A phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over repeated cycles of chemotherapy

NEPA (Netupitant/Palonosetron) for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients Receiving Highly or Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy Who Experienced Breakthrough CINV in Cycle 1 of Chemotherapy: A Phase II Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Although control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is substantially improved with guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis, breakthrough CINV remains a significant clinical patient problem. In subsequent cycles after breakthrough occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend adding agents not used in the initial cycle. This study was designed to evaluate the use of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) plus dexamethasone with or without olanzapine for the prevention of CINV in the second cycle of chemotherapy for patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) who developed breakthrough CINV in their first cycle despite guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetics.

METHODS

This was a Phase 2, single center, open-label study. Patients received guideline-recommended prophylactic antiemetics in Cycle 1 based on the chemotherapy emetogenicity. Patients who experienced breakthrough CINV in Cycle 1 received intravenous (IV) NEPA (Day 1) plus dexamethasone (Days 1-4) and olanzapine (Days 1-4) for HEC or IV NEPA (Day 1) plus dexamethasone (Days 1-4) for MEC in Cycle 2.

RESULTS

Of the 227 patients enrolled in Cycle 1, 100 patients (n = 37 HEC, 63 MEC) experienced breakthrough CINV and received the NEPA-based treatments in Cycle 2. The complete response (no emesis/no rescue use) rates [95% confidence intervals] during the overall (0-120 h) phase were 76% [59%, 88%] and 79% [67%, 89%] in the HEC and MEC groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These results show that NEPA with or without olanzapine is an effective approach for CINV prevention for patients receiving HEC or MEC who develop breakthrough CINV after their first course of chemotherapy. The results support the antiemetic guideline recommendations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06065722.

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.

Antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in haematologic malignancies patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Which is the best standard of care? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic prophylaxis in haematological patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy as part of their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane database to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of antiemetic prophylaxis. Studies in English, French, Italian or Spanish were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42023406380.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were analysed. The antiemetic regimens evaluated ranged from monotherapy with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor 3 antagonists (5-HT3RAs) to complex combinations including olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3RAs and corticosteroids. Complete response rates for triplet or quadruple regimens varied between 23.5% and 81.9%. Although no significant adverse effects were observed, minor symptoms such as diarrhoea, constipation, sedation and headaches were reported.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence on HSCT antiemetic therapy highlights its benefits but fails to provide clear clinical directions. The choice between triplet and quadruplet therapies for different patient scenarios is still uncertain. Until more detailed research is available, healthcare providers must rely on the latest guidelines and their judgement to customise antiemetic care for each patient's specific needs and risks.

Integrating nutrition, physical exercise, psychosocial support and antiemetic drugs into CINV management: The road to success

Over the years, advancements in antiemetic drugs have improved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control. However, despite the antiemetics therapies, in a relevant number of adult patients (∼30 %), CINV is still persistent, leading to several complications, such as electrolyte imbalances, anorexia, and treatment discontinuation. Supportive care interventions have gained credibility in cancer care, helping to improve patients' psycho-physical condition, quality of life, and managing symptoms, including CINV. Physical exercise and tailored nutritional counseling have demonstrated benefits in reducing the severity of nausea and vomiting. Psychological intervention has been postulated as a key approach in controlling anticipatory nausea/vomiting, as well as acupuncture/acupressure has been shown to decrease nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy treatments. In the current review, we aim to provide a clinical update on current prophylactic and delayed antiemetic guidelines for CINV and an overview of the non-pharmacological interventions tested for alleviating CINV in patients with cancer.

Dexamethasone-Sparing Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Highly and Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: The SHEILD Study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly impacts patient's quality of life and treatment adherence. This study investigated the efficacy of Generic Netupitant and Palonosetron tablets (Nykron) with dexamethasone single dose for CINV prophylaxis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Additionally, this approach aligns with the principles of the SHIELD study (Sparing High Efficacy Intervention for Low Dose Dexamethasone), which focuses on maximizing antiemetic effectiveness while minimizing dexamethasone use.

METHODOLOGY

This multicenter retrospective study evaluates data from patients who received HEC/MEC and were administered a fixed-dose combination of Generic NEPA (Netupitant 300 mg and Palonosetron 0.5 mg tablets, Nykron combi-pack) along with a single dose of dexamethasone (12 mg/8 mg) before chemotherapy. The data were collected from September 2022 till September 2023. Outcomes measured included complete response (no vomiting and no need for rescue medications), complete protection (no significant nausea (<2.5 cm on VAS), no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), and complete control (no emetic episodes, no rescue therapy, and no nausea [0 cm on VAS]) during the acute phase (0-24 hours) and delayed phase (24-120 hours) post-chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The data of 372 patients was evaluated in which breast cancer was the most common cancer with 223 (59.95%) patients for which doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (192, 51.61%) was the most administered chemotherapy combination. The second most common cancer was gastrointestinal (GI) cancer with stomach cancer in 47 (12.6%), colorectal cancer in 4 (1%), and pancreatic cancer in 2 (0.54%). A total of 360 (96.8%) patients received an HEC regimen across the cycle, while only 5 (1.3%) received an MEC regimen. The regimen demonstrated exceptional efficacy with a 96.9% overall response rate across all cycles. Complete control rates for acute CINV were 92% and 90% for delayed CINV across chemotherapy cycles. Complete response rates remained consistently high (94%-98%) across all cycles and overall phases. Only 3% of patients experienced anticipatory CINV.

