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

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.

Prevalence and predictors of long-delayed (> 120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although there have been reports of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) beyond 120 h, its overall prevalence has not been systematically examined. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to report on the prevalence of this long-delayed CINV.

METHODS

This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022346963). PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until August 2022. Articles were included if they reported on CINV > 120 h after initiation of the chemotherapy regimen and patients received a single-agent highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) antineoplastic agent for 1 day alone or in combination with low/minimal emetogenic chemotherapy. For all eligible articles, individual study authors were contacted and requested to provide individual patient-level data of demographics, emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens, and daily incidence of nausea and vomiting. Forward stepwise logistic regression identified predictors for the incident day's CINV based on prior day's CINV episodes, controlling for patient demographics, and stratified by regimen emetogenicity.

RESULTS

A total of 2048 patients from 2 studies were included in this individual patient data meta-analysis: 1333 patients (65%) received HEC and 715 (35%) received MEC. Among those receiving HEC, 325 (24%) experienced acute, 652 (49%) delayed, and 393 (31%) long-delayed nausea; 107 (8%) experienced acute, 179 (14%) delayed, and 79 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Among those receiving MEC, 48 (7%) experienced acute, 272 (38%) delayed, and 167 (24%) long-delayed nausea; 12 (2%) experienced acute, 97 (14%) delayed, and 42 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Nausea in the long-delayed phase was as severe as in the delayed phase. Patients experiencing nausea and vomiting on days 4 and 5 were at significant risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

CONCLUSION

While not as prevalent as delayed nausea and vomiting, long-delayed CINV affects a significant proportion of patients and severity is similar. Patients with delayed CINV, specifically on days 4-5, are at risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

Single-dose NEPA versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0-120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long-lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post-chemotherapy. In this post-hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1-3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1-4. Patients were chemotherapy-naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0-144 h) phase.

RESULTS

The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors.

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis

Aim

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.

Study design and methods

Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1–2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).

Results

Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.

Conclusion

In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.