A randomized double-blind feasibility study comparing cetirizine and diphenhydramine in the prevention of paclitaxel-associated infusion-related reactions : the PREMED-F1 study
Fiche du document
4 février 2022
- handle: 10670/1.8zb7le
- doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06734-4
Sujets proches
Taxol Taxol (Trademark)Citer ce document
Johannie Beaucage-Charron et al., « A randomized double-blind feasibility study comparing cetirizine and diphenhydramine in the prevention of paclitaxel-associated infusion-related reactions : the PREMED-F1 study », Papyrus : le dépôt institutionnel de l'Université de Montréal, ID : 10.1007/s00520-021-06734-4
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Purpose. Cetirizine is a less sedative alternative to diphenhydramine for the prevention of infusion-related reactions (IRR) to paclitaxel. However, its use remains controversial. In this study, we assessed feasibility for a future definitive non-inferiority trial comparing cetirizine to diphenhydramine as premedication to prevent paclitaxel-related IRR. Methods. This was a single center randomized prospective feasibility study. Participants were paclitaxel-naive cancer patients scheduled to start paclitaxel chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg + oral placebo (control) or intravenous placebo + oral cetirizine 10 mg (intervention) for their first two paclitaxel treatments. The percentage of eligible patients completing a first paclitaxel treatment and the recruitment rate were assessed (feasibility outcomes). Drowsiness was measured at baseline and at selected time points using the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) (safety outcome). IRR events were also documented (efficacy outcome). Results. Among 37 eligible patients, 27 were recruited and randomized (control 13; intervention 14) and 25 completed the study. The recruitment rate was 4.8 participants/month, meeting the primary feasibility target. Drowsiness was the main adverse effect associated with the premedication. The increase in drowsiness compared to baseline (ΔSSS) was greater in the diphenhydramine group compared to the cetirizine group (median ΔSSS 2 (IQR 3.25) vs median ΔSSS 0 (IQR 1), p < 0.01) when measured one hour after the premedication administration. One participant had an IRR and no unexpected serious adverse event occurred. Conclusion. The trial methods were feasible in terms of recruitment, retention and safety. Cetirizine was significantly less sedating than diphenhydramine. IRR were infrequent and a larger trial is warranted to confirm non-inferiority for IRR prevention.