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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety assessment of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist: real-world adverse event analysis from the FAERS database

Background

Aprepitant, fosaprepitant, and netupitant are three common neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Understanding their different adverse event (AE) profiles may help clinicians make appropriate treatment decisions.

Methods

All data collected from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2023 underwent disproportionality analysis to detect, evaluate, and compare AE signals of the three NK-1RAs.

Results

A total of 3,904, 1,123, and 243 AE reports related to aprepitant, fosaprepitant, and netupitant, respectively, were extracted from the FAERS database. Of these, more than 50% of respondents were female, and most of them were aged 45-65 years. General disorders and administration-site conditions, and gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequent signals in the system organ class of the three NK-1RA drugs. In addition, aprepitant was strongly associated with joint deposit (ROR = 26.27) and fosaprepitant was closely related to seizure-like phenomena (ROR = 26.90); two preferred terms (PTs) were not mentioned in the manual. Statistically, netupitant was likely to induce death (N = 63, ROR = 8.78, 95% CI: 6.75-11.42). Additionally, neutropenic colitis, colitis, and stomatitis were unique to netupitant. Furthermore, the AE profiles of the three NK-1RA drugs were different by gender.

Conclusion

The AE profiles for aprepitant, fosaprepitant, and netupitant were different. In addition to paying attention to common AEs, clinicians need to pay attention to new emerging AEs, such as joint deposit, seizure-like phenomena, neutropenic colitis, colitis, and stomatitis, regarding the three NK-1RA drugs. Furthermore, the AE compositions of the three NK-1RA drugs were different in different genders, and clinicians should take these factors into account when selecting NK-1RAs for CINV treatment.

Anxiety and Depression: What Do We Know of Neuropeptides?

In modern society, there has been a rising trend of depression and anxiety. This trend heavily impacts the population's mental health and thus contributes significantly to morbidity and, in the worst case, to suicides. Modern medicine, with many antidepressants and anxiolytics at hand, is still unable to achieve remission in many patients. The pathophysiology of depression and anxiety is still only marginally understood, which encouraged researchers to focus on neuropeptides, as they are a vast group of signaling molecules in the nervous system. Neuropeptides are involved in the regulation of many physiological functions. Some act as neuromodulators and are often co-released with neurotransmitters that allow for reciprocal communication between the brain and the body. Most studied in the past were the antidepressant and anxiolytic effects of oxytocin, vasopressin or neuropeptide Y and S, or Substance P. However, in recent years, more and more novel neuropeptides have been added to the list, with implications for the research and development of new targets, diagnostic elements, and even therapies to treat anxiety and depressive disorders. In this review, we take a close look at all currently studied neuropeptides, their related pathways, their roles in stress adaptation, and the etiology of anxiety and depression in humans and animal models. We will focus on the latest research and information regarding these associated neuropeptides and thus picture their potential uses in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Targeting receptor complexes: a new dimension in drug discovery

Targeting receptor proteins, such as ligand-gated ion channels and G protein-coupled receptors, has directly enabled the discovery of most drugs developed to modulate receptor signalling. However, as the search for novel and improved drugs continues, an innovative approach - targeting receptor complexes - is emerging. Receptor complexes are composed of core receptor proteins and receptor-associated proteins, which have profound effects on the overall receptor structure, function and localization. Hence, targeting key protein-protein interactions within receptor complexes provides an opportunity to develop more selective drugs with fewer side effects. In this Review, we discuss our current understanding of ligand-gated ion channel and G protein-coupled receptor complexes and discuss strategies for their pharmacological modulation. Although such strategies are still in preclinical development for most receptor complexes, they exemplify how receptor complexes can be drugged, and lay the groundwork for this nascent area of research.

Safety and efficacy of netupitant/palonosetron and dexamethasone in classical Hodgkin's lymphoma patients with inadequate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis with palonosetron and dexamethasone: a single-center real-life experience

We analyzed safety of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) and dexamethasone (NEPA+DEX) for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in classical Hodgkin's lymphoma patients that experienced CINV with a prophylaxis with palonosetron (PALO + DEX). In a retrospective, monocentric, noncomparative study, we analyzed adverse events and CINV grading in patients who switched from PALO + DEX to NEPA + DEX. Among 32 patients treated with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) during the study period, 47% did not properly control CINV with PALO + DEX and were shifted to NEPA + DEX. Among these, 53.3% properly controlled CINV is for all the remaining chemotherapy cycles. We did not observe an increase of adverse events after switching to NEPA. In our study, NEPA did not show drug-drug interaction with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) chemotherapy agents and NEPA administration was well tolerated with mild and transient adverse events.

