NEPA, a fixed oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron, improves control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over multiple cycles of chemotherapy: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial versus oral palonosetron

Effects of technology-based interventions on chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and quality of life in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to synthesize and analyze the impact of technology-based interventions on chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and quality of life in pediatric patients.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The JBI checklist assessed the studies' methodological quality. This study was performed based on the PRISMA checklist.

RESULTS

This review incorporated five published studies, exploratory randomized controlled trials, and non-randomized pre and post-test control group studies involving 232 pediatric oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. The meta-analysis revealed a significant impact of technology-based interventions on alleviating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (Hedge's g = -0.707, Q = 9.61, I2 = 47.97%, p < 0.001). It was found that a significant effect of technology-based interventions on the patient's quality of life was observed (Hedge's g = -0.745, Q = 5.431, I2 = 63.74%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicated that technology-based interventions have significant potential in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and quality of life.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future research endeavors should explore this aspect further, employing a broader range of outcome measures and longer-term follow-up assessments better to understand their impact on pediatric oncology patients' well-being.

Risk Factors Associated with Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Women with Breast Cancer Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Individual Patient-Based Analysis of Three Prospective Antiemetic Trials

PURPOSE

Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified in previous studies, only a few studies have evaluated the risk factors associated with contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis, including olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA-containing regimens. This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with CINV development in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

METHODS

Data from 304 patients enrolled in 3 previously reported prospective antiemetic studies were included. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV occurrence. Additionally, the likelihood of treatment failure in relation to the number of risk factors in individual patients was evaluated.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that obesity status (defined as body mass index/= 25.0 kg/m2) and the use of olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA-containing anti-emetic regimens were associated with a high likelihood, while a history of motion sickness was associated with a lower likelihood, complete response (CR), and "no nausea" in the overall phase. A history of vomiting during pregnancy was also associated with a lower likelihood of an overall CR. Patients with an increasing number of risk factors had a higher likelihood of treatment failure and shorter time to first vomiting. Those who did not achieve CR and "no nausea" in the first cycle were less likely to achieve these parameters in the subsequent cycle of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The present study confirmed previously reported risk factors for CINV in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Further optimization of CINV control is required for patients with identifiable risk factors; olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA- containing prophylaxis are the preferred contemporary anti-emetics regimens for Chinese breast cancer patients undergoing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

MASCC antiemetics in advanced cancer updated guideline

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are a common clinical symptom in the advanced cancer patient. Pharmacologic management is important. Evidence for drug choices and guidelines are needed to help clinicians manage nausea and vomiting in this population METHODS: Evidence from a systematic review published in 2010, initial MASCC guidelines developed from a systematic review of literature to 2015, and a new systematic review of randomized trials published between 2015 and February 2, 2021, was combined to establish a new guideline.

RESULTS

A search of the literature between 2015 and February 2, 2021, revealed 257 abstracts of which there was one systematic review and 4 randomized trials which were used to modify the guideline. The new guideline is as follows: First Line: Metoclopramide (II) multiple small RCTs including a placebo-controlled trial, haloperidol (II) multiple non-placebo-controlled RCTs, high consensus. Second line: Methotrimeprazine (II) 1 well-powered non-placebo-controlled RCT, olanzapine (II) 1 placebo-controlled pilot RCT, high consensus. Third line: Tropisetron (II) large unblinded lower quality non-placebo-controlled RCT, levosulpiride (II) 1 blinded non-placebo-controlled pilot RCT, high consensus.

DISCUSSION

Haloperidol, metoclopramide, methotrimeprazine, olanzapine tropisetron, and levosulpiride have been antiemetics used in randomized trials with antiemetic activity demonstrated. There are only three placebo-controlled randomized trials we could find in our literature review. Placebo responses varied significantly between two randomized trials. More randomized placebo-controlled trials with either metoclopramide or haloperidol rescue are needed to clarify antiemetic choices in advanced cancer.

CONCLUSION

First-line antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer are metoclopramide and haloperidol, and second-line medications are methotrimeprazine and olanzapine.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of newer regimens for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: review of the literature and real-world data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To investigate the cost of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for cancer treatment in real life.

