Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
3215123
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
Randomized phase II study of loratadine for the prevention of bone pain caused by pegfilgrastim
Author(s)
Moukharskaya, J; Abrams, DM; Ashikaga, T; Khan, F; Schwartz, J; Wilson, K; Verschraegen, C; Openshaw, T; Valentine, J; Eneman, J; Unger, P; Ades, S
Year
2016
Is Peer Reviewed?
1
Journal
Supportive Care in Cancer
ISSN:
0941-4355
EISSN:
1433-7339
Language
English
PMID
26894485
DOI
10.1007/s00520-016-3119-0
Abstract
PURPOSE:
Bone pain is a common side effect of pegfilgrastim and can interfere with quality of life and treatment adherence. This study investigated the impact of antihistamine prophylaxis on pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain.
METHODS:
This is a two-stage enrichment trial design. Patients receiving an initial dose of pegfilgrastim after chemotherapy were enrolled into the observation (OBS) stage. Those who developed significant back or leg bone pain (SP) were enrolled into the treatment (TRT) stage and randomized to daily loratadine 10 mg or placebo for 7 days. SP was defined by Brief Pain Inventory as back or leg pain score ≥5 and a 2-point increase after pegfilgrastim. The primary end point of TRT was reduction of worst back or leg bone pain with loratadine, defined as a 2-point decrease after treatment compared to OBS.
RESULTS:
Two hundred thirteen patients were included in the final analysis. Incidence of SP was 30.5 %. The SP subset had a worse overall Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Pain score (33.9 vs. 51.7, p < 0.001) and a higher mean white blood cell count (15.4 vs. 8.4 K/cm(3), p = 0.013) following pegfilgrastim than those without SP. Forty-six patients were randomized in the TRT. Benefit was 77.3 % with loratadine and 62.5 % with placebo (p = 0.35). Baseline NSAID use was documented in four patients (18.2 %) in loratadine arm and two patients (8.3 %) in placebo arm, with baseline non-NSAID use documented in five (22.7 %) and six (25 %) patients, respectively. Eight additional patients used NSAIDS by day 8 compared to day 1 (six in the loratadine and two in the placebo arm). A total of six additional patients used non-NSAIDS by day 8 compared to day 1 (four in the loratadine and two in the placebo arm).
CONCLUSIONS:
Administration of prophylactic loratadine does not decrease the incidence of severe bone pain or improve quality of life in a high-risk patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01311336.
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity