Netupitant/Palonosetron

Benefit of Avasopasem Manganese on Severe Oral Mucositis in Head and Neck Cancer in the ROMAN Trial: Unplanned Secondary Analysis

Purpose

Oral mucositis (OM) is a debilitating side effect of cisplatin and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with head and neck cancer. The phase 3 ROMAN trial showed avasopasem manganese (AVA) significantly decreased individual endpoints of incidence and duration of severe oral mucositis (SOM, World Health Organization [WHO] grade 3-4), with nominal decrease in severity (WHO grade 4) and significant increase in the delay in onset of SOM. We sought to determine the Net Treatment Benefit (NTB) of AVA versus placebo (PBO) using the generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) method.

Methods and Materials

GPC is a statistical method that permits simultaneous analysis of several prioritized outcomes, comparing all possible pairs of a patient in the active (ie, AVA) group and a patient from the control (ie, PBO) group. NTB is the net benefit across all the outcomes for AVA compared to PBO. Key clinically relevant outcomes from ROMAN were prioritized: (1) WHO grade 4 OM incidence; (2) SOM incidence; (3) days of SOM; (4) days to SOM onset, with 7 days difference defined as the clinical relevance threshold for SOM days and SOM onset.

Results

GPC analysis of 407 patients (AVA = 241, placebo = 166) stratified by cisplatin schedule and treatment setting resulted in 13,969 pairwise comparisons. AVA showed statistically significant net benefit on all 4 key outcomes with a 53.9% probability that AVA would benefit patients versus a 35.0% probability that PBO would; the difference between these probabilities was a NTB of 18.9% (P = .0012), translating to an AVA number needed to treat of 5.3 patients. All outcomes contributed to NTB, reflecting improvements in SOM incidence, onset and duration, and in grade 4 OM incidence seen in the original ROMAN analysis.

Conclusions

This GPC analysis shows compelling evidence from the ROMAN trial of AVA's clinical benefit across key parameters of SOM burden.

Neiguan (PC6) acupoint stimulation for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a cost-effective supplement in guideline-inconsistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis subgroup

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of Neiguan (PC6) acupoint acustimulation in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), especially for patients with guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) due to personal reasons METHODS: From January 2021 to December 2021, 373 patients suffered from solid malignancy were recruited according to the inclusion criteria. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication use) rate during the overall phase (0-120 h of each chemo-cycle) was the primary assessment of CINV control. The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire was investigated among these patients as a secondary 'quality of life' objective to assess the impact of CINV on patients' daily life by recording score of nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

With acustimulation of Neiguan (PC6) acupuncture point through a portable, noninvasive and user-friendly device, in terms of complete response rate and scores in nausea/vomiting by FLIE questionnaire, patients achieve a better outcome in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) induced CINV, especially GICP subgroup. Meanwhile, analysis also demonstrated this tendency existed in other patients with HEC/GCCP (guideline consistent CINV prophylaxis) and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy, although the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Considering advantages of Neiguan (PC6) acustimulation such as noninvasive, covered by medical insurance and few side effects, we believe it would be an ideal auxiliary tool in CINV control, especially in patients who receive highly emetogenic chemo-protocol and are reluctant to GCCP for economic reasons.

Improving Nausea and Vomiting Post-Elipse Balloon: a Novel Single-Dose Regimen of 300 mg Netupitant/0.5 mg Palonosetron Hydrochloride

BACKGROUND

Post intragastric balloon placement symptoms like nausea and vomiting have been the major cause of a high rate of early removal. Common therapy with ondansetron alone, or in combination, with prokinetic agents have been shown to have very little or no effect. Recently, an improved therapy based on aprepitant and ondansetron combination showed a significant improvement in symptoms management. Lack of aprepitant availability in several countries and patients difficulties to follow the right prescription convinced us to explore other pharmacological options.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate safety and efficacy of a netupitant and palonosetron-combined drug and to reduce and control post Elipse® placement symptoms METHODS: Between January and March 2018, 30 patients (9 male, 21 female), (mean weight 97.8 and mean BMI 34.7), underwent Elispe® placements, at 550 ml volume, in an outpatient fashion. All patients received a single pill 300 mg netupitant/0.5 mg palonosetron 6 h prior to placement. All patients received ondansetron 4 mg prescription to be taken as needed. A daily VAS score to report intensity of nausea, vomit, cramps, gastric pain, satiety for the first week post-placement was completed.

RESULTS

4/30 (13%) reported vomiting on days 1, 2, and 3; 9/30 (30%) reported nausea higher than score 4 on days 1, 2, and 3; 8/30 (26.6%) reported gastric pain higher than score 4 on days 1, 2, and 3.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the use of a single-pill netupitant/palonosetron resulted to be very easy to administer and effective in reducing vomit, nausea, and gastric pain in 87%, 70%, and 73.4% patients respectively, ameliorating the post Elipse™ placements symptoms safely.

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.