A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy of single-dose NEPA, a fixed antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant regulates autophagy and apoptosis via ROS/JNK in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) has a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Aprepitant, a selective NK-1R antagonist, can inhibit the growth of various tumours in vitro and in vivo. However, it remains unclear whether aprepitant has cytotoxic effects on iCCA.

METHODS

We measured the expression of SP/NK-1R in clinical samples of iCCA by immunohistochemistry. Then, we detected the cytotoxic effects of aprepitant on iCCA cells via MTT, EdU and colony formation assay. We constructed a subcutaneous xenograft model of BALB/c nude mice by using HCCC-9810 and RBE cell lines to explore the effects of aprepitant in vivo. To elucidate the potential mechanisms, we explored the pro-apoptotic effect of aprepitant by flow cytometric, western blotting, ROS detection and JC-1 staining. Furthermore, we detected the autophagic level of HCCC-9810 and RBE by western blotting, mRFP-eGFP-LC3 adenovirus transfection and electron microscope.

RESULTS

SP/NK-1R is significantly expressed in iCCA. Aprepitant inhibited human iCCA xenograft growth and dose-dependently decreased the viability of RBE and HCCC-9810 cells. Aprepitant-induced mitochondria-dependent apoptosis through ROS/JNK pathway. Additionally, pretreatment with z-VAD-fmk partly reversed the effect of aprepitant on cell viability, while NAC completely attenuated the cytotoxic effects of aprepitant in vitro. Furthermore, we observed the dynamic changes of autophagosome in RBE and HCCC-9810 cells treated with aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

SP/NK-1R signalling is significantly activated in iCCA and promotes the proliferation of iCCA cells. By contrast, aprepitant can induce autophagy and apoptosis in iCCA cells via ROS accumulation and subsequent activation of JNK.

Two doses of fosaprepitant included prophylactic treatment for the three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists included prophylactic treatment was recommended for patients who receive one-day cisplatin chemotherapy. It is unclear whether the prolonged administration of fosaprepitant is effective for three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We aim to explore the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of two doses of fosaprepitant included regimen in the patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.

METHODS

This randomized, parallel-group, open-labelled study was conducted in nine hospitals between February 2021 and February 2023. Patients diagnosed as lung cancer and chemotherapy naive were screened. Eligible participants were scheduled to be treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen which including three days of cisplatin. Then they were randomly divided into the experimental group (two doses of fosaprepitant, Group 2DF) and the control group (one dose of fosaprepitant, Group C). The primary endpoints included the safety and the average none CINV days (NCDs). This study was registered on the website of chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR2100042665.

RESULTS

Overall, 204 participants were randomly assigned, and 198 patients were analyzed. No statistical difference in adverse events was found between the two groups. All treatment-related adverse effects for fosaprepitant observed were of grade 1-2. The average NCDs of Group 2DF was significantly more than Group C (18.21 ± 3.40 days vs 16.14 ± 5.20 days, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the better life function score was achieved in Group 2DF according to FLIE questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The administration of two-dose fosaprepitant was safe and more effective than one dose in protecting patients from CINV induced by three-day cisplatin included chemotherapy.

Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Topical Capsaicin for Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

We examined the efficacy of topical capsaicin in reducing delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

METHODS

Adults on highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens applied 2 g of capsaicin ointment (0.075%) or matching placebo four times a day to the abdomen for 5 days in addition to standard antiemetic regimen in this blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients were monitored for nausea and vomiting in the immediate (day 1), delayed (days 2-5), and extended phases (days 2-15). Self-reported incidence and daily episodes of CINV were compared between the groups. Onset, severity, need for rescue antiemetics, cumulative vomiting episodes, and safety were also compared.

RESULTS

In total, 160 patients were enrolled. The final modified intention-to-treat population included 75 patients each in the capsaicin and placebo groups. Fewer patients experienced nausea (36.0% [n = 27] v 53.3% [n = 40]; P = .033) and vomiting (28.0% [n = 21] v 42.7% [n = 32]; P = .060) in the capsaicin arm during the delayed phase. During the extended phase, there was a significantly lower incidence of nausea (44% v 64.0%; P = .014) in the capsaicin arm. No difference in nausea (26.7% v 25.3%) or vomiting (22.7% v 18.7%) was evident in the immediate phase. The average daily episodes of nausea and vomiting were significantly fewer in the capsaicin arm during the delayed and extended phases. With capsaicin, no grade 3 nausea (9.3% v 0.0%; P = .007) was observed, and the time to first nausea and vomiting was significantly prolonged. There were no differences between the groups with respect to rescue antiemetics, unscheduled hospital visits, and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Topical capsaicin reduced the incidence of nausea and the average number of vomiting episodes during delayed and extended phases without increasing adverse effects.

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.

Herbal medicine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: A prospective randomized controlled trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Chinese herbal medicine is increasingly used as complementary therapy to manage nausea and vomiting in different cultures. One such herbal recipe is the Hezhong granules, which contain classical antiemetic formulations, and are commonly used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Modern pharmacological studies have shown that the key components of Hezhong granules, including Pinellia ternata (Thunb.), Evodia rutaecarpa (Juss.), and Zingiber officinale exhibit significant antiemetic and antitumor properties. Despite this promising evidence, controlling CINV remains a significant challenge in cancer treatment. Moreover, there is a lack of scientifically designed clinical trials to validate the efficacy and safety of classical antiemetic formulas for CINV interventions.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To investigate the efficacy and safety of Hezhong granules in preventing CINV in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

This study was conducted between October 2020 and February 2022 in 12 hospital wards in Southwest China. In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, we enrolled patients with advanced CRC who received fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the Hezhong granule group (receiving a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and Hezhong granules) or the placebo group (receiving a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and placebo) during the first and second courses of chemotherapy. A 5-day diary was provided to all patients. Acute and delayed CINV were defined as CINV occurring within 24 h or between 24 and 120 h after the start of treatment. The primary endpoints were complete response rate (CRR, defined as the proportion of patients without nausea/vomiting) and objective response rate (ORR, defined as the proportion of patients without nausea/vomiting plus mild nausea/vomiting) for both acute and delayed CINV. Secondary endpoints were the daily rates of CINV events and Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). To identify the predictors of CINV, we conducted multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis. This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial, number ChiCTR2100041643.

RESULTS

A total of 120 participants were randomly assigned, of whom 112 (56/56) completed two cycles and were included in the full analysis. In the acute phase, there were minor improvements in the Hezhong granule group, but there were no significant differences in the CRRs for nausea and vomiting (mean difference:10.7 %, P = 0.318, 0.324), while the ORRs increased by approximately 17.5 % (mean difference:16.1 %, P = 0.051; 17.9 %, P = 0.037, respectively). In the delayed phase, significant improvements of approximately 20 % were observed in both the CRRs (mean difference:19.6 %, P = 0.053; 21.4 %, P = 0.035) and ORRs (mean difference:17.9 %, P = 0.037, 0.043) for nausea and vomiting. Additionally, the daily rate of CINV events showed a mean difference of 19 % (P < 0.05). According to FLIE scores, approximately 70 % of patients who received Hezhong granules reported an improvement in their quality of life, with CINV symptoms having"no impact on daily life (NIDL)". No serious adverse events were attributed to herbal medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Hezhong granules proved to be both effective and well-tolerated in preventing CINV in patients with advanced CRC, with notable benefits in preventing delayed CINV. These promising results set the stage for subsequent phase III clinical trials and experimental research on Hezhong Granules.

Gene polymorphisms of TACR1 serve as the potential pharmacogenetic predictors of response to the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist-based antiemetic regimens: a candidate-gene association study in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

The current candidate gene association study aims to investigate tag SNPs from the TACR1 gene as pharmacogenetic predictors of response to the antiemetic guidelines-recommended, NK-1 receptor antagonist-based, triple antiemetic regimens.

METHODS

A set of eighteen tag SNPs of TACR1 were genotyped in breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (with/without docetaxel) applying real-time PCR-HRMA. Data analysis for 121 ultimately enrolled patients was initiated by defining haplotype blocks using PHASE v.2.1. The association of each tag SNP and haplotype alleles with failure to achieve the defined antiemetic regimen efficacy endpoints was tested using PLINK (v.1.9 and v.1.07, respectively) based on the logistic regression, adjusting for the previously known chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prognostic factors. All reported p-values were corrected using the permutation test (n = 100,000).

RESULTS

Four variants of rs881, rs17010730, rs727156, and rs3755462, as well as haplotypes containing the mentioned variants, were significantly associated with failure to achieve at least one of the defined efficacy endpoints. Variant annotation via in-silico studies revealed that the non-seed sequence variant, rs881, is located in the miRNA (hsa-miR-613) binding site. The other three variants or a variant in complete linkage disequilibrium with them overlap a region of high H3K9ac-promoter-like signature or regions of high enhancer-like signature in the brain or gastrointestinal tissue.

CONCLUSION

Playing an essential role in regulating TACR1 expression, gene polymorphisms of TACR1 serve as the potential pharmacogenetic predictors of response to the NK-1 receptor antagonist-based, triple antiemetic regimens. If clinically approved, modifying the NK-1 receptor antagonist dose leads to better management of CINV in risk-allele carriers.

The clinical effect of an electric massage chair on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: randomized phase II cross-over trial

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse events in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV.

METHODS

A randomized phase II cross-over trial was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

KCT0008200, 17/02/2023, Retrospectively registered.

Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, with That of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study

Existing antiemetic therapy against emetic-risk agents across malignancies 24 h post-dose in the acute period in cisplatin (CDDP)-based regimens yields a satisfactory complete response (CR) rate of ≥90%. However, the control rate after 24 h in the delayed period is unsatisfactory. This study compared the efficacy of fosnetupitant (F-NTP), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, with that of fosaprepitant (F-APR) and aprepitant (APR) in the treatment of patients with cancer at high emetic risk due to chemotherapy. In this retrospective case-control study involving patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, patients were divided into three groups based on prophylactic antiemetic therapy: F-NTP, F-APR, and APR. The CR rate was evaluated for each period up to 168 h and further subdivided into acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and beyond-delayed (120-168 h) periods. Eighty-eight patients were included in the F-NTP group, 66 in the F-APR group, and 268 in the APR group. The CR rates at 0-168 and 120-168 h after cisplatin administration were significantly higher in the F-NTP group than in the F-APR and APR groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, F-NTP use was an independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy, including F-NTP, was effective and well-tolerated during the delayed period. The efficacy of F-NTP in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was superior to those of F-APR and APR during the study period.

Characteristics of nausea and its impact on health-related quality of life in cisplatin-treated patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing prophylaxis: an analysis of the LUNG-NEPA study

PURPOSE

We investigated the intensity and duration of nausea as well as its impact on health-related quality of life among cisplatin-treated patients who participated in a study of dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens based on NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included chemo-naive patients from a trial evaluating non-inferiority of DEX on day 1 (DEX1 arm) combined with NEPA, compared with the same regimen with DEX administered on days 1-4 (DEX4; reference arm) following cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) administration. Nausea intensity was self-rated using a four-point Likert scale. Extended nausea duration was considered ≥ 3 days within the 5 days post-chemotherapy. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on day 6.

RESULTS

In the DEX1 arm, more patients (20/76) experienced acute nausea, influencing the outcome of delayed nausea (38/76). During days 1 to 5, 51.3% (39/76) and 39.5% (30/76) of patients experienced nausea in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms, respectively (P = 0.192). Of these, 43.6% and 60% reported moderate-to-severe nausea, respectively, in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms (P = 0.200), while 74.4% and 56.7% of patients experienced extended nausea duration (P = 0.122). Similar between-arm rates of nauseated patients reported an impact on daily life (79.5% vs. 70%; P = 0.408). In analyses stratified for antiemetic regimen, moderate-to-severe nausea or extended nausea duration was associated with an impact on daily life (P ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the higher incidence, there was no suggestion of any strong adverse effect of NEPA plus single-dose DEX on the characteristics of nausea as well as its impact on daily life in patients with cisplatin-induced nausea. Further prospective controlled study is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019.