Δ9-THC and related cannabinoids suppress substance P- induced neurokinin NK1-receptor-mediated vomiting via activation of cannabinoid CB1 receptor

Δ⁹-THC suppresses cisplatin-induced vomiting through activation of cannabinoid CB₁ receptors. Cisplatin-evoked emesis is predominantly due to release of serotonin and substance P (SP) in the gut and the brainstem which subsequently stimulate their corresponding 5-HT₃-and neurokinin NK₁-receptors to induce vomiting. Δ⁹-THC can inhibit vomiting caused either by the serotonin precursor 5-HTP, or the 5-HT₃ receptor selective agonist, 2-methyserotonin. In the current study, we explored whether Δ⁹-THC and related CB₁/CB₂ receptor agonists (WIN55,212-2 and CP55,940) inhibit vomiting evoked by SP (50 mg/kg, i.p.) or the NK₁ receptor selective agonist GR73632 (5 mg/kg, i.p.). Behavioral methods were employed to determine the antiemetic efficacy of cannabinoids in least shrews. Our results showed that administration of varying doses of Δ⁹-THC (i.p. or s.c.), WIN55,212-2 (i.p.), or CP55,940 (i.p.) caused significant suppression of SP-evoked vomiting in a dose-dependent manner. When tested against GR73632, Δ⁹-THC also dose-dependently reduced the evoked emesis. The antiemetic effect of Δ⁹-THC against SP-induced vomiting was prevented by low non-emetic doses of the CB₁ receptor inverse-agonist/antagonist SR141716A (<10 mg/kg). We also found that the NK₁ receptor antagonist netupitant can significantly suppress vomiting caused by a large emetic dose of SR141716A (20 mg/kg). In sum, Δ⁹-THC and related cannabinoids suppress vomiting evoked by the nonselective (SP) and selective (GR73632) neurokinin NK₁ receptor agonists via stimulation of cannabinoid CB₁ receptors.

Every-other-day palonosetron plus aprepitant for prevention of emesis following induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia: A randomized, controlled study from the "Rete Ematologica Pugliese"

BACKGROUND

Compared with older 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, palonosetron requires fewer drug administrations to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following multiple-day chemotherapy. We conducted a phase II multicenter study comparing palonosetron plus aprepitant to palonosetron alone in patients undergoing a range of induction chemotherapy regimens for acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

METHODS

Patients were randomized to palonosetron (0.25 mg) every other day until the last dose of chemotherapy alone or with aprepitant on days 1-3. Patients mainly received an anthracycline on days 1-3 plus cytarabine administered for 5-10 days. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) over the whole study period (days of chemotherapy plus two additional days). Unplanned analysis of time to anti-emetic treatment failure (TTF) was also performed.

RESULTS

Of the 134 patients enrolled in the study, 130 were evaluable: 68 subjects received palonosetron plus aprepitant and 62 received palonosetron alone. Although the primary end point of CR was similar between the treatment arms (72% vs 69%; P = .55), a higher proportion of patients treated with palonosetron plus aprepitant were free from nausea during the whole study period (43% vs 27%; P = .03). There was also a significant difference in favor of the two-drug regimens in TTF (median: 5 days vs 3 days; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that every-other-day palonosetron plus 3-day aprepitant can add clinical benefit to the control of CINV caused by multiple-day, corticosteroid-free chemotherapy for AML. In this challenging setting of CINV, further investigations of palonosetron in combination with aprepitant administered with an expanded schedule are warranted. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT02205164.

