Profile of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) fixed dose combination and its potential in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

Comparative efficacy of prophylactic protocols in reducing perioperative nausea and vomiting during video-assisted thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer

Lung cancer, a global mortality leader, often necessitates Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic (VATS) surgery. However, post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common, highlighting a need for effective management and prevention strategies in this context. A retrospective case-control study at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital evaluated patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer between May and September 2022. Patients were categorized based on PONV prevention methods, and data encompassing demographics, surgical history, and postoperative adverse events s were analyzed to assess the association between prophylactic protocols and PONV incidence. The Netupitant and Palonosetron Hydrochloride (NEPA) group showed a significant reduction in PONV occurrences post-surgery compared to Ondansetron (ONDA) and Control groups, emphasizing NEPA's efficacy in alleviating PONV symptoms (P < 0.05). Furthermore, following VATS radical resection of lung cancer, NEPA markedly reduced the intensity of PONV symptoms in patients. Both univariate and multivariate logistic analyses corroborated that NEPA independently reduces PONV risk, with its protective effect also apparent in susceptible populations like females and non-smokers. NEPA utilization markedly reduced both the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer, serving as an independent protective factor in mitigating PONV risk post-surgery.

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.

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.

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.

Complementary Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Netupitant and Palonosetron Support the Rationale for Their Oral Fixed Combination for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

NEPA is the first fixed-combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant (netupitant; 300 mg) and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (palonosetron; 0.50 mg). This study evaluated the pharmacokinetic profiles of netupitant and palonosetron. The pharmacokinetic profiles of both drugs were summarized using data from phase 1-3 clinical trials. netupitant and palonosetron have high absolute bioavailability (63%-87% and 97%, respectively). Their overall systemic exposures and maximum plasma concentrations are similar under fed and fasting conditions. netupitant binds to plasma proteins in a high degree (>99%), whereas palonosetron binds to a low extent (62%). Both drugs have large volumes of distribution (cancer patients: 1656-2257 L and 483-679 L, respectively). netupitant is metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 to 3 major pharmacologically active metabolites (M1, M2, and M3). palonosetron is metabolized by cytochrome P450 2D6 to 2 major substantially inactive metabolites (M4 and M9). Both drugs have similar intermediate-to-low systemic clearances and long half-lives (cancer patients: netupitant, 19.5-20.8 L/h and 56.0-93.8 hours; palonosetron: 7.0-11.3 L/h and 43.8-65.7 hours, respectively). netupitant and its metabolites are eliminated via the hepatic/biliary route (87% of the administered dose), whereas palonosetron and its metabolites are mainly eliminated via the kidneys (85%-93%). Altogether, these data explain the lack of pharmacokinetic interactions between netupitant and palonosetron at absorption, binding, metabolic, or excretory level, thus highlighting their compatibility as the oral fixed combination NEPA, with administration convenience that may reduce dosing mistakes and increase treatment compliance.

Anti-emetic Action of the Brain-Penetrating New Ghrelin Agonist, HM01, Alone and in Combination With the 5-HT3 Antagonist, Palonosetron and With the NK1 Antagonist, Netupitant, Against Cisplatin- and Motion-Induced Emesis in Suncus murinus (House Musk Shrew)

Ghrelin has well-known activity to stimulate appetite and weight gain. Evidence suggests that ghrelin may also have effects in reducing chemotherapy-induced emesis via growth hormone secretagogue receptors (GHS-R1A) in the brain. However, it is not known whether the stimulation of GHS-R1A has broad inhibitory anti-emetic effects. In the present studies, we used Suncus murinus to investigate the potential of the new and novel orally bioavailable brain-penetrating GHS-R1A mimetic, HM01 (1-[(1S)-1-(2,3-dichloro-4-methoxyphenyl)ethyl]-3-methyl-3-[(4R)-1-Methyl-3,3-dimethyl-4-piperidyl]urea), to reduce emesis induced by a variety of emetic challenges. HM01 (1 to 30 mg/kg, p.o.) antagonized emesis induced by cisplatin (30 mg/kg, i.p.) and by motion (4 cm horizontal displacement, 1 Hz) but was ineffective against emesis induced by nicotine (5 mg/kg, s.c.) and copper sulfate (120 mg/kg by intragastric gavage). In other experiments, HM01 (3 mg/kg, p.o.) enhanced the anti-emetic control of a regimen of palonosetron (0.01 mg/kg, p.o.) alone and palonosetron (0.01 mg/kg p.o.) plus netupitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.). HM01 (10 mg/kg, p.o.) also had positive effects in increasing feeding and drinking in nicotine-treated animals, and it shortened the latency to drink in animals treated with cisplatin. These data indicate that brain-penetrating GHS-R1A agonists may have use alone and/or in combination with standard anti-emetic regimens for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and motion sickness.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting : Current recommendations for prophylaxis]

The chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent side effects in cytostatic therapy and a profound challenge during the therapy of cancer patients. Therefore, standardized guideline-orientated prophylaxis is essential and a fundamental contribution for the success of treatment. This review summarizes the current recommendations for CINV of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the S3-guideline Supportive Therapie of the Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie and shall facilitate its use in the daily routine.