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.

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

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

2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

•Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. •The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. •The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. •Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). •All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

TRPM8 inhibits substance P release from primary sensory neurons via PKA/GSK-3beta to protect colonic epithelium in colitis

Transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) is a cold sensory receptor in primary sensory neurons that regulates various neuronal functions. Substance P (SP) is a pro-inflammatory neuropeptide secreted by the neurons, and it aggravates colitis. However, the regulatory role of TRPM8 in SP release is still unclear. Our study aimed to investigate TRPM8's role in SP release from primary sensory neurons during colitis and clarify the effect of SP on colonic epithelium. We analyzed inflammatory bowel disease patients' data from the Gene Expression Omnibus dataset. Dextran sulfate sodium (DSS, 2.5%)-induced colitis in mice, mouse dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons, ND7/23 cell line, and mouse or human colonic organoids were used for this experiment. Our study found that TRPM8, TAC1 and WNT3A expression were significantly correlated with the severity of ulcerative colitis in patients and DSS-induced colitis in mice. The TRPM8 agonist (menthol) and the SP receptor antagonist (Aprepitant) can attenuate colitis in mice, but the effects were not additive. Menthol promoted calcium ion influx in mouse DRG neurons and inhibited the combination and phosphorylation of PKAca from the cAMP signaling pathway and GSK-3β from the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway, thereby inhibiting the effect of Wnt3a-driven β-catenin on promoting SP release in ND7/23 cells. Long-term stimulation with SP inhibited proliferation and enhanced apoptosis in both mouse and human colonic organoids. Conclusively, TRPM8 inhibits SP release from primary sensory neurons by inhibiting the interaction between PKAca and GSK-3β, thereby inhibiting the role of SP in promoting colonic epithelial apoptosis and relieving colitis.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Antiemetic guidelines: Have we incorporated the changes concerning carboplatin and anthracyclines?

OBJECTIVE

Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).

METHODS

Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.

RESULTS

61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.

[Translated article] Have changes concerning carboplatin and anthracyclines been incorporated?

OBJECTIVE

Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).

METHODS

Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.

RESULTS

61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.

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.

Efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative data remain insufficient, as many new regimes lack head-to-head comparisons. In this study, through an indirect comparison, we overcome this limit by providing the most up-to-date estimate of the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until June, 30th 2022. We included phase II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was the overall complete response (defined as the absence of vomiting and of the use of rescue drugs from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of vomiting and use of rescue medicine 0-24 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (24-120 hrs) response and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 53 RCTs enrolling 22 228 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 21 different groups. Overall, 3- or 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, 5HT3 antagonists, mirtazapine or olanzapine with or without NK antagonists, yielded the highest probability to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response. Regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist have the lowest probability of being the most effective regimen in terms of complete, acute, and delayed response.

CONCLUSION

In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens with olanzapine displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response. A 3-drug regimen with olanzapine represents a valid option in a limited resource context.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

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

Validation of different personalized risk models of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of fosaprepitant for cancer patients treated with high-dose cisplatin

BACKGROUND

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in cancer patients without prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fosaprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid malignant tumors, determine risk factors and externally validate different personalized risk models for CINV.

METHODS

This phase III trial was designed to test the non-inferiority of fosaprepitant toward aprepitant in cancer patients who were to receive the first cycle of single-day cisplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the overall phase (OP) with a non-inferiority margin of 10.0%. Logistic regression models were used to assess the risk factors of CR and no nausea. To validate the personalized risk models, the accuracy of the risk scoring systems was determined by measuring the specificity, sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), while the predictive accuracy of the nomogram was measured using concordance index (C-index).