RECENT FINDINGS

A retrospective analysis of all consecutives patients with advanced lung cancer treated in platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) chemotherapy and with breast cancer treated with anthracycline and cyclophosphamide -based chemotherapy at our Medical Oncology Unit during 4 years was performed. The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital (&OV0556;).

SUMMARY

We evaluated 110 patients with lung cancer and 55 patients with breast cancer. Concerning lung cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 133 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and dexamethasone (DEX) vs. the combination of palonosetron (PALO) and DEX for each patient. Concerning breast cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 78 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and DEX vs. the combination of PALO and DEX for each patient. Combining the medical costs of antiemetic therapy with the measure of efficacy represented by the complete response, the combination of NEPA and DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in HEC and MEC cancer treatment.

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.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) and dexamethasone for prevention of emesis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide: a multi-cycle, phase II study

Background

NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle.

Methods

In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2–4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined.

Results

Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65–0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4).

Conclusion

The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle.

Trial registration

This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

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 underreporting of phase III chemo-therapeutic clinical trial data of older patients with cancer: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Inspired by the American Society of Clinical Oncology's recommendations to strengthen the evidence base for older adults with cancer, the purpose of this systematic review is to identify the reporting of treatment efficacy and adverse events specific to older adults with cancer in Phase III chemo-therapeutic clinical trials. This review also investigates the frequency with which these data points were reported in the literature to identify gaps in reporting and opportunities to expand the knowledge base on clinical outcomes for older adults with cancer.

METHODS

Chemo-therapeutic clinical trial data published from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 was reviewed. Manuscripts (n = 929) were identified based on keyword searches of EMBASE and PubMed. After removal of duplicates (n = 116) and articles that did not meet this study's inclusion criteria (n = 654), 159 articles were identified for review.

RESULTS

Reviewed papers were published in 36 different scientific journals and included twenty-five different cancer types. Of the 159 articles, 117 (73.6%) reported age-specific medians and 75 (47.2%) included stratifications of data by age. Treatment efficacy was reported in 96.2% of the articles with 39.9% reporting effectiveness of treatment by age. Reporting of adverse events was included in 84.9% of the articles with only 8.9% reporting these events stratified by age.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest inadequate reporting of treatment efficacy and adverse events as well as basic descriptive statistics about the age distribution of study subjects. Conscious efforts are needed to address these deficiencies at every level of planning and conducting clinical trials as wells as reporting outcomes stratified by age. Ultimately, standardized reporting could lead to improved treatment decisions and outcomes for older adults with cancer.

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

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

Netupitant plus palonosetron is a cost-effective treatment for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly and moderately emetogenic cancer treatment

Introduction: The analysis was conducted to assess a cost-efficacy analysis of new antiemetic drugs (netupitant plus palonosetron (NEPA)) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer treatment. Areas covered:The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of NEPA versus (vs.) palonosetron for the prophylaxis of CINV. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in complete response (CR), for each trial. Our analysis evaluated 2 RCTs, including 1720 patients. Referring to both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, NEPA plus DEX was economic superior to palonosetron (PALO) plus DEX, with 13 312 € and 7885 € gain in medical costs every 100 patients treated, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) (€/CR) in highly emetoge nic risk were 1.24 and 13.23 for the NEPA and PALO group, respectively and 1.49 and 15.20 for the same groups in moderately emetogenic risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 1016.18 €/CR and 1024.03 €/CR in highly and moderately emetogenic risk, respectively. Expert opinion:The combination of NEPA plus DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in highly and moderately (AC-based) emetogenic cancer treatment.

Fixed combination of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron) for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy: Efficacy data from 2 randomized, double-blind phase III studies

AIM

To assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles.

METHODS

Two randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1-4 in each study were evaluated.

RESULTS

In Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P < 0.05), no emesis (all P < 0.05), and NSN (delayed phase P < 0.05 cycles 1, 2, and 4) reported across 4 cycles. In Study 2, oral NEPA had numerically higher CR and NSN rates in the acute and delayed phases than aprepitant-palonosetron in MEC/HEC patients.