CONCLUSIONS

This dexamethasone-sparing Generic NEPA regimen showed remarkable efficacy in CINV management for HEC/MEC regimen-receiving patients, maintaining high response rates in both acute and delayed across all cycles. These findings indicate a potential paradigm shift in CINV prophylaxis, necessitating further investigation through prospective, randomized controlled trials to validate long-term safety and efficacy.

Exploring the role of ghrelin and des-acyl ghrelin in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Ghrelin and its mimetics have been shown to reduce cisplatin-induced emesis in preclinical studies using ferrets and shrews. This study investigated the effectiveness of ghrelin and des-acyl ghrelin (DAG) in antagonizing cisplatin-induced emesis and physiological changes indicative of nausea in Suncus murinus. Animals implanted with radiotelemetry devices were administered ghrelin (0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 μg/day), DAG (0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 μg/day), or saline (14 μL/day) intracerebroventricularly 4 days before and 3 days after treatment with cisplatin (30 mg/kg). At the end, the anti-apoptotic potentials of ghrelin and DAG were assessed by measuring Bax expression and cytochrome C activity. Neurotransmitter changes in the brain were evaluated using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. Ghrelin and DAG reduced cisplatin-induced emesis in the delayed (24-72 h) but not the acute phase (0-24 h) of emesis. Ghrelin also partially reversed the inhibitory effects of cisplatin on food intake without affecting gastrointestinal myoelectrical activity or causing hypothermia; however, ghrelin or DAG did not prevent these effects. Ghrelin and DAG could attenuate the cisplatin-induced upregulation of Bax and cytochrome C in the ileum. Cisplatin dysregulated neurotransmitter levels in the frontal cortex, amygdala, thalamus, hypothalamus, and brainstem, and this was partially restored by low doses of ghrelin and DAG. Our findings suggest that ghrelin and DAG exhibit protective effects against cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. The underlying antiemetic mechanism may involve GHSR and/or unspecified pathways that modulate the neurotransmitters involved in emesis control in the brain and an action to attenuate apoptosis in the gastrointestinal tract.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R-CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R-CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles.

Prevention and management of acute toxicities from conditioning regimens during hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) remains the only curative option for several hematological malignancies. Its use has continued to grow, with an estimated 23,500 transplants performed annually in the United States alone. The acute toxicities that occur from conditioning chemotherapy can impact the peri-transplant period and have substantial implications on patients' tolerability and outcomes, irrespective of the treatment of their disease. Chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting (CINV), mucositis, transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy (TA-TMA), and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, also known as a veno-occlusive disease (SOS/VOD) can all have significant implications for patients. These acute complications begin with the start of conditioning chemotherapy and add to potential toxicity for patients throughout the early post-transplant period, from Day +30 for CINV, mucositis, and SOS, and which can continue through at least Day +100 with the onset of TA-TMA. These toxicities must be prevented and managed appropriately. This review will summarize the literature surrounding them and guide their management.

A phase II trial of netupitant/palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting in patients receiving BEAM prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients receiving BEAM therapy. Study Design: This phase II, prospective, intention-to-treat, single-center, single-arm study involved 43 adult patients who received NEPA and dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV due to BEAM conditioning chemotherapy. An interim analysis, performed after 13 patients, determined utility versus futility, and supported continuation to full enrollment. Descriptive statistics were used to report complete response (CR), complete protection, incidence of emesis, and administration of rescue agents. A Kaplan-Meier curve depicted time to first emesis and first rescue medication. Patients self-reported levels of daily nausea descriptively via a CINV Questionnaire. Results: By study end, 13 of 43 patients achieved a CR with an average of 10.6 emesis-free days (SD 0.95) over the 11-day observation period, with no emetic events in any patient during the acute/chemotherapy phase. Nausea was well-controlled throughout the acute therapy phase (Day 1-6) and increased during the delayed phase (Day 7-11) with a peak mean level of 2.79/10 at Day 10. Aside from lower grade (≤2), headaches, constipation, and diarrhea were the most widely reported adverse effects. Conclusion: The combination of NEPA and dexamethasone is safe and effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving BEAM conditioning therapy prior to HCT. The regimen demonstrated greater effectiveness in the acute phase versus the delayed phase, with low levels of nausea throughout the study period and complete emesis prevention during chemotherapy.

