Efficacy of NEPA, a fixed antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, vs a 3-day aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Chinese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in a randomized Phase 3 study

Randomized, Phase III Trial of Mixed Formulation of Fosrolapitant and Palonosetron (HR20013) in Preventing Cisplatin-Based Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: PROFIT

PURPOSE

Mixed formulation of fosrolapitant and palonosetron (PALO), HR20013, is a novel fixed-dose intravenous antiemetic combination that could simultaneously antagonize neurokinin-1 and 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptors. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HR20013 plus dexamethasone (DEX) versus fosaprepitant (FAPR) plus PALO + DEX for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

This is a noninferiority study. Chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive HR20013 (day 1) or FAPR + PALO (day 1) before each cycle of cisplatin-based HEC (two cycles in total), together with oral DEX (day 1-4). The primary end point was overall (0-120 hours) complete response (CR; no vomiting/no rescue therapy) rate in cycle 1. The key secondary end point was CR rate at the beyond delayed phase (120-168 hours) in cycle 1.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-three patients were enrolled to receive HR20013 + DEX and 377 to FAPR + PALO + DEX. The overall CR rate in cycle 1 was 77.7% for HR20013 + DEX and 78.2% for FAPR + PALO + DEX (difference = -0.9% [95% CI, -6.7 to 5.0]; one-sided P < .01), demonstrating that HR20013 + DEX was noninferior to FAPR + PALO + DEX. The superiority of HR20013 + DEX over FAPR + PALO + DEX in CR rate at the beyond delayed phase in cycle 1 was not met (90.3% v 86.5%; two-sided P = .11). In cycle 2, HR20013 + DEX showed greater proportions of patients reporting no impact on daily life at the delayed (24-120 hours) and beyond delayed phases compared with FAPR + PALO + DEX. The incidences of treatment-related adverse events were 35.7% during cycle 1 and 42.1% during entire study for HR20013 + DEX, versus 38.2% and 44.0% for FAPR + PALO + DEX.

CONCLUSION

HR20013 + DEX was noninferior to FAPR + PALO + DEX for preventing HEC-CINV and well tolerated, with the potential to reduce the impact of CINV on daily life.

Comparative effectiveness of netupitant-palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus aprepitant-based regimens in mitigating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite guidelines for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), there remains a need to clarify the optimal use of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists. Comparing the effectiveness of NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron) plus dexamethasone with other NK1 antagonist-based regimens combined with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is crucial for informed decision-making and improving patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of NEPA plus dexamethasone and other NK1 antagonist-based regimens combined with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched, with the latest update performed in December 2023. Data on patient demographics, chemotherapy regimen characteristics, and outcomes were extracted for meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were analyzed. NEPA plus dexamethasone showed superior efficacy in achieving complete response in the overall (risk ratio [RR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02--1.30) and delayed phases (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41) of chemotherapy. It was more effective in controlling nausea (overall phase RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.36; delayed phase RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40) and reducing rescue therapy use (overall phase RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-1.95; delayed phase RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.10-2.78). Adverse event rates were comparable (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.10). Subgroup analysis indicated NEPA's particular efficacy in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.60).

CONCLUSION

NEPA plus dexamethasone regimens exhibit superior efficacy in preventing CINV, supporting their preferential inclusion in prophylactic treatment protocols. Its effective symptom control, safety profile, and cost-effectiveness endorse NEPA-based regimens as a beneficial option in CINV management.

Effect of Selective 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 Receptor and Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists on Hemodynamic Changes and Arrhythmogenic Potential in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: A Retrospective, Observational Study

Background: Prior speculation suggests that selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptors and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists may increase arrhythmia risk and induce electrocardiographic changes. This study examined the effect of anti-emetic medications on arrhythmogenic potential and hemodynamic alterations. Methods: We considered patients aged 18 or above receiving chemotherapy between June 2013 and December 2013. Patients were grouped by anti-emetic medication: intravenous granisetron (Group G), oral aprepitant plus IV granisetron (Group AG), IV palonosetron (Group P), and oral aprepitant plus IV palonosetron (Group AP). We recorded blood pressure and electrocardiography initially and at the thirtieth minute post-medication, focusing on P dispersion, QTc dispersion, and systolic/diastolic blood pressure alterations. Results: The study included 80 patients (20 per group). Baseline systolic/diastolic blood pressure and P dispersion showed no significant variance. However, the baseline QTc dispersion was significantly lower in Groups P and AP than G and AG. The thirtieth-minute systolic/diastolic blood pressures were significantly lower than the baseline for Groups AG and AP, and the heart rates decreased in all groups. Group P showed significantly fewer blood pressure changes. Conclusions: We found no arrhythmogenic potential linked to granisetron, palonosetron, and aprepitant. Hypotension was more frequent at 30 min post-medication in granisetron or aprepitant recipients. Considering no hypotension occurred when using palonosetron alone, this treatment was deemed safer.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents

PURPOSE

This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.

CONCLUSION

There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

Retrospective Evaluation of a Dexamethasone Sparing Antiemetic Regimen: An Antiemetic Prophylaxis Study on NEPA (Netupitant Plus Palonosetron) for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Cancer Patients

Background Corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone (DEX), have been extensively utilized for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, their usage is associated with a range of adverse events. In contrast, the combination of Netupitant Plus Palonosetron (NEPA) with a single dose of DEX provides comparable efficacy in preventing CINV over a five-day period following chemotherapy administration. This regimen offers the advantage of reducing the need for additional doses of DEX, particularly in the high-risk setting of HEC (Highly emetic chemotherapy). Objective To evaluate dexamethasone sparing anti-emetic regimen (single dose dexamethasone with NEPA) for prophylaxis of CINV in patients receiving HEC. Methodology This is a retrospective, observational, real-world, single-center study including data of 69 patients who received high-dose emetogenic chemotherapy and were administered DEX (8 or 12 mg) on day 1, with no dose of DEX on days 2, 3, and 4, combined with an oral combination of tablet netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg. NEPA was taken orally an hour prior to the start of the HEC cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR) which is defined as no nausea, emesis, or no rescue medication during the Acute (< 24 hours) and Delayed Phase (25-120 hours) of chemotherapy. Results The overall CR achieved in the acute and delayed phase for vomiting is 100% at all four follow-ups. The CR achieved in the acute phase is 95.7% whereas 98.6% of patients showed CR in the delayed phase respectively. No patient required any rescue medication. No acute and delayed phase of vomiting was reported. Conclusion A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers effective CINV prevention throughout five days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high-emetic-risk setting chemotherapy.

A deep learning-based interpretable decision tool for predicting high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients prescribed highly emetogenic chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a risk prediction model for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and identify the variables that have the most significant impact on prediction.

METHODS

Data from Tianjin Medical University General Hospital were collected and subjected to stepwise data preprocessing. Deep learning algorithms, including deep forest, and typical machine learning algorithms such as support vector machine (SVM), categorical boosting (CatBoost), random forest, decision tree, and neural network were used to develop the prediction model. After training the model and conducting hyperparameter optimization (HPO) through cross-validation in the training set, the performance was evaluated using the test set. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), partial dependence plot (PDP), and Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) techniques were employed to explain the optimal model. Model performance was assessed using AUC, F1 score, accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and Brier score.

RESULTS

The deep forest model exhibited good discrimination, outperforming typical machine learning models, with an AUC of 0.850 (95%CI, 0.780-0.919), an F1 score of 0.757, an accuracy of 0.852, a specificity of 0.863, a sensitivity of 0.784, and a Brier score of 0.082. The top five important features in the model were creatinine clearance (Ccr), age, gender, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, and antiemetic regimen. Among these, Ccr had the most significant predictive value. The risk of CINV decreased with increased Ccr and age, while it was higher in the presence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting, female gender, and non-standard antiemetic regimen.

CONCLUSION

The deep forest model demonstrated good discrimination in predicting the risk of CINV in cancer patients prescribed HEC. Kidney function, as represented by Ccr, played a crucial role in the model's prediction. The clinical application of this predictive tool can help assess individual risks and improve patient care by proactively optimizing the use of antiemetics in cancer patients receiving HEC.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

Background

Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy.

Methods

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75 mg/m2). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5 mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) 1 h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30 min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558.

Findings

Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and 2.

Interpretation

Olanzapine (5 mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies.

Funding

Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the real-world setting in Spain

Purpose

Proper monitoring and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with antiemetics is crucial for cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of antiemetics for the treatment of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) including carboplatin in the real-world setting in Spain.

Methods

A representative panel of cancer specialists was asked to collect information about the antiemetic treatments provided to patients receiving chemotherapy. Records formed part of the Global Oncology Monitor^© database (Ipsos Healthcare, London, UK). Chemotherapy data were extrapolated using Ipsos Healthcare’s projection methodology.

Results

A total of 73 experts were finally included. Data from 9519 patients, estimated to be representative of 202,084 patients, were collected. HEC (and carboplatin-based chemotherapy) was administered to 73,118 (36%) patients, cisplatin-based therapy being the most frequent treatment (n = 34,649, 47.38%). Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK₁RAs) alone or in combination were used as prophylaxis for CINV in 14,762 (20%) patients, while the combination of NK₁RA with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RAs) and dexamethasone as recommended by the international guidelines was used in 5849 (8%) patients only. No antiemetic prophylaxis was administered to 8.46% of the patients receiving HEC (n = 6189). Physicians classified cisplatin-, anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC-), and carboplatin-based regimens as HEC in 63%, 22% and 4% of the cases, respectively.

Conclusions

The use of NK₁RA-containing regimens for CINV prevention in patients treated with HEC was less than expected, suggesting poor adherence to international antiemetic guidelines.

A phase 1 pharmacokinetic study of oral NEPA, the fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, in Chinese healthy volunteers

PURPOSE

Oral NEPA, the only fixed-combination antiemetic, is composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant (300 mg) and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (0.50 mg). This study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile of netupitant and its main metabolites M1 and M3, and palonosetron in Chinese subjects. Oral NEPA tolerability and safety were also analyzed.

METHODS

This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in healthy, adult Chinese volunteers. Eligible subjects received oral NEPA, and blood samples were collected on day 1 predose and at various time points up until day 10 postdose. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using noncompartmental methods. For safety assessments, adverse events (AEs) were monitored during the study.

RESULTS

In total 18 Chinese healthy volunteers received oral NEPA. Netupitant mean maximum plasma concentration (C_max) [± standard deviation] of 698 ± 217 ng/mL was reached at 3-6 h, with a mean total exposure (AUC_0-inf) of 22,000 ± 4410 h·ng/mL. For palonosetron, a mean C_max of 1.8 ± 0.252 ng/mL was reached at 2-6 h postadministration, with a mean AUC_0-inf of 81.0 ± 14.0 h·ng/mL. The most common treatment-related AEs in > 2 subjects were constipation (n = 9) and tiredness (n = 3). No severe AEs were observed, and no subject withdrew due to AEs.

CONCLUSION

Following single-dose administration of oral NEPA in Chinese subjects, the pharmacokinetic profiles of the NEPA components were mostly similar to those reported previously in Caucasians. NEPA was well tolerated with a safety profile in line with that observed in pivotal trials in Caucasians.

Efficacy of NEPA, a fixed antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, vs a 3-day aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Chinese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in a randomized Phase 3 study

NEPA is the only fixed combination antiemetic, comprised of an NK₁ RA (netupitant) and a 5-HT₃ RA (palonosetron). In the first head-to-head trial to compare NK₁ RA-containing regimens, a single oral dose of NEPA was non-inferior to a 3-day aprepitant/granisetron (APR/GRAN) regimen for the primary endpoint of overall (0-120 hours) complete response (no emesis/no rescue). This pre-specified analysis evaluates the efficacy of NEPA versus APR/GRAN in the subset of Chinese patients in the study. In addition, efficacy in patients at greatest emetic risk receiving high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m² ) was explored. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors in this randomized, double-blind study received either a single dose of NEPA prior to cisplatin-based chemotherapy or a 3-day regimen of APR/GRAN, both with dexamethasone on Days 1-4. Efficacy was evaluated through complete response, no emesis, and no significant nausea rates during the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (25-120 hours) and overall phases as well as individual days post-chemotherapy, as the daily course of CINV protection is often unstudied. The Chinese subset included 667 patients; of these, 363 (54%) received high-dose cisplatin. Baseline characteristics were comparable. While response rates were similar for NEPA and APR/GRAN during the acute, delayed and overall phases, significantly fewer NEPA patients experienced breakthrough CINV on individual Days 3-5 in both the Chinese patients and also in those receiving high-dose cisplatin. As a fixed oral NK₁ RA/5HT₃ RA combination given once/cycle, NEPA is a convenient highly effective prophylactic antiemetic that may offer better protection from CINV than a 3-day APR/GRAN regimen on Days 3-5 following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.