UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2018 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 62,63

of 'Prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults'

62
TI
A phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over repeated cycles of chemotherapy.
AU
Gralla RJ, Bosnjak SM, Hontsa A, Balser C, Rizzi G, Rossi G, Borroni ME, Jordan K
SO
Ann Oncol. 2014 Jul;25(7):1333-9. Epub 2014 Mar 14.
 
BACKGROUND: Safe, effective and convenient antiemetic regimens that preserve benefit over repeated cycles are needed for optimal supportive care during cancer treatment. NEPA, an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron (PALO), a distinct 5-HT3 RA, was shown to be superior to PALO in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after a single cycle of highly (HEC) or moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy in recent trials. This study was designed primarily to assess the safety but also to evaluate the efficacy of NEPA over multiple cycles of HEC and MEC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multinational, double-blind, randomized phase III study (NCT01376297) in 413 chemotherapy-naïve patients evaluated a single oral dose of NEPA (NETU 300 mg + PALO 0.50 mg) given on day 1 with oral dexamethasone (DEX). An oral 3-day aprepitant (APR) regimen + PALO + DEX was included as a control (3:1 NEPA:APR randomization). In HEC, DEX was administered on days 1-4 and in MEC on day 1. Safety was assessed primarily by adverse events (AEs), including cardiac AEs; efficacy by complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue).
RESULTS: Patients completed 1961 total chemotherapy cycles (76% MEC, 24% HEC) with 75% completing≥4 cycles. The incidence/type of AEs was comparable for both groups. Most frequent NEPA-related AEs included constipation (3.6%) and headache (1.0%); there was no indication of increasing AEs over multiple cycles. The majority of AEs were mild/moderate and there were no cardiac safety concerns based on AEs and electrocardiograms. The overall (0-120 h) CR rates in cycle 1 were 81% and 76% for NEPA and APR + PALO, respectively, and antiemetic efficacy was maintained over repeated cycles.
CONCLUSIONS: NEPA, a convenient single oral dose antiemetic targeting dual pathways, was safe, well tolerated and highly effective over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC.
AD
Department of Medical Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Bronx, USA richard.gralla@nbhn.net.
PMID
63
TI
A Randomized Phase 3 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).
AU
Zhang L, Lu S, Feng J, Dechaphunkul A, Chang J, Wang D, Chessari S, Lanzarotti C, Jordan K, Aapro M
SO
Ann Oncol. 2017;
 
Background: Co-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize CINV control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant (300 mg), and the pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), has shown superior CINV prevention compared to 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 3 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% vs APR/GRAN 72.4%, 95%CI (-4.5%, 7.5%)]. No emesis [NEPA 75.0% vs APR/GRAN 74.0%, 95%CI (-4.8%, 6.9%)]and NSN rates [NEPA 75.7% vs 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% vs 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.
AD
State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
PMID