An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Observational Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Akynzeo® in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in India

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common and unpleasant treatment-related side effect reported by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Akynzeo® or NEPA (NEtupitant + PAlonosetron) is the first fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron that targets both critical pathways involved in emesis while providing a convenient, single oral dose therapy. The current study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of NEPA in a real-world setting in India. Methodology This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm study conducted at six different locations across India. The study included patients of either gender, aged ≥18 years, naive to chemotherapy, scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC), and scheduled to receive oral NEPA, as determined by the investigator. Results A total of 360 people were screened and enrolled in the study. HEC was prescribed to 289 (81.64%) patients, while MEC was prescribed to 65 (18.36%) patients. Complete response was achieved in 94.92% of patients during the acute phase, 95.20% during the delayed phase, and 93.22% during the overall phase. During the overall phase, 92.73% and 95.38% of patients on the HEC and MEC regimens, respectively, achieved complete response. Adverse events were reported in 3.88% of patients. Conclusions Oral NEPA was found to be effective in the Indian real-world setting, eliciting a >90% complete response with HEC and MEC regimens across the acute, delayed, and overall phases.

Comparison of netupitant/palonosetron with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist in preventing of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RA) has long been considered the standard regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, their therapeutic outcomes have been unsatisfactory. NEPA, an oral formulation combining the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant and the 5HT3RA palonosetron, has received regulatory approval for the management of highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. This study aims to compare the efficacy of NEPA with that of 5HT3RA alone in preventing CINV among patients undergoing multiday conditioning chemotherapy prior to HSCT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent HSCT between September 2019 and September 2022. Efficacy outcomes were assessed based on the rates of patients achieving complete response (CR: no emesis and no use of rescue medication), complete control (CC: CR without significant nausea), no vomiting, and no significant nausea.

RESULTS

The NEPA group consisted of 106 patients, while the 5HT3RA group included 107 patients. The NEPA group exhibited significantly higher rates of CR compared to the 5HT3RA group during the overall phase (71.7% vs. 32.7%, P<0.001), acute phase (78.3% vs. 43.0%, P<0.001), and delayed phase (84.9% vs. 58.9%, P<0.001). Similarly, rates of CC, no vomiting, and no significant nausea were significantly better in the NEPA group across all phases (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

NEPA demonstrated superior efficacy compared to 5HT3RA in preventing CINV during all phases of multiday conditioning regimens among patients undergoing HSCT.

Fosaprepitant Weekly vs Every 3 Weeks for the Prevention of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Unlike substantial evidence in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), research in the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is currently lacking.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant weekly vs every 3 weeks for the prevention of nausea and emesis caused by CCRT among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single cancer center from November 24, 2020, to July 26, 2021, among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who had achieved CINV control after 2 to 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy. Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population. Data were analyzed on November 4, 2022.

Interventions

Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive fosaprepitant either weekly or every 3 weeks.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of patients with sustained complete response (defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy) during CCRT. Secondary end points were sustained no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, mean time to first emetic episode, quality of life, and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

A total of 100 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.6 [10.9] years; 83 [83.0%] male) who had achieved CINV control after induction chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant weekly (50 patients) or every 3 weeks (50 patients). There was no significantly significant difference in cumulative risk of emesis or rescue therapy in the group that received weekly fosaprepitant compared with those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks (subhazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.43-1.02]; P = .06). The proportion of patients with sustained no emesis (38% vs 14%; P = .003) or no significant nausea (92% vs 72%; P = .002) was significantly higher in the group that received fosaprepitant weekly vs those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks. Treatments were well tolerated. Patients in the weekly group had improved scores for multiple quality-of-life measures. There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between groups (91.8% vs 93.7%; P = .99). In the mean brainstem dose subgroups, a possible treatment interaction effect was observed in sustained complete response (mean brainstem dose ≥36 Gy: hazard ratio [HR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.15-0.69]; mean brainstem dose <36 Gy: HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.55-1.63]) and sustained no emesis (mean brainstem dose ≥36 Gy: HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.08-0.53]; mean brainstem dose <36 Gy: HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.41-1.28]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this pilot randomized clinical trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the complete response primary end point, but patients receiving weekly fosaprepitant were less likely to experience emesis compared with those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks, especially in the subgroup with a mean brainstem dose of 36 Gy or more. Weekly fosaprepitant was well tolerated and improved quality of life of patients without compromising survival.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04636632.

Prolonged usage of fosaprepitant for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Even though chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be well controlled in the acute phase, the incidence of delayed CINV remains high. In this study, we intend to investigate whether prolonged use of NK-1 receptor antagonist (RA) in addition to 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone (DEX) was more effective in preventing delayed CINV.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant 150 mg given on days 1,3 (prolonged group) versus on day 1 (regular group) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All patients also treated with palonosetron on day 1 and DEX on days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting. The second endpoint was AEs. All the above endpoints were defined according to CTCAE 5.0.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned to prolonged group and seventy-nine to regular group. Prolonged group demonstrated superiority in controlling delayed CINV to regular group, with statistically significant lower incidence of nausea (6.17% vs 12.66%, P = 0.0056), and slightly lower incidence of grade 1 vomiting (1.62% vs 3.80%, P = 0.0953) in the delayed phase. In addition, prolonged use of fosaprepitant was safe. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding constipation, diarrhea, hiccough, fatigue, palpitation and headache in delayed phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged use of fosaprepitant can effectively and safely prevent delayed CINV in patients receiving HEC.

Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs.

RESULTS

NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and the subsequent vomiting (CINV) are adverse effects of cancer treatment associated with considerable burden for the patient. CINV has a significant negative impact on quality of life. The consequent loss of fluids and electrolytes can lead to impaired renal function or weight loss, which may lead to hospitalization. If CINV later results in anticipatory vomiting, this complicates both CINV prophylaxis and further chemotherapy, which can endanger the continuation of cancer treatment. The introduction of high-dose dexamethasone as well as 5‑HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists has led to a significant improvement of CINV prophylaxis since the 1990s. Recommendations on CINV prophylaxis are in available in guidelines. Adherence to these guidelines results in better outcomes.

Challenges in the Development of Intravenous Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists: Results of a Safety and Pharmacokinetics Dose-Finding, Phase 1 Study of Intravenous Fosnetupitant

Oral NEPA is the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK₁ RA]) and palonosetron (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist [5-HT₃ RA]). Intravenous (IV) NEPA, containing fosnetupitant, a water-soluble N-phosphoryloxymethyl prodrug of netupitant, has been developed. Fosnetupitant does not require excipients or solubility enhancers often used to increase IV NK₁ RA water solubility, preventing the occurrence of hypersensitivity and infusion-site reactions associated with these products. In this phase 1 study, subjects received a 30-minute placebo or fosnetupitant (17.6-353 mg) infusion and an oral NEPA or placebo capsule, with 2-sequence crossover treatment for fosnetupitant 118- to 353-mg dose cohorts. IV fosnetupitant safety and pharmacokinetics were evaluated, and its equivalence to an oral netupitant 300-mg dose was defined. Overall, 158 healthy volunteers were enrolled. All adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate in intensity. Doppler-identified infusion-site asymptomatic thrombosis occurred in 5.4% (fosnetupitant) and 1.2% (oral NEPA) of subjects. The frequency or number of treatment-related AEs did not increase with ascending fosnetupitant doses. The most common treatment-related AEs were headache (fosnetupitant, 8.1%; oral NEPA, 12.7%) and constipation (fosnetupitant, 1.4%; oral NEPA, 7.5%). A fosnetupitant 235-mg dose was equivalent, in terms of netupitant exposure, to 300-mg oral netupitant. The safety profile of a single fosnetupitant 235-mg infusion was similar to that of single-dose oral NEPA.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings.

METHODS

A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained.

RESULTS

NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125.

CONCLUSION

By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

NEPA efficacy and tolerability during (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin

OBJECTIVES

This is a prospective study evaluating NEPA in patients with breast cancer (the NEPA group), who received (neo)adjuvant AC chemotherapy (consisting of doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2). The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of NEPA in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The secondary objectives were to compare CINV between the NEPA group and historical controls (the APR group) who received aprepitant in an earlier prospective randomised study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

60 patients participated in the NEPA group; 62 were in the APR group. Eligibility criteria of both groups were similar, that is, Chinese patients with breast cancer who were treated with (neo)adjuvant AC. NEPA group received NEPA and dexamethasone; APR group received aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone. Individuals filled in self-reported diary, visual analogue scale for nausea and Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire.

RESULTS

Within the NEPA group, 70.0%, 85.7% and 60.0%, respectively reported complete response in the acute, delayed and overall phases in cycle 1 AC. When compared with the historical APR group during cycle 1 AC, NEPA group achieved significantly higher rates of complete response, complete protection, total control, 'no significant nausea' and 'no nausea' in the delayed phase; similar findings were noted in the overall phase with significantly better quality of life. Superior efficacy of NEPA was maintained over multiple cycles. Both antiemetic regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In this study on Chinese patients with breast cancer who were uniformly receiving AC, NEPA was effective in controlling CINV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03386617.

SEOM clinical guideline emesis (2021)

Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40% of patients. It can impair patient’s quality of life and provoke low adherence to cancer treatment or chemotherapy dose reductions that can comprise treatment efficacy. Suffering CINV depends on factors related to the intrinsic emetogenicity of antineoplastic drugs and on patient characteristics. CINV can appear at different times regarding the administration of antitumor treatment and the variability of risk according to the different antitumor regimens has, as a consequence, the need for a different and adapted antiemetic treatment prophylaxis to achieve the desired objective of complete protection of the patient in the acute phase, in the late phase and in the global phase of emesis. As a basis for the recommendations, the level of emetogenicity of anticancer treatment is considered and they are classified as high, moderate, low and minimal emetogenicity and these recommendations are based on the use of antiemetic drugs with a high therapeutic index: anti 5-HT, anti-NK and steroids. Despite having highly effective treatments, clinical reality shows that they are not applied enough, so evidence-based recommendations are needed to show the best options and help in decision-making. To cover all the antiemetic prophylaxis options, we have also included recommendations for oral treatments, multiday regimens and radiation-induced emesis prevention.

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the published cost-effectiveness analyses of aprepitant for patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and CBM database. The date of publication is up to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved and reviewers reached a consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS). The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2019 using the CCEMG–EPPI–Certer Cost Converter.

