Show item record

dc.contributor.authorBeaucage-Charron, Johannie
dc.contributor.authorGaudet, Laurence
dc.contributor.authorLamothe, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorPelletier, Cloé
dc.contributor.authorPépin, Anne-Sophie
dc.contributor.authorRoy, Valérie
dc.contributor.authorCharpentier, Frédéric
dc.contributor.authorLordkipanidzé, Marie
dc.contributor.authorProjean, Denis
dc.contributor.authorBouchard, Philippe
dc.contributor.authorPicard, Matthieu
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-04T14:01:05Z
dc.date.availableMONTHS_WITHHELD:12fr
dc.date.available2022-02-04T14:01:05Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-08
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1866/26216
dc.publisherSpringerfr
dc.subjectCetirizinefr
dc.subjectDiphenhydraminefr
dc.subjectPaclitaxelfr
dc.subjectDrug hypersensitivityfr
dc.subjectPremedicationfr
dc.titleA randomized double-blind feasibility study comparing cetirizine and diphenhydramine in the prevention of paclitaxel-associated infusion-related reactions : the PREMED-F1 studyfr
dc.typeArticlefr
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversité de Montréal. Faculté de médecinefr
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversité de Montréal. Faculté de pharmaciefr
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00520-021-06734-4
dcterms.abstractPurpose. 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.fr
dcterms.isPartOfurn:ISSN:0941-4355fr
dcterms.isPartOfurn:ISSN:1433-7339fr
dcterms.languageengfr
UdeM.ReferenceFournieParDeposantPMID: 34997314fr
UdeM.VersionRioxxVersion acceptée / Accepted Manuscriptfr
oaire.citationTitleSupportive care in cancerfr


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show item record

This document disseminated on Papyrus is the exclusive property of the copyright holders and is protected by the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42). It may be used for fair dealing and non-commercial purposes, for private study or research, criticism and review as provided by law. For any other use, written authorization from the copyright holders is required.