Netupitant/palonosetron Research Articles

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.

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. 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. 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). 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.

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.

Characteristics of nausea and its impact on health-related quality of life in cisplatin-treated patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing prophylaxis: an analysis of the LUNG-NEPA study.

We investigated the intensity and duration of nausea as well as its impact on health-related quality of life among cisplatin-treated patients who participated in a study of dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens based on NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron). This retrospective analysis included chemo-naive patients from a trial evaluating non-inferiority of DEX on day 1 (DEX1 arm) combined with NEPA, compared with the same regimen with DEX administered on days 1-4 (DEX4; reference arm) following cisplatin (≥ 70mg/m2) administration. Nausea intensity was self-rated using a four-point Likert scale. Extended nausea duration was considered ≥ 3days within the 5days post-chemotherapy. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on day 6. In the DEX1 arm, more patients (20/76) experienced acute nausea, influencing the outcome of delayed nausea (38/76). During days 1 to 5, 51.3% (39/76) and 39.5% (30/76) of patients experienced nausea in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms, respectively (P = 0.192). Of these, 43.6% and 60% reported moderate-to-severe nausea, respectively, in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms (P = 0.200), while 74.4% and 56.7% of patients experienced extended nausea duration (P = 0.122). Similar between-arm rates of nauseated patients reported an impact on daily life (79.5% vs. 70%; P = 0.408). In analyses stratified for antiemetic regimen, moderate-to-severe nausea or extended nausea duration was associated with an impact on daily life (P ≤ 0.001). Despite the higher incidence, there was no suggestion of any strong adverse effect of NEPA plus single-dose DEX on the characteristics of nausea as well as its impact on daily life in patients with cisplatin-induced nausea. Further prospective controlled study is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019.

Prevention of CINV in Patients with Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: NEPA Versus Ondansetron. a Monocentric Real-Life Experience

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are adverse events that compromise quality of life and treatment compliance in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Polychemotherapy regimens, used as conditioning regimens for ASCT in lymphomas, and high-dose melphalan (≥140 mg/mq), used in multiple myeloma (MM), have high emetogenic risk. Control of CINV is difficult and there is no uniformity for its prophylaxis. Antiemetic guidelines recommend, for prophylaxis, co-administration of a triplet regimen of a serotonine (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA), as Ondansetron, a neurokinin-1 RA, and dexamethasone. Netupitant-Palonosetron (NEPA), an oral formulation derived from the combination of Netupitant (NK1-RA) and Palonsetron, has been approved as prophylaxis of CINV but its experience in the stem cell transplant setting is still limited. AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of Ondansetron versus NEPA in terms of reduction of CINV in patients affected by lymphoma or MM who undergone ASCT. The secondary aims included comparing the duration of CINV, based on the use of Ondansetron or NEPA, and their safety profile in terms of reduction of extrahaematological toxicity (as mucositis or diarrhea). METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric study, we enrolled 76 patients (48 with MM and 28 with lymphoma), who underwent ASCT between March 2021 and March 2022. All patients with MM received high dose of melphalan, those with lymphoma received FEAM. Regarding antiemetics patients were divided according to whether they received NEPA or Ondansetron . Patients' characteristics are in Table 1. RESULTS: Among all, fifty patients (65%) reported CINV of any grade. In particular, the group experiencing CINV included about half of patients treated with NEPA (56%) and almost all those treated with Ondansetron (91%). Among the 26 patients who didn't report CINV (35%), the majority received NEPA (92%) (P = 0.0032) (Fig. 1a). Focusing on patients with MM, 33 experienced CINV (68%), and they were 59% of MM patients treated with NEPA and 93% of those treated with Ondansetron. Fifteen patients did not experience CINV (32%) and almost all of them (93%) had been treated with NEPA (P = 0.037) (Fig. 1b). Sixty-one percent of the 28 patients with lymphoma reported CINV (P= 0.1914) (Fig. 1c). Mean duration of CINV was significantly shorter for patients treated with NEPA than for those treated with Ondansetron (4.8 days vs 9.2 days) (P= 0.002) (Fig. 1d). Regarding extraematological toxicity of chemotherapy, as mucositis and diarrhea, we didn't find any significant difference between the two groups of patients. Regarding the outcome to NEPA, complete response rate (no emesis, no rescue medication) was 37% during overall phases of CINV, 28% of patients had complete control (complete response with no more than mild nausea) and 31% had uncontrolled nausea. Conversely, in the Ondansetron group, only 5% of patients had complete response and 95% had uncontrolled nausea (Fig. 1e). All patients with uncontrolled nausea required a rescue therapy. According to CTCAE, 69% of patients receiving NEPA had grade 1 nausea and 6% had none, while all patients receiving Ondansetron had CINV and 85% of them had grade 2 nausea. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, NEPA has shown superiority in the prevention of CINV, in highly emetogenic regimens in both patients with myeloma or lymphoma, with advantages on the severity and the duration of CINV. Given the high burden of CINV in the whole population analyzed in the study, regardless of the antiemetic used, it would be useful to identify patients at greatest risk and standardize CINV prophylaxis and treatment protocols depending on the different chemotherapy regimens and their emetogenic risk.

Translated article] Have changes concerning carboplatin and anthracyclines been incorporated?

ObjectiveLatest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin.The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv). MethodsProspective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis.A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out. Results61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5.Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period.A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting.The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2.No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods. ConclusionsUse of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD.A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in older patients (>65 years) fit for cisplatin: A sub-analysis from a phase 3 study

IntroductionWe recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset. Materials and MethodsChemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) were eligible. Patients received NEPA and DEX on day 1 and were randomized to receive either (1) no further DEX (DEX1), (2) oral low-dose DEX (4 mg) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or (3) the guideline-recommended standard DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint of the parent study was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1–5). No significant nausea (NSN; none or mild nausea) and the proportion of patients reporting no impact on daily life (NIDL) which was evaluated by the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire on day 6 (overall combined score > 108), were secondary endpoints. ResultsAmong the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7–86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5–92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6–88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6–76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1–81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3–79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects. DiscussionThis analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning.The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).

Guías antieméticas: ¿hemos incorporado los cambios referentes a carboplatino y antraciclinas?

ObjectiveLatest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin.The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv). MethodsProspective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis.A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out. Results61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5.Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period.A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting.The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2.No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods. ConclusionsUse of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD.A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.

Evaluation of contemporary olanzapine- and netupitant/palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

This post-hoc analysis retrospectively assessed data from two recent studies of antiemetic regimens for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The primary objective was to compare olanzapine-based versus netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA)-based regimens in terms of controlling CINV during cycle 1 of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy; secondary objectives were to assess quality of life (QOL) and emesis outcomes over four cycles of AC. This study included 120 Chinese patients with early-stage breast cancer who were receiving AC; 60 patients received the olanzapine-based antiemetic regimen, whereas 60 patients received the NEPA-based antiemetic regimen. The olanzapine-based regimen comprised aprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone, and olanzapine; the NEPA-based regimen comprised NEPA and dexamethasone. Patient outcomes were compared in terms of emesis control and QOL. During cycle 1 of AC, the olanzapine group exhibited a higher rate of 'no use of rescue therapy' in the acute phase (olanzapine vs NEPA: 96.7% vs 85.0%, P=0.0225). No parameters differed between groups in the delayed phase. The olanzapine group had significantly higher rates of 'no use of rescue therapy' (91.7% vs 76.7%, P=0.0244) and 'no significant nausea' (91.7% vs 78.3%, P=0.0408) in the overall phase. There were no differences in QOL between groups. Multiple cycle assessment revealed that the NEPA group had higher rates of total control in the acute phase (cycles 2 and 4) and the overall phase (cycles 3 and 4). These results do not conclusively support the superiority of either regimen for patients with breast cancer who are receiving AC.

295TiP Assessing the benefit of NEPA (fixed combination of netupitant/palonosetron) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients at increased emetic risk receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), antiemetic guidelines lack evidence to recommend an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) for all patients; therefore, they endorse a 5-HT3 RA + dexamethasone (DEX). However, the NCCN guidelines recognize that this approach is inadequate prophylaxis for many patients and include an NK1 RA-containing option selectively for those with individual emetic risk factors (e.g., prior CINV, age <50, female). Evidence shows that NEPA (a fixed combination of an NK1 RA, (fos)netupitant, and a 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron) is effective in a non-interventional real-world setting (Zelek 2021) in a heterogeneous population of patients with cancer receiving highly emetogenic or MEC and in patients with CINV risk factors.

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study

BackgroundThe non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).MethodsChemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis.ResultsIn the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL.ConclusionReducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

POSA159 Cost-Effectiveness of Netupitant/Palonosetron in the Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the UK

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is among the most common side-effects reported by cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fixed-combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) compared with other commonly used antiemetic treatments for the prevention of CINV in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in the UK.

Netupitant/palonosetron without dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with multiple myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-center experience.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent adverse events compromising quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, CINV prophylaxis is still lacking uniformity for high-dose melphalan (HDM), which is used to condition patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is administered with dexamethasone (DEXA) for CINV prevention in several chemotherapy regimens. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of NEPA, without DEXA, in preventing CINV in 106 adult patients with MM receiving HDM and ASCT. All patients had antiemetic prophylaxis with multiple doses of NEPA 1 h before the start of conditioning and after 72 h and 120 h. A complete response (CR) was observed in 99 (93%) patients at 120 h (overall phase). The percentage of patients with complete control was 93%. The CR rate during the acute phase was 94% (n = 100). During the delayed phase, the CR rate was 95% (n = 101). Grade 1 nausea and vomiting were experienced by 82% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Grade 2 nausea was reported in 18% and vomiting in 10% of patients. Our results showed, for the first time, that NEPA, without DEXA, was a well-tolerated and effective antiemetic option for MM patients receiving HDM followed by ASCT.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06472-7.

NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV) with Folfirinox and Folfoxiri even during the COVID-19 pandemic: a real-life study.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the treatment of cancer patients, with particular regard to the management of both chemotherapy and side effects. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are amongst the most troublesome side effects that impair patients' adherence to treatments and their quality of life (QoL). NEPA (Akynzeo®), is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant [a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 300 mg] and palonosetron [(5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin or 5HT) type3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), 0.5 mg] which has been shown to be effective in preventing CINV. This prospective study started before the outbreak of COVID-19 and was carried out during the pandemic period. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose NEPA plus 12 mg of dexamethasone (DEX) in patients treated with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab and Folfirinox. The patients were diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). They were divided into two groups: naïve patients and patients previously treated with serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3-RA) and neurokin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA). During the overall phase, the complete response (CR) rate was 96.8% in naïve patients treated with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab, and 94.6% in patients treated with Folfirinox.During the acute and delayed phases, the CR rate was 92.8% and 94.2%, with Folfoxiri and Bevacizumab, as well as 96.2% and 94.6%, with Folfirinox.There was no adequate control of CINV events in patients on antiemetic prophylaxis with 5HT3-RA or NK1-RA associated with cortisone. During the overall phase, the CR rate was 74.6% with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab and 75.8% with Folfirinox. During the acute and delayed phases, the CR rate was 72.5% and 74.8% with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab, as well as 75.2% and 74.6% with Folfirinox. This study has shown the therapeutic benefits of NEPA in the management and prophylaxis of CINV events, both in naive patients and patients previously treated with 5HT3-RA and NK1-RA. In addition, NEPA has been shown to be safe, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract PS13-09: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk after prior breakthrough CINV: Unmasking the false average