Results: Thirteen articles were included based on the inclusion criteria for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis. Twelve studies were rated as good quality and one as a moderate quality based on the CHEERS checklist. Eight studies compared aprepitant plus 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) and dexamethasone with the standard regimen (5-HT3RA and dexamethasone). It was concluded that aprepitant plus standard regimen was a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV. Only one study that compared aprepitant plus 5-HT3RA with 5-HT3RA, concluded that the addition of aprepitant reduced the incidence of severe nausea, and it might also provide an economic benefit in the overall management. Four studies that compared aprepitant with other antiemetic drugs concluded that aprepitant is a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV compared with metoclopramide. However, netupitan + palonosetron and olanzapine are cost-effective compared with aprepitant.

Conclusion: This study is the first systematic evaluation of adding aprepitant to standard regimens for patients with CINV. Most economic evaluations of antiemetic medications are reported to be of good quality. Adding aprepitant to standard regimens is found to be a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV.

Severity of constipation related to palonosetron during first-line chemotherapy: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

Palonosetron, a long-acting 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic agent for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; however, it sometimes causes severe constipation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the severity of palonosetron-related constipation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the incidence and severity of constipation after intravenous administration of 0.75-mg palonosetron in 150 chemotherapy-naïve patients who received first-line chemotherapy at Saga University Hospital. Constipation was classified into grades 1-5 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with palonosetron-related worsening of constipation to grade 2 or higher.

RESULTS

Palonosetron significantly increased the incidence and severity of constipation (incidence: before vs. after palonosetron, 35.4% vs. 74.0%, p < 0.0001, and severity: before vs. after palonosetron, 26.7% and 8.7% in grades 1 and 2, respectively, vs. 46.7%, 23.3%, and 4.0% in grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively, p < 0.0001). Despite the use of laxatives, 4.0% of patients had grade 3 constipation requiring manual evacuation. Combination treatment with aprepitant (odds ratio (OR), 10.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-90.0; p = 0.026) and older age (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.57; p = 0.039) were factors associated with the severity of constipation.

CONCLUSION

Constipation was more severe in patients receiving combination treatment with aprepitant than in those treated with palonosetron alone. Older age was also associated with increased risk of severe palonosetron-related constipation. Identification of risk factors can help target risk-based laxative therapy.

Fixed-Dose Netupitant and Palonosetron for Chronic Nausea in Cancer Patients: A Double-Blind, Placebo Run-in Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

CONTEXT

No clinical trials have examined the effect of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) on chronic nausea in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

In this pilot randomized trial, we assessed the efficacy of NEPA and placebo on chronic nausea.

METHODS

This double-blind, parallel, randomized trial enrolled patients with cancer and chronic nausea for at least 1 month, intensity ≥4/10 and not on moderately or highly emetogenic systemic therapies. Patients started with a placebo run-in period from days 1 to 5; those without a placebo response proceeded to the double-blinded phase between days 6 to 15 (NEPA: placebo 2:1 ratio). The primary outcome was within-group change in average nausea over the 24 hours on a 0-10 numeric rating scale between day 5 and 15.

RESULTS

Among the 53 enrolled patients, 46 proceeded to placebo run-in and 33 had blinded treatment (22 NEPA and 11 placebo). We observed a statistically significant within-group improvement in nausea numeric rating scale between day 5 and 15 in the NEPA group (mean change, -2.0; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.8) and the placebo group (mean change, -2.3; 95% CI, -3.9 to -0.7). A complete response was achieved in 8 (38%) patients in the NEPA group and 2 (20%) in the placebo group by day 15. No grade 3-4 toxicities were attributed to NEPA. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the primary/secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA and placebo were associated with similar magnitude of within-group improvement in chronic nausea without significant between-group differences (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03040726).

Netupitant/Palonosetron: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo^®), available in oral and intravenous (IV) formulations, is a fixed-dose combination of the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist netupitant (or the prodrug, fosnetupitant, in the IV formulation) and the second-generation serotonin 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist palonosetron. Administered as a single dose, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron (in combination with dexamethasone) is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults. In clinical trials, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron plus dexamethasone was associated with high complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute, delayed and overall phases in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with efficacy maintained over multiple cycles. Further, oral netupitant/palonosetron was found to be superior to palonosetron and non-inferior to aprepitant plus granisetron in preventing CINV in individual trials. Both the oral and IV formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. The fixed-dose combination is concordant with guideline recommendations and provides a simple and convenient option for prophylaxis against acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃ ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT₃ RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK₁ RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK₁ RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK₁ ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK₁ RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK₁ RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Intergenerational comparison of 5-HT3RA in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in gastric cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: an observational study using a Japanese administrative claims database

PURPOSE

In chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), the superiority of the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) over the first-generation 5-HT3RA is shown in the delayed emesis in cycle 1. We evaluate the antiemetic efficacy in real-world clinical practice that has not been sufficiently investigated in clinical trials.

