The prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting was one of the most challenging supportive care issues in oncology, especially to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). A total of 645 patients were randomized into fosaprepitant group (fosaprepitant/placebo 150 mg d1 in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone) or aprepitant group (aprepitant/placebo 125 mg d1; 80 mg d2‐d3 plus granisetron and dexamethasone).The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who had a complete response (CR) over the entire treatment course (0–120 hr, overall phase [OP]). It was assessed by using a non‐inferiority model, with a non‐inferiority margin of 10%. The difference of the CR rate was compared between two groups with chi‐square analysis. Six hundred and twenty‐six patients were included in the per protocol analysis. The percentage of patients with a CR in the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that in the aprepitant group (90.85% versus 94.17%, p = .1302) during OP. Whether the cisplatin‐based chemotherapy or not, the CR rate of the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that of the aprepitant group. Both regimens were well tolerated. The most common adverse event was constipation. Fosaprepitant provided effective and well‐tolerated control of nausea and vomiting associated with HEC in Chinese patients.

ABSTRACT. We performed a meta-analysis for systematic evaluation of the status quo of catheter thrombolysis for the treatment of acute lower limb deep vein thrombosis in China. We searched the China Biomedical bibliographic database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu full-text electronic journals, Wanfang full-text database, and Medline (1990 through June 2011) for clinical randomized controlled trials of catheter-directed thrombolysis and superficial venous thrombolysis to compare their efficacies for the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis. The results were analyzed by using the Cochrane-recommended RevMan 4.2 software package, and the odds ratio (OR) was used as the combined measure of efficacy. The search retrieved 8 randomized controlled trials, and meta-analysis using the total rate of effective treatment as the clinical observation index found that the combined OR for the catheter thrombolysis group versus the superficial venous thrombolysis group was significant (P < 0.01; OR = 11.78; 95% confidence interval = 6.99-19.87). In conclusion, the meta-analysis indicated that catheter thrombolysis was more effective than superficial venous thrombolysis for the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis in the lower limb in Chinese individuals. However, the included trials were only of medium quality, so more rational and scientific clinical trials are needed to validate this conclusion.