RESULTS

A total of 720 patients were randomly assigned. CR during the OP in the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that in the aprepitant group (78.1% vs. 77.7%, P = 0.765) with a between-group difference of 0.4% (95% CI, -5.7% to 6.6%). Female sex, higher cisplatin dose (≥ 70 mg/m² ), no history of drinking and larger body surface area (BSA) were significantly associated with nausea. The AUC for the acute and delayed CINV risk indexes was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.70), respectively, and the C-index for nomogram CINV prediction was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64). Using appropriate cutoff points, the three models could stratify patients with high- or low-risk CINV. No nausea and CR rate were significantly higher in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Fosaprepitant-based triple prophylaxis demonstrated non-inferior control for preventing CINV in patients treated with cisplatin-base chemotherapy. Female cancer patients without a history of alcohol consumption, with larger BSA and received high-dose cisplatin might be more vulnerable to CINV. Three personalized prediction models were well-validated and could be used to optimize antiemetic therapy for individual patients.

Comparison of aprepitant versus desloratadine for EGFR-TKI-induced pruritus: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pruritus is one of the most common and challenging side effects of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) and has impaired patients' quality of life and treatment compliance. Our study evaluated the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in managing EGFR-TKIs-related pruritus.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted between December 2016 and August 2020 in China. Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with first onset of moderate to severe pruritus during EGFR-TKI treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 130 eligible patients were randomly assigned to aprepitant (n = 65) or desloratadine (n = 65) groups. The median (interquartile range [Q1, Q3]) age was 63 (54, 70) years, and 79 (60.8%) were women. Mean visual analog scale scores at baseline were 6.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.89-6.82) in the aprepitant group and 5.94 (95% CI, 5.56-6.32) in the desloratadine group. After 1 week of treatment, 33 (53.2%) patients responded to aprepitant, which was significantly higher than that of 14 (23.7%) patients responded to desloratadine (p = .001). Moreover, patients in the aprepitant group had a significantly shorter response time than patients in the desloratadine group (mean [days], 13.39 [95% CI, 11.08-15.70] vs. 16.67 [95% CI, 14.19-19.13], p = .04). The most frequent drug-related adverse events in aprepitant group and desloratadine were constipation and dry mouth, and all adverse events were grade 1-2.

CONCLUSIONS

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively present that aprepitant elicited a better and faster response and mild toxicity for managing EGFR-TKI induced pruritus than desloratadine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02646020.

Cisplatin-Induced Anorexia and Pica Behavior in Rats Enhanced by Chronic Stress Pretreatment

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting severely impairs the treatment and prognosis of cancer patients. Depressive mood disorder might aggravate nausea and vomiting in cancer patients; however, the role of neurotransmitters and receptors involved in the mediation of emesis and nausea is still not well elaborated.

Methods: The study was carried out based on the chronic unpredictable mild stress–induced depression-like phenotype rat model and cisplatin-induced pica rat model establishment. Forty male Sprague–Dawley rats were randomized into the non-treated control group and the chronic stress group, which were exposed to 8 weeks of stress. Each group was then sub-divided into vehicle subgroups (n = 10) and cisplatin subgroups (n = 10) which were given cisplatin to induce pica behavior. Kaolin and food intake were recorded after administration. The medulla oblongata and ileum tissues were obtained. Neurotransmitters involved in the mediation of emesis and nausea (5-HT, DA, SP, and AEA) were detected using an ELISA kit. Vomit-related receptors (5-HT₃R, DA₂R, NK₁R, and CB₁R) in tissues were assayed for mRNA and protein expression by RT-qPCR and Western blotting.