METHODS

We included patients who were diagnosed with gastric cancer between April 2012 and June 2017 from the medical claims databases and were treated with cisplatin (≥ 50 mg/m2) and standard antiemetic therapy (5-HT3RA + neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + dexamethasone). We compared the second-generation 5-HT3RA (2nd group) and the first-generation 5-HT3RA (1st group) groups to evaluate the additional antiemetic drug as the CINV event.

RESULTS

In total, 3798 patients were extracted; 1440 and 2358 patients were included in the 1st and 2nd groups, respectively. The clinical and demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. In the overall (days 1-6) in cycle 1, 51.7% and 44.3% of patients in the 1st and 2nd groups, respectively, had a CINV event. In the acute phase (days 1-2), 38.7% and 30.2% and in the delayed phase (days 3-6), 35.8% and 32.1% of patients in the 1st and 2nd groups, respectively, had a CINV event. Furthermore, the CINV event trend was the same as in cycles 1 to 5.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of CINV events in the 2nd group was smaller than that in the 1st group at any cycle. These findings may suggest consistent antiemetic efficacy of second-generation 5-HT3RA throughout the cycle.

Anti-cancer therapy made easier: a 25-year update

In 1993, the Internal Medicine Journal published ‘Chemotherapy made easier’, outlining developments in supportive care of patients undergoing chemotherapy. This described the contemporary state of anti‐emetics, colony stimulating factors, cardiac toxicity, neurotoxicity, development of drug analogues and venous access devices. Twenty‐five years later, we update the measures that improve the tolerability of the plethora of new anti‐cancer therapies, which have extended well beyond traditional chemotherapy agents to include immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Optimisation of supportive care is paramount to allow safe delivery with the least possible impact on quality of life of these new treatments, many of which have resulted dramatically improved outcomes across multiple cancer types. This state of the art update summarises advances in supportive care therapies relating to improving the patient experience during and after anti‐cancer treatment, including new anti‐emetics, hair preservation techniques, bone marrow support and improved venous access devices; the ongoing challenge of neurotoxicity; and the advent of multidisciplinary sub‐specialised fields such as cardio‐oncology and oncofertility. Supportive care medications for immuno‐oncology therapies is a new section; these highly effective (although not universally so) agents were a mere illusion in 1993.

The effectiveness of NEPA in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting among chemo naive patients in an Indian setting

Background

Chemotherapy induced nausea- vomiting (CINV) is considered as the most common, feared and most troublesome side effect of chemotherapy. NEPA (NEtupitant 300 mg + PAlonosetron 0.50 mg) is the first commercially available oral fixed-dose combination (FDC) of two active antiemetic agents in India. The present study was planned to evaluate the effectiveness of NEPA in the real world setting of India.

Methods

This was a multicentric retrospective study conducted in two centers in India. The data of all chemonaive patients, who were prescribed NEPA was analyzed. Effectiveness i.e. complete response and complete protection in controlling overall, acute and delayed phase was analyzed.

Results

A total of 329 patients were enrolled in the study. 260 received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen and 69 received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimen. Among all the enrolled patients, complete response in acute, delayed and overall phase was 93, 85.71 and 85.41% respectively; and completed protection was 88.44, 81.76 and 80.54% respectively. Those who received HEC regimen, the completed response and complete protection in overall phase was 84.61 and 79.61% respectively and those who received MEC regimen the completed response and complete control in overall phase was 84.05 and 84.05% respectively.

Conclusion

A single oral dose of NEPA targeting dual pathways showed effective control of nausea-vomiting in patients on the HEC and MEC regimens and had good control over nausea-vomiting in acute, delayed and overall phase of nausea-vomiting.

Single-dose netupitant/palonosetron versus 3-day aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a pooled analysis

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p < 0.05) and 78.4 versus 75.0% during the acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. Conclusion: Oral NEPA administered on day 1 was more effective than a 3-day APR regimen in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin.

NEPA as antiemetic prophylaxis after failure of 5HT3-RA plus dexamethasone in patients receiving carboplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy: A monocentric real-life experience

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may affect adherence to planned chemotherapy treatments and compromise patients' quality of life during the therapy. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of netupitant, a highly-selective NK1-RA and palonosetron, a 5HT3-RA, approved for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NEPA with dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis in the challenging setting of carboplatin and gemcitabine combination chemotherapy, after failure of prophylaxis with 5HT3 receptor antagonist.

METHODS

Eligible patients were undergoing carboplatin and gemcitabine combination chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), ovarian cancer or urothelial cancer and experienced nausea and/or vomiting after the first cycle of chemotherapy, despite an antiemetic prophylaxis with a 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone. Primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) obtained with NEPA, during the overall phase (0-120 h), after the start of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

During the first cycle of chemotherapy, 15 out of 30 (50%) patients did not properly control CINV with a 5HT3-RA plus dexamethasone used as primary antiemetic prophylaxis and then were switched to NEPA from the subsequent cycle. During NEPA administration, 13 out of 15 patients (86.7%) achieved an overall CR (no emesis, no rescue medication). Antiemetic treatment with NEPA was very well tolerated with only two patients (13.3%) that experienced a grade 1 TEAE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience showed that NEPA has proven to be very effective and well tolerated in the prophylaxis of CINV induced by carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Identification of optimal contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis for doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in Chinese cancer patients: post-hoc analysis of 3 prospective studies

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy. Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), corticosteroid, and dopamine antagonists. This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received (neo)adjuvant AC, in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.