The Neurokinins: Peptidomimetic Ligand Design and Therapeutic Applications

The neurokinins are indisputably essential neurotransmitters in numerous pathoand physiological events. Being widely distributed in the Central Nervous System (CNS) and peripheral tissues, their discovery rapidly promoted them to drugs targets. As a necessity for molecular tools to understand the biological role of this class, endogenous peptides and their receptors prompted the scientific community to design ligands displaying either agonist and antagonist activity at the three main neurokinin receptors, called NK1, NK2 and NK3. Several strategies were implemented for this purpose. With a preference to small non-peptidic ligands, many research groups invested efforts in synthesizing and evaluating a wide range of scaffolds, but only the NK1 antagonist Aprepitant (EMENDT) and its prodrug Fosaprepitant (IVEMENDT) have been approved by the Food Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced and Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting (CINV and PONV, respectively). While non-peptidic drugs showed limitations, especially in side effect control, peptidic and pseudopeptidic compounds progressively regained attention. Various strategies were implemented to modulate affinity, selectivity and activity of the newly designed ligands. Replacement of canonical amino acids, incorporation of conformational constraints, and fusion with non-peptidic moieties gave rise to families of ligands displaying individual or dual NK1, NK2 and NK3 antagonism, that ultimately were combined with non-neurokinin ligands (such as opioids) to target enhanced biological impact.

A History of Drug Discovery for Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting and the Implications for Future Research

The origins of the major classes of current anti-emetics are examined. Serendipity is a recurrent theme in discovery of their anti-emetic properties and repurposing from one indication to another is a continuing trend. Notably, the discoveries have occurred against a background of company mergers and changing anti-emetic requirements. Major drug classes include: (i) Muscarinic receptor antagonists-originated from historical accounts of plant extracts containing atropine and hyoscine with development stimulated by the need to prevent sea-sickness among soldiers during beach landings; (ii) Histamine receptor antagonists-searching for replacements for the anti-malaria drug quinine, in short supply because of wartime shipping blockade, facilitated the discovery of histamine (H1) antagonists (e.g., dimenhydrinate), followed by serendipitous discovery of anti-emetic activity against motion sickness in a patient undergoing treatment for urticaria; (iii) Phenothiazines and dopamine receptor antagonists-investigations of their pharmacology as "sedatives" (e.g., chlorpromazine) implicated dopamine receptors in emesis, leading to development of selective dopamine (D2) receptor antagonists (e.g., domperidone with poor ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier) as anti-emetics in chemotherapy and surgery; (iv) Metoclopramide and selective 5-hydroxytryptamine3(5-HT3) receptor antagonists-metoclopramide was initially assumed to act only via D2 receptor antagonism but subsequently its gastric motility stimulant effect (proposed to contribute to the anti-emetic action) was shown to be due to 5-hydroxytryptamine4 receptor agonism. Pre-clinical studies showed that anti-emetic efficacy against the newly-introduced, highly emetic, chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin was due to antagonism at 5-HT3 receptors. The latter led to identification of selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (e.g., granisetron), a major breakthrough in treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis; (v) Neurokinin1receptor antagonists-antagonists of the actions of substance P were developed as analgesics but pre-clinical studies identified broad-spectrum anti-emetic effects; clinical studies showed particular efficacy in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Finally, the repurposing of different drugs for treatment of nausea and vomiting is examined, particularly during palliative care, and also the challenges in identifying novel anti-emetic drugs, particularly for treatment of nausea as compared to vomiting. We consider the lessons from the past for the future and ask why there has not been a major breakthrough in the last 20 years.

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.

Management of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: role of netupitant-palonosetron combination

Purpose

The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the recently published data (both original studies and reviews) on the oral medication NEPA, consisting of netupitant (a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA], 300 mg dose) and palonosetron (5-hydroxytryptamine [serotonin or 5HT] type 3 receptor antagonist [5HT₃RA], 0.5 mg dose), in the prevention of the acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Methods

This review was based on the very limited number of available published trials consisting of two Phase III studies and one Phase II dose-selecting trial.

Results

These studies demonstrated some therapeutic benefits of NEPA over related chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis management, as well as its beneficial safety profile. In particular, compared with single-dose 0.5 mg palonosetron, the complete response rates for all phases of CINV for the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (with cisplatin), as well as anthracycline–cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, were significantly higher for single-dose NEPA. The high efficacy of NEPA in terms of prevention of CINV continued throughout repeated cycles of highly and moderately emetogenic therapies.

Conclusion

It is currently recommended that patients who are administered highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens should obtain a three-drug combination consisting of NK1RA, 5HT₃RA, and dexamethasone. The recently available oral combination of NEPA plus dexamethasone provides an additional pharmacological management option that could be considered in this scenario.