Results: Behavioral test and sucrose preference validated that depression-like phenotype rat models were established successfully. The kaolin consumption test confirmed that chronic stress pretreatment aggravated anorexia and pica behavior. Vomiting-related molecules’ data showed that chronic stress exposure increased 5-HT and SP levels in the medulla oblongata. Vomiting-related receptor expression data showed that chronic stress pretreatment upregulated 5-HT₃R, DA₂R, and NK₁R expressions and downregulated the CB₁R expression in the medulla oblongata. However, chronic stress pretreatment downregulated 5-HT₃R, DA₂R, and NK₁R expressions and upregulated the CB₁R expression in the ileum.

Conclusion: Chronic stress pretreatment aggravates anorexia and vomiting progress, which might be via altering neurotransmitters and receptors involved in the mediation of emesis and the nausea level and expression in the central nervous system.

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.

FLOT (a chemotherapy regimen for gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer): to be treated as a highly emetogenic regimen or a moderately emetogenic one? Comparison of the emetogenic potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC regimens

PURPOSE

The current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin + docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients.

STUDY

Patients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic risk), or TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide/high-emetic risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant.

RESULTS

A total of 165 chemotherapy-naïve patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day 5, "complete response" (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning "complete response" achievement in delayed (p = 0.014) and overall (p = 0.017) phases, "no emesis" in delayed (p = 0.018) and overall (p = 0.010) phases, and also "complete protection" in acute (p = 0.023), delayed (p = 0.009), and overall (p = 0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints, was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison with the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison with the TAC group.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen; provided that, as recommended by the antiemetic guidelines towards better management of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic regimens, executing clinical trials concerning the efficacy of continuing dexamethasone on days 2-4 in aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen schedule is required.

Real-world multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of netupitant plus palonosetron fixed-dose combination to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among Malaysian patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy

AIM

A large proportion of cancer patients are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but the choice of anti-emetics for CINV in Malaysia is limited.

METHODS

This was a real-world study of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) to inhibit CINV in adult patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for solid/hematological malignancies at eight Malaysian centers. Each HEC/MEC cycle received one dose of NEPA + dexamethasone for CINV prevention. Complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) (CR), no more than mild nausea (severity score ≤ 2.5), and complete control (CR) (no more than mild nausea) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy were measured. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

During March 2016-April 2018 (NMRR-17-3286-38282), NEPA + dexamethasone was administered to 54 patients (77.8% solid, 22.2% hematological malignancies). Note that 59.3% received HEC, while 40.7% received MEC regimen. During the overall phase of the first cycle, the majority had CR (77.8%), no more than mild nausea (74.1%), and complete control (61.1%). Seventeen patients received two consecutive cycles at any point of chemotherapy cycles. During the overall phases across two consecutive cycles, all patients achieved CR, and the majority reported no more than mild nausea and complete control. No grades 3-4 AEs were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA had sustained efficacy and tolerability at first administration and across two cycles of MEC/HEC for CINV prevention.

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.

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.

Dexamethasone-Sparing Regimens with Oral Netupitant and Palonosetron for the Prevention of Emesis Caused by High-Dose Cisplatin: A Randomized Noninferiority Study

Background

To reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin‐based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low‐dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed‐dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline‐consistent use of 4‐day DEX.

Patients and Methods

In this open‐label, multicenter study, chemotherapy‐naïve patients undergoing high‐dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (a) no further DEX (DEX1), (b) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or (c) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) during the 5‐day overall phase. The noninferiority margin was set at −15% difference (DEX1 or DEX3 minus DEX4). Secondary efficacy endpoints included complete protection (CP: CR and none or mild nausea).

Results

Two‐hundred twenty‐eight patients, 76 in each arm, were assessable. Noninferiority was met for both DEX‐sparing regimens and the reference arm, with overall phase CR rates of 76.3% in each of the DEX1 and DEX3 arms and 75.0% in the DEX4 arm (95% confidence interval, −12.3% to 15% for each comparison). During the overall phase, CP rates were similar between groups.

Conclusion

A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single‐dose DEX offers comparable chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting prevention throughout 5 days post‐chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high–emetic‐risk setting of cisplatin‐based chemotherapy.