Profile of Antiemetic Activity of Netupitant Alone or in Combination with Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in Ferrets and Suncus murinus (House Musk Shrew)

Background and Aims: Chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis involves the activation of multiple pathways, with 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT; serotonin) playing a major role in the initial response. Substance P tachykinin NK₁ receptor antagonists can reduce emesis induced by disparate emetic challenges and therefore have a clinical utility as broad inhibitory anti-emetic drugs. In the present studies, we investigate the broad inhibitory anti-emetic profile of a relatively new NK₁ receptor antagonist, netupitant, alone or in combination with the long acting 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, palonosetron, for a potential to reduce emesis in ferrets and shrews.

Materials and Methods: Ferrets were pretreated with netupitant and/or palonosetron, and then administered apomorphine (0.125 mg/kg, s.c.), morphine (0.5 mg/kg, s.c.), ipecacuanha (1.2 mg/kg, p.o.), copper sulfate (100 mg/kg, intragastric), or cisplatin (5–10 mg/kg, i.p.); in other studies netupitant was administered to Suncus murinus before motion (4 cm horizontal displacement, 2 Hz for 10 min).

Results: Netupitant (3 mg/kg, p.o.) abolished apomorphine-, morphine-, ipecacuanha- and copper sulfate-induced emesis. Lower doses of netupitant (0.03–0.3 mg/kg, p.o.) dose-dependently reduced cisplatin (10 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced emesis in an acute (8 h) model, and motion-induced emesis in S. murinus. In a ferret cisplatin (5 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced acute and delayed emesis model, netupitant administered once at 3 mg/kg, p.o., abolished the first 24 h response and reduced the 24–72 h response by 94.6%; the reduction was markedly superior to the effect of a three times per day administration of ondansetron (1 mg/kg, i.p.). A single administration of netupitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.) plus palonosetron (0.1 mg/kg, p.o.) combined with dexamethasone (1 mg/kg, i.p., once per day), also significantly antagonized cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis and was comparable with a once-daily regimen of ondansetron (1 mg/kg, p.o.) plus aprepitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.) in combination with dexamethasone (1 mg/kg, i.p.).

Conclusion: In conclusion, netupitant has potent and long lasting anti-emetic activity against a number of emetic challenges indicating broad inhibitory properties. The convenience of protection afforded by the single dosing of netupitant together with palonosetron was demonstrated and also is known to provide an advantage over other therapeutic strategies to control emesis in man.

Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

We examined the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we compared olanzapine with placebo, in combination with dexamethasone, aprepitant or fosaprepitant, and a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3-receptor antagonist, in patients with no previous chemotherapy who were receiving cisplatin (≥70 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin. The doses of the three concomitant drugs administered before and after chemotherapy were similar in the two groups. The two groups received either 10 mg of olanzapine orally or matching placebo daily on days 1 through 4. Nausea prevention was the primary end point; a complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) was a secondary end point.

RESULTS

In the analysis, we included 380 patients who could be evaluated (192 assigned to olanzapine, and 188 to placebo). The proportion of patients with no chemotherapy-induced nausea was significantly greater with olanzapine than with placebo in the first 24 hours after chemotherapy (74% vs. 45%, P=0.002), the period from 25 to 120 hours after chemotherapy (42% vs. 25%, P=0.002), and the overall 120-hour period (37% vs. 22%, P=0.002). The complete-response rate was also significantly increased with olanzapine during the three periods: 86% versus 65% (P<0.001), 67% versus 52% (P=0.007), and 64% versus 41% (P<0.001), respectively. Although there were no grade 5 toxic effects, some patients receiving olanzapine had increased sedation (severe in 5%) on day 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine, as compared with placebo, significantly improved nausea prevention, as well as the complete-response rate, among previously untreated patients who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02116530.).

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.

Are itch and scratching the nausea and vomiting of skin?

The physiologic similarities between itch and nausea may not be evident initially, but they share the role of repelling irritants and toxins from the body by inducting scratching and vomiting, respectively. In addition, itch and nausea frequently occur together in certain conditions such as uraemia. Here we show that the mechanisms underlying itch and nausea overlap and that advances in either field may influence the identification of novel drug targets, particularly for itch.