METHODS

A total of 304 patients were included: Group 1, ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 2, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1); Group 3, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1-3); Group 4, aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone (D1-3)/olanzapine; and Group 5, netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone (D1-3). Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3, 4, and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1. In addition, emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5, and those of Groups 2 and 3, were compared.

RESULTS

When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet (5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with triplet antiemetic regimens (NK1RA/5HT3RA/dexamethasone) with/without olanzapine, complete response (CR) percentages and quality of life (QOL) in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups: Group 1 vs. 3, 41.9% vs. 38.3% (P = 0.6849); Group 1 vs. 4, 41.9% vs. 65.0% (P = 0.0107); and Group 1 vs. 5, 41.9% vs. 60.0% (P = 0.0460). Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing netupitant-based (Group 3) with aprepitant-based (Group 5) triplet antiemetics, CR percentages were 38.3% vs. 60.0%, respectively (P = 0.0176); Group 5 achieved a better QOL. When comparing 1 day (Group 2) vs. 3 day (Group 3) dexamethasone, CR percentages were 46.8% and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.3459); Group 3 had a worse QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics. Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets. Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone. Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.

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.

Possibilities of supportive therapy in patients with blood system tumors and malignant neoplasms

Finding opportunities to improve treatment outcomes of cancer patients remains a difficult and unresolved problem. Modern anticancer treatment due to the intensity and molecular biological orientation allows achieving higher efficiency and theoretically reducing the complications frequency. At the same time, the “increase in efficiency” in the modern oncology really exists, but a “decrease in the incidence of complications” is far from its solution. In many ways, the problems of diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of complications are associated with the impact on complex physiological processes in the body of an oncological patient. Timely implementation of modern and adequate programs for the prevention and treatment of these complications defines the concept of “supportive therapy”, which provides at least half of the effectiveness of anticancer treatment.

The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) was formed in 1990. The main tasks of the association were the creation of supportive care system, its popularization and accumulation of scientific data. The MASCC was used not only oncologists experience, but also of specialists working in almost all areas of medicine. Supportive therapy provides prevention and treatment of complications from the moment of malignant disease develops, at all stages of anticancer treatment, during the rehabilitation period, and in patients in the terminal phase.

An important stage in the development of maintenance care in Russia was the holding of annual conferences in Moscow with the support of MASCC. Russia is included in the European MASCC group and in working group on supportive therapy and palliative care of the Chemotherapists Society (ESMO). The Russian Society of Supportive care in Oncology (RASSC) was organized In Russia on June 1, 2017. In recent years, the main directions of supportive care have been developed in our country. Today, supportive therapy is an obligatory component of anticancer programs, which allows the patient to cope with severe but potentially reversible disorders of vital organs at all stages of treatment. This is a real way to increase the treatment efficacy and improve the quality of life of cancer patients.

Phase 3 Study of Palonosetron IV Infusion Vs. IV Bolus for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis After Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

CONTEXT

Palonosetron (PALO) is one of the two active components of NEPA, the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (IV) and PALO. To increase the convenience of NEPA administration, especially for patients with swallowing difficulties, an IV NEPA formulation has been developed, where PALO is administered as a 30-minute infusion instead of the approved 30-second bolus.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the PALO component used in IV NEPA.

METHODS

Noninferiority, double-blind, and randomized Phase 3 trial in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with cancer requiring highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of PALO 0.25 mg administered IV either as a 30-minute infusion or as a 30-second bolus before highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of the 30-minute infusion vs. 30-second bolus in terms of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints were CR in the delayed and overall phases and no emesis and no rescue medication in all phases. Safety was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Overall, 440 patients received study treatment. In the infusion group, 186 (82.7%) patients reported CR in the acute phase vs. 186 (86.5%) patients in the bolus group, demonstrating the noninferiority of PALO infusion vs. bolus (P < 0.001). Secondary endpoints showed similar results between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

PALO 0.25-mg 30-minute IV infusion was noninferior to 30-second IV bolus in terms of CR rate in the acute phase. These results support the use of PALO 0.25 mg as a component of IV NEPA.

Effectiveness of a novel, fixed dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron in prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: A real-life study from India

BACKGROUND

A new, oral fixed dose combination of highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, netupitant with 5HT3 receptor antagonist, netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) was approved in India for prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

AIM

To assess effectiveness of NEPA in real-world scenario.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the medical records and patient dairies of adult patients who received highly emetogenic or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) and treated with NEPA (Netupitant 300 mg + Palanosetron 0.50 mg) for prevention of CINV. Complete response (CR) was defined as no emesis or no requirement of rescue medication in overall phase (0 to 5 d), acute phase (0-24 h) and delayed phase (2 to 5 d).

RESULTS

In 403 patients included in the analysis, mean age was 56.24 ± 11.11 years and 55.09% were females. Breast cancer (25.06%) was most common malignancy encountered. HEC and MEC were administered in 54.6% and 45.4% patients respectively. CR in overall phase was 93.79% whereas it was 98.01% in acute CINV and 93.79% in delayed CINV. Overall CR in HEC and MEC groups was 93.63% and 93.98% respectively. CR was more than 90% in different chemotherapy cycles except in group of patients of cycle 4 where CR was 88.88%.

CONCLUSION

NEPA is a novel combination that is effective in preventing CINV in up to 93% cases treated with highly emetogenic or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. This study brings the first real-life evidence of its effectiveness in India population.

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.

Real-world evidence of NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron, in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention: effects on quality of life

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)–based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. ‘No impact on daily life’ due to vomiting was reported by 84%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting.

Efficacy and safety of multiple doses of NEPA without dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day and high-dose chemotherapy in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a phase IIa, multicenter study

Despite the availability of several antiemetics, clinical findings show that control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a serious concern for hematological patients, mainly for those receiving multiple-day (MD) and high-dose (HD) chemotherapy (CT). For CINV prophylaxis, 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonists (5HT₃-RAs) and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (NK₁-RAs) are usually administered together with dexamethasone, which may increase the risk of serious infections in patients undergoing myeloablative treatment. The rationale of this multicenter, open-label and phase IIa study was to explore the efficacy of multiple doses of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) given as an every-other-day regimen without dexamethasone in preventing CINV in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (R/R-NHL), eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and treated with MD-HD-CT. Seventy patients participated to the study. According to the adopted Fleming one-stage design, the primary endpoint of this study was achieved. The CR values were 87.1% (primary endpoint, overall phase: days 1–8), 88.6% (acute phase: days 1–6), and 98.6% (delayed phase: days 7–8), while complete control (CR with no more than mild nausea) was 85.7% (overall phase), 88.6% (acute phase), and 95.7% (delayed phase). Moderate and severe episodes of nausea were reported by less than 10% of patients in the overall phase and less than 5% in both the acute and delayed phases. Regarding safety, NEPA was well tolerated with only one adverse event (constipation) evaluated as possibly related to NEPA administration. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that multiple alternate dosing of NEPA without the addition of dexamethasone is highly effective for preventing nausea and vomiting in this difficult setting, with a good tolerability profile.

Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting.

Materials and Methods

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Phase IIIb Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Initial and Repeat Cycles of Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide (AC) Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron] offers 5-day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion-site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30-minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only.

RESULTS

A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment-related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment-related injection-site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0-120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles.

CONCLUSION

IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions in patients receiving AC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As a combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5-HT3 RA, NEPA offers 5-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1 RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin₃ receptor antagonist (5-HT₃-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin₁ receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) relative to aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a trial-based analysis

PURPOSE

To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of intravenous NEPA, a fixed combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron, in cancer patients: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

NEPA is the fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron. The intravenous (i.v.) formulation of NEPA (fosnetupitant 235 mg/palonosetron 0.25 mg) was developed to enhance the convenience of NEPA administration. In a phase 3 study, i.v. NEPA showed acceptable safety with low risk for injection-site reactions. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of i.v. NEPA in cancer patients. This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received a 30-min infusion of i.v. NEPA plus oral dexamethasone (12 mg) prior to chemotherapy, and oral dexamethasone (8 mg/daily) on days 2-4. Twenty-four patients received the complete i.v. NEPA infusion volume. Fosnetupitant maximum plasma concentration (C_max) was reached at the end of infusion and decreased to <1% of C_max 30 min later. Netupitant was rapidly released from its prodrug and C_max of 590 ng/ml was reached at the end of fosnetupitant infusion, with a mean exposure (AUC_∞) of 15,588 h∙ng/ml. Palonosetron C_max was reached at the end of infusion, with a mean AUC_∞ of 36.07 h∙ng/ml. The most common adverse events were constipation (29%), nausea (17%), and vasospasm (8%). No i.v. NEPA-related injection site reactions occurred. Fosnetupitant conversion to netupitant occurred rapidly in cancer patients. Netupitant and palonosetron pharmacokinetic profiles in i.v. NEPA were similar to those reported for oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA provides additional administration convenience. Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT 2015-004750-18.

The safety of rolapitant for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a significant clinical issue that affects patients' quality of life as well as treatment decisions. Significant improvements in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have occurred in the past 15 years with the introduction of new antiemetic agents 5-HT3, receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and olanzapine. Oral (aprepitant, 2003; netupitant, 2014; rolapitant, 2015) neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists have been developed along with intravenous formulations (fosaprepitant, NEPA, rolapitant, HTX-019) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Areas covered: This review presents a description of the safety and efficacy of rolapitant along with a comparison to the other oral and intravenous formulations of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.Expert opinion: Oral rolapitant has been demonstrated in clinical trials to be safe and effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant has a longer half-life (180 h) than other commercially available NK-1 receptor antagonists and does not induce or inhibit CYP34A, unlike the other NK-1 receptor antagonists. Future studies may determine if these may be important clinical issues.

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70-80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact. Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT₃ RA + NK₁ RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care. Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.