynamically, impacting patients' treatment outcomes and quality of life. As non-pharmacological interventions, transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) and self-acupressure (SA) have shown potential in alleviating symptoms. However, their long-term effects on the joint developmental trajectories of these multidimensional symptoms (nausea and vomiting, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify potential trajectory class of multidimensional adverse reactions in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and to explore the differential effects of TEAS and SA on different trajectory subgroups. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 189 breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy were included. The Group-Based Multi-Trajectory Model (GBMTM) was employed to identify joint developmental trajectories of acute/delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), anxiety, depression, and sleep quality during chemotherapy. Subsequently, causal forest was used to analyze the average treatment effects (ATE) of TEAS (vs. control group) and SA (vs. control group) on patients' symptom trajectory. RESULTS: Multidimensional adverse reactions were classified into two heterogeneous trajectories: a "High Symptom Burden-Persistent (HSBP)" type (n = 101) and a "Low Symptom Burden-Relieving (LSBR)" type (n = 88). The persistent high incidence of acute CINV contrasted sharply with the comprehensive relief of other symptoms in the latter group. Causal forest suggested that both TEAS and SA significantly increased the probability of patients being classified into the "LSBR" trajectory. The ATE was 0.147 (95% CI: 0.143, 0.151) for TEAS, slightly lower (P < 0.05) than 0.176 (95% CI: 0.162, 0.190) for SA.  CONCLUSION: Multidimensional adverse reactions in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy exhibit heterogeneity in their trajectories. Both TEAS and SA were associated with a higher probability of patients being classified into a more favorable symptom trajectory-LSBR. The multidimensional trajectory identification with treatment effect estimation may serve as a useful analytical strategy for future longitudinal research in cancer chemotherapy-induced adverse reactions symptom management. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300077667 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, https://www.chictr.org.cn/ ), Registered 15 November 2023.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Netupitant versus aprepitant: model-predicted neurokinin-1 receptor occupancy and implications for long-delayed nausea and vomiting prevention.

PURPOSE: Nausea and vomiting beyond 5 days after emetogenic chemotherapy or antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) therapy are common, yet the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists in this setting remains underrecognized. We used pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling to estimate the NK1 receptor occupancy (RO), a proxy for clinical efficacy, for up to 20 days after a single 300 mg dose of oral netupitant, 3-day oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1; 80 mg on days 2-3), or a single 165 mg dose of oral aprepitant. METHODS: Data from previous PK studies were analyzed by compartmental modeling. Positron emission tomography studies assessing striatal NK1 RO were used to develop maximum drug effect PD models, which were fitted to NK1 RO data as a function of plasma concentrations. RESULTS: Model predicted NK1 RO exceeded 90% at 3 h for all treatments. Thereafter, RO declined more gradually with netupitant (76%, 70%, 60%, and 21% on days 5, 7, 10, and 20, respectively) than with 3-day aprepitant (81%, 39%, 3%, and negligible) or single-dose aprepitant (45%, 10%, < 1%, and negligible). The half-life of netupitant was ~ 6.1 times longer than aprepitant's. Netupitant plasma concentration remained above the effective concentration for 50% NK1 RO (EC50) through day 10, whereas aprepitant concentrations fell below the EC50 by ~ days 7 and 5 after repeated and single dosing, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose netupitant maintained NK1 RO substantially longer than repeated- and single-dose aprepitant, suggesting greater potential for prolonged prevention of nausea and vomiting in ADC-treated patients. Prospective clinical validation of these model predictions would be beneficial.

Aprepitant↗