Implications for Practice

Dexamethasone (DEX) has traditionally played an integral role in the management of chemotherapy‐induced emesis. Although generally considered safe, even short‐term DEX use is associated with various side effects, and some evidence suggests that concurrent steroids may reduce the efficacy of immunotherapies. This study demonstrates comparable antiemetic control during the 5 days post‐chemotherapy with a simplified regimen of netupitant/palonosetron plus single‐dose DEX versus the standard 4‐day DEX reference treatment in high‐dose cisplatin. This represents a clinically relevant achievement as it not only simplifies antiemetic prophylaxis but also offers an opportunity to appropriately use in patients where caution with corticosteroid use is advised.

This study was designed to test whether two different dexamethasone‐sparing regimens, when administered with NEPA, might provide the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose while maintaining the same degree of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting control in patients undergoing cisplatin‐based chemotherapy.

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.

Cancer clinical trial vs real-world outcomes for standard of care first-line treatment in the advanced disease setting

Clinical trials have strict eligibility criteria, potentially limiting external validity. However, while often discussed this has seldom been explored, particularly across cancer types and at variable time frames posttrial completion. We examined comprehensive registry data (January 2014 to June 2019) for standard first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced pancreatic cancer (PC), metastatic HER2-amplified breast cancer (BC) and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CaP). Registry patient characteristics and outcomes were compared to the practice-changing trial. Registry patients were older than the matched trial cohort by a median of 2-6 years (all P = <.01) for the CRC, BC and PC cohorts. The proportion of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 patients was lower for CRC (94.1% vs 99.2%, P = .001) and BC (94.9% vs 99.3%, P = .001). Progression-free survival (PFS) for registry patients was similar to the trial patients or significantly longer (CaP, Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.65, P = <.001). Overall survival (OS) was also similar or significantly longer (CaP, HR 0.49, P = <.001). In conclusion, despite real-world patients sometimes being older or having inferior PS to trial cohorts, the survival outcomes achieved were consistently equal or superior to those reported for the same treatment in the trial. We suggest that this is potentially due to optimised use of each treatment over time, improved multidisciplinary care and increased postprogression options. We can reassure clinicians and patients that outcomes matching or exceeding those reported in trials are possible. The potential for survival gains over time should routinely be factored into future trial statistical plans.

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.

Pharmacokinetics and safety evaluation of oral Palonosetron in Chinese healthy volunteers: A phase 1, open-label, randomized, cross-over study

PURPOSE

Palonosetron hydrochloride is a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and is a known chemical entity currently registered in the oral and IV forms in several countries worldwide.

METHODS

Single-center, single-dose, 3-treatment, open-label, randomized, 3-period, phase-I cross-over study, conducted in 18 individuals (16 males and 2 females). The primary objective was to assess the pharmacokinetic profile of Palonosetron 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75mg, after a single, oral administration in Chinese male and female healthy volunteers.

RESULTS

After administration of a single oral dose of 0.25mg, 0.5mg, or 0.75mg palonosetron in Chinese male and female healthy subjects, plasma palonosetron concentrations reached maximum values (C_max) of 673 ± 151 pg/mL, 1330 ± 258 pg/mL, and 1990 ± 490 pg/mL, respectively, at 3-5 h (t_max). The plasma elimination half-life for 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 mg of palonosetron was 41.8±9.72 hours, 44.6±8.59 hours and 42.3±8.51 hours, respectively. Single oral doses of 0.25mg, 0.5mg, or 0.75mg palonosetron were safe and well tolerated among all the 18 subjects involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The PK of palonosetron was found to be linear in the dose range of 0.25 to 0.75 mg. Oral palonosetron in doses up to 0.75 mg was well tolerated in healthy Chinese subjects. The PK and safety data obtained from this study were similar to previous phase I studies with IV palonosetron.