Abstract Background: Although many studies have demonstrated consistent levels of effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis for the entire study population across multiple chemotherapy cycles, rarely have studies reported how each patient’s risk of subsequent CINV differs based on prior cycle breakthrough CINV with the same prophylaxis. We lack data on whether prophylaxis continues to fail in the same group of patients each cycle, or whether failure is random with each subsequent cycle. We sought to evaluate individual patients’ risk of repeat CINV in each subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Methods: In a prospective, 4-cycle CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (day 1) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after chemotherapy. Patients without CINV were classified as complete response (CR); the rest as treatment failure (TF). We analyzed patients’ sequences of CR and TF, and compared CR or TF for cycles 2-4 based on cycle 1 outcomes, using chi-square statistics. To provide context, we performed a post-hoc similar analysis of results reported by Herrstedt et al [2005] from a clinical trial of ondansetron + aprepitant (APR) for patients with breast cancer receiving 4 cycles of AC. Results: The 402 female patients in the NEPA trial received a total of 1,299 cycles. In cycle 1, 99 (24.6%) patients experienced TF (TF1); over all 4 cycles, TF occurred 253 times (19.5%). Patients with CR in cycle 1 (CR1) had a ≥92% rate of CR in cycle 2; their rates of repeat CR were similar in each subsequent cycle. Patients with TF1 had nearly equal risk of CR or TF in cycle 2 (45:55); thereafter 85% of this TF1 subgroup repeated their cycle 2 outcome (CR or TF) in cycles 3 and 4. Over all cycles of NEPA, patients with CR1 subsequently had CR in &amp;gt;90% of cycles 2-4; those with TF1 subsequently had TF in 49.8% of cycles 2-4 (p&amp;lt;0.0001) (see Table). We separately examined Herrstedt’s evaluation of 433 patients across 1537 cycles with APR. In cycle 1, TF was seen 213 times (49.2%), with TF reported in 46.7% of cycles 1-4. We found that patients with CR1 had an 80.5% rate of CR in cycle 2 and repeat CR rates were higher in subsequent cycles. Patients with TF1 had TF in cycle 2 (TF2) at a rate of 78.4%, with 76.6% TF3 and 72.7% TF4. For APR, CR1 resulted in subsequent CR in 78.6% of cycles 2-4 while patients with TF1 again had TF in 74.8% of cycles 2-4 (p&amp;lt;0.0001). Patients with TF1 were more likely to later drop from the study (see Table). Notably, among those with CR1 after APR, the few patients who later had TF in any cycle, had a subsequent repeat failure rate similar to those with TF1. Conclusions: When patients receiving guideline-recommended triple antiemetic prophylaxis successfully avoided CINV in their first cycle of HEC, they had 80-95% likelihood of repeating that success in later cycles. After NEPA, those whose prophylaxis failed in cycle 1 did not face a similar high risk of repeat failure in cycle 2. The pattern of repeat failure after aprepitant was different, with a high repeat failure risk starting in cycle 2. These findings strongly suggest that consistent population average CR rates reported across cycles may mask a higher repeat failure rate for individual patients that experience cycle 1 CINV, particularly for aprepitant. Further study of this phenomenon is needed for other HEC regimens, and to confirm the lack of high repeat failure seen in cycle 2 for NEPA. Repeat CINV in Later Cycles, Based on Cycle 1 ResultsNEPAAprepitant + OndansetronInitial Cycle Result (n/total initial cycles)CR1 (303/402)TF1 (99/402)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)CR1 (220/433)TF1 (213/433)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)Subsequent CR cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)636 (93.0%)107 (50.2%)&amp;lt;0.0001464 (78.6%)124 (25.2%)&amp;lt;0.0001Subsequent TF cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)48 (7.0%)106 (49.8%)126 (21.4%)370 (74.8%)Total subsequent cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)684 (100%)213 (100%)590 (100%)494 (100%)Dropped vs ITT* (n, % ITT cycles)225 (24.8%)84 (28.3%)0.226370 (10.6%)145 (22.7%)&amp;lt;0.0001* The NEPA trial was closed when the last patient completed the first cycle, resulting in an artificially high proportion of patients that did not complete 4 cycles. Citation Format: Rudolph M Navari, Gary Binder, Alexander Molassiotis, Eric Roeland, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Dwight D. Kloth, Silvia Sebastiani, Lina Y. Dimberg, Luke M. Schmerold, Xing Liu, Lee Schwartzberg. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk after prior breakthrough CINV: Unmasking the false average [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-09.

Abstract PS13-27: Duration of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) as a predictor of later-cycle CINV

Abstract Background: CINV remains a challenging chemotherapy toxicity, particularly for anthracyclines + cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer. Complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting or use of rescue medication over 5 days after chemotherapy, has been the standard endpoint for successful antiemetic prophylaxis, yet duration of prophylaxis treatment failure (i.e., breakthrough CINV) is rarely assessed. Previous work demonstrated that initial cycle breakthrough CINV is associated with at least one subsequent cycle with CINV (Schwartzberg 2011), and that longer duration CINV is associated with more lost work time and impaired activity (Schwartzberg ASCO 2020). We sought to evaluate the duration of breakthrough CINV in cycle one and its association with individual patients’ repeat breakthrough CINV in subsequent cycles. Methods: Days of CINV was a prespecified endpoint in a prospective, 4-cycle CINV prophylaxis trial of combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (Dex) for patients with breast cancer receiving AC; the primary endpoint was CR. Patients without CR were classified as prophylaxis treatment failure (TF) and categorized as short TF (sTF, 1-2 days) or extended TF (xTF, ≥3 days), consistent with work by Ballatori [2006] and Roeland [2019]. We analyzed patients’ sequences of CR, sTF, and xTF for cycles 1-4 and assessed likelihood of CR for cycles 2-4 based on cycle 1 TF duration, using chi-square statistics. Results: Of 402 patients in cycle 1, 303 had CR and 99 (24.6%) had TF. Duration of TF in cycle 1 was sTF for 48 patients while 51 patients had xTF. Patients with sTF in cycle 1 often experienced CR in cycle 2 (32/46 remaining patients; 69.6%) while patients with xTF in cycle 1 often had TF in cycle 2 (38/49; 77.6%). Patients had &amp;gt;84% likelihood of repeating their cycle 2 outcome (CR or TF) in cycles 3 and 4. Over all cycles, those with sTF in cycle 1 had CR in 75/108 later cycles (69.4%) while xTF in cycle 1 led to CR in 32/105 later cycles (29.0%), p&amp;lt;0.001) (see Table). Duration of later-cycle TF was typically consistent with initial cycle TF duration (p=0.046). As a predictor of later cycle TF, xTF had a positive predictive value of 0.695, with sensitivity of 0.689 and specificity of 0.701. Those with xTF in cycle 1 had 2.28 times the relative risk of later TF (CI 1.67-3.11; p&amp;lt;0.001) vs those with sTF. The absolute increase in risk from xTF was 40.4%. Conclusions: Although the majority of patients receiving NEPA + Dex as prophylaxis for AC in breast cancer successfully avoided breakthrough CINV, for patients with prophylaxis treatment failure, CINV duration in cycle 1 strongly predicted their future likelihood of CINV. Patients with extended (≥3 days) breakthrough CINV in cycle 1 had CINV again in over 2/3 of later cycles; conversely those with short breakthrough CINV in cycle 1 avoided CINV entirely in over 2/3 of later cycles. The markedly higher risk faced by patients with initial-cycle extended CINV is both statistically significant and clinically meaningful, due not only to its longer duration and risk-prediction but also to previously demonstrated worsening of work loss and impaired activity. Clinicians should monitor breakthrough CINV duration, seek to avoid extended CINV, and consider changing antiemetic prophylaxis when extended CINV does occur. Further study is needed to confirm this finding in other chemotherapy regimens and with other triple prophylaxis regimens. Impact of Extended CINV in Cycle 1 on CINV in Later CyclesTF1P valueInitial Cycle Result (n/total initial cycles)Total TF1 (99/402)Short TF1 (48/99)Extended TF1 (51/99)Short vs Extended TF1Later CR cycles (n, % of total later cycles)107 (50.2%)75 (69.4%)32 (29.0%)&amp;lt;0.0001Later TF (n, % of total later cycles)106 (49.8%)33 (30.6%)73 (71.0%)Duration of Later TF (n, % of all later TF)Later sTFLater xTFLater sTFLater xTF0.04620 (60.6%)13 (39.4%)29 (39.7%)44 (60.3%)Total later cycles (n, %)213 (100%)108 (100%)105 (100%)TF: prophylaxis Treatment Failure; TF1: TF in cycle 1; CR: Complete Response (0 days TF); CR1: CR in cycle 1; sTF: Short (1-2 days) TF; xTF: Extended (≥3 days) TF Citation Format: Rudolph M. Navari, Gary Binder, Eric J. Roeland, Alexander Molassiotis, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Dwight D. Kloth, Silvia Sebastiani, Marco Turini, Luke M. Schmerold, Xing Liu, Lee Schwartzberg. Duration of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) as a predictor of later-cycle CINV [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-27.

Fixed-Dose Netupitant and Palonosetron for Chronic Nausea in Cancer Patients: A Double-Blind, Placebo Run-in Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

ContextNo clinical trials have examined the effect of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) on chronic nausea in patients with cancer. ObjectivesIn this pilot randomized trial, we assessed the efficacy of NEPA and placebo on chronic nausea. MethodsThis double-blind, parallel, randomized trial enrolled patients with cancer and chronic nausea for at least 1 month, intensity ≥4/10 and not on moderately or highly emetogenic systemic therapies. Patients started with a placebo run-in period from days 1 to 5; those without a placebo response proceeded to the double-blinded phase between days 6 to 15 (NEPA: placebo 2:1 ratio). The primary outcome was within-group change in average nausea over the 24 hours on a 0–10 numeric rating scale between day 5 and 15. ResultsAmong the 53 enrolled patients, 46 proceeded to placebo run-in and 33 had blinded treatment (22 NEPA and 11 placebo). We observed a statistically significant within-group improvement in nausea numeric rating scale between day 5 and 15 in the NEPA group (mean change, −2.0; 95% CI, −3.1 to −0.8) and the placebo group (mean change, −2.3; 95% CI, −3.9 to −0.7). A complete response was achieved in 8 (38%) patients in the NEPA group and 2 (20%) in the placebo group by day 15. No grade 3–4 toxicities were attributed to NEPA. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the primary/secondary outcomes. ConclusionsNEPA and placebo were associated with similar magnitude of within-group improvement in chronic nausea without significant between-group differences (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03040726).

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Short Review on the Role of Netupitant-Palonosetron (NEPA).

IntroductionAntineoplastic drugs may induce several side effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Two neurotransmitters play a central role in mediating the emetic response: serotonin acting on the 5HT3 receptor and the substance P targeting the NK1 receptor. Indeed, a combination of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) and a NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) together with dexamethasone has been shown to be very effective. In fact, this combination is actually widely used and recommended for CINV prophylaxis for highly emetogenic cisplatin-based adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and carboplatin-based regimens. NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) is the only fixed combination antiemetic available and it is composed by the long-lasting second-generation 5HT3-RA palonosetron and the highly selective NK1-RA netupitant.AimThe aims of this short review were to analyze the role of NEPA in CINV prophylaxis and management taking in account the risk factors related to the patient and to the antineoplastic treatment.Evidence ReviewCINV development is not only correlated to the emetogenic potential of the antineoplastic drugs but is also very