CONCLUSION

Oral NEPA was highly effective in preventing both acute and delayed CINV over multiple chemotherapy cycles of HEC, AC, and MEC regimens.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

Study 1, NCT01339260; Study 2, NCT01376297.

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)

Background

Co-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ receptor antagonist, netupitant (300 mg), and the pharmacologically distinct 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), has shown superior CINV prevention compared with PALO in cisplatin and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based settings. This study is the first head-to-head comparison of NEPA versus an aprepitant (APR)/granisetron (GRAN) regimen.

Patients and methods

This randomized, double-blind phase III study conducted in Asia was designed with the primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of a single oral dose of NEPA compared with a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on days 1–4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall (0–120 h) phase. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the non-inferiority margin set at − 10%. Secondary efficacy endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN).

Results

Treatment groups were comparable for the 828 patients analyzed: predominantly male (71%); mean age 54.5 years; ECOG 0–1 (98%); lung cancer (58%). NEPA demonstrated non-inferiority to APR/GRAN for overall CR [NEPA 73.8% versus APR/GRAN 72.4%, 95% CI (−4.5%, 7.5%)]. No emesis [NEPA 75.0% versus APR/GRAN 74.0%, 95% CI (−4.8%, 6.9%)] and NSN rates [NEPA 75.7% versus APR/GRAN 70.4%, 95% CI (−0.6%, 11.4%)] were similar between groups, but significantly more NEPA patients did not take rescue medication [NEPA 96.6% versus APR/GRAN 93.5%, 95% CI (0.2%, 6.1%)]. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to APR/GRAN.

Conclusions

In this first study comparing NK₁RA regimens and DEX, NEPA administered only on day 1 was non-inferior to a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in preventing CINV associated with HEC.

Fixed Combination Antiemetic: A Literature Review on Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Using Netupitant/Palonosetron

BACKGROUND

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be improved with guideline-consistent use of antiemetics. However, adherence to antiemetic guidelines remains often insufficient. Therefore, new strategies that improve adherence are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To review the latest antiemetic guideline recommendations and provide an update on the use of NEPA, a fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA) netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA palonosetron (Akynzeo®).

METHODS

Analysis of the literature was performed, including guidelines, published literature, congress data on NEPA, and relevant articles on CINV.

FINDINGS

Nurses are in a unique position to promote guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis and are central in the education of patients and caregivers. Thus, nurses’ continuous education on antiemetic treatments is key for the prevention and management of CINV. NEPA offers a simplified antiemetic therapy with the potential to increase guideline adherence.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with netupitant/palonosetron, the first fixed combination antiemetic: current and future perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV.

HTX-019: polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may occur during the acute (0-24 h) or delayed (25-120 h) phase following chemotherapy administration. The addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic regimens containing a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone has resulted in improved CINV prophylaxis. Due to numerous adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions associated with fosaprepitant, a commonly used neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, there remains an unmet need for better-tolerated formulations. HTX-019, the US FDA-approved polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free aprepitant injectable emulsion, is bioequivalent to and better tolerated (fewer treatment-emergent adverse events) than fosaprepitant. HTX-019 represents a valuable alternative to fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis.

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

Getting it right the first time: recent progress in optimizing antiemetic usage

Recent years have witnessed significant improvements in the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), allowing patients to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimens without compromising quality of life. This reduction in the incidence of CINV can be primarily attributed to the emergence of effective, well-tolerated antiemetic therapies, including serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT3) receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, and the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. While 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are highly effective in the prevention of acute CINV, NK-1 receptor antagonists and olanzapine have demonstrated considerable activity against both acute and delayed CINV. Various combinations of these three types of agents, along with dexamethasone and dopamine receptor antagonists, are now becoming the standard of care for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Optimal use of these therapies requires careful assessment of the unique characteristics of each agent and currently available clinical trial data.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

SETTING

Oncology hospital department in Italy.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered.

RESULTS

NEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC).

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.