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.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

Efficacy of intravenous NEPA, a fixed NK1/5-HT3 receptor antagonist combination, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during cisplatin- and anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy: A review of phase 3 studies

This paper presents an overview of the efficacy of intravenous (IV) NEPA (fixed combination of the NK₁RA, fosnetupitant, and 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron) relative to oral NEPA and also to historical data for other NK₁RA regimens. Data is compiled from 5 pivotal NEPA studies in adult chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors undergoing either cisplatin- or anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Additionally, data was reviewed from 10 pivotal Phase 3 studies utilizing other NK₁RA regimens approved for clinical use. The overall (0-120 h) complete response (no emesis, no rescue use), no emesis, and no significant nausea rates for IV NEPA were similar to that of oral NEPA and were consistently numerically higher than historical NK₁RA regimens. As a single-dose prophylactic antiemetic combination given with dexamethasone, IV NEPA is a highly effective and convenient guideline-compliant antiemetic agent which may offer a safety benefit over other IV NK₁RA regimens due to its lack of associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions.

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.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Short Review on the Role of Netupitant-Palonosetron (NEPA)

Introduction

Antineoplastic drugs may induce several side effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Two neurotransmitters play a central role in mediating the emetic response: serotonin acting on the 5HT3 receptor and the substance P targeting the NK1 receptor. Indeed, a combination of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) and a NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) together with dexamethasone has been shown to be very effective. In fact, this combination is actually widely used and recommended for CINV prophylaxis for highly emetogenic cisplatin-based adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and carboplatin-based regimens. NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) is the only fixed combination antiemetic available and it is composed by the long-lasting second-generation 5HT3-RA palonosetron and the highly selective NK1-RA netupitant.

Aim

The aims of this short review were to analyze the role of NEPA in CINV prophylaxis and management taking in account the risk factors related to the patient and to the antineoplastic treatment.

Evidence Review

CINV development is not only correlated to the emetogenic potential of the antineoplastic drugs but is also very influenced by the patient characteristics and history, such as gender, age, alcohol intake, nausea during pregnancy and motion sickness. In pivotal and post-registration studies, NEPA has demonstrated to be effective and safe in both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Conclusion

A proper assessment of both chemotherapy- and patient-related risk factors is paramount to properly evaluate an appropriate prophylaxis of CINV and NEPA by simplifying the therapy, guarantees fully adherence to antiemetic guidelines, and consequently improves the control of CINV, especially in high risk patients.

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.

Comparison of Pharmacokinetics of Aprepitant in Healthy Chinese and Caucasian Subjects

Purpose

Aprepitant is used to prevent nausea and vomiting associated with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this open-label, 2-period study, the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of aprepitant (EMEND^®) were evaluated in healthy Chinese and Caucasian subjects.

Patients and Methods

Twelve Chinese and 12 Caucasian subjects were to receive a 125 mg single-dose of aprepitant during period 1; subsequently, after 15 days washout, only Chinese subjects were to receive the 3-day regimen in period 2. In each period, serial blood samples were collected and analyzed by a validated liquid chromatographic and mass spectrometric method to characterize aprepitant PK across both groups.

Results

In both Chinese and Caucasian subjects, there were no serious adverse events. AUC_0-∞, C_max, T_max, and t_1/2 were largely comparable between the two ethnicities. Comparing the result of period 1 in Chinese and Caucasian subjects, the geometric least-squares mean maximum plasma concentrations (C_max) were 1482 ng/mL and 1435 ng/mL, and the area under the concentration–time curve (AUC_0-∞) 34,035 hr·ng/mL and 34,188 hr·ng/mL. In period 2, the geometric mean AUC_0–24 on Day 1 and Day 3 were 19,446 hr·ng/mL and 27,843 hr·ng/mL, and the geometric mean C_max on Day 1 and Day 3 were 1423 ng/mL and 1757 ng/mL, respectively.

Conclusion

Aprepitant is generally safe and well tolerated in healthy Chinese and Caucasian subjects. Aprepitant PK is comparable between Chinese and Caucasian subjects following single-dose administration. The PK following a clinical 3-day regimen on healthy Chinese subjects has been characterized.

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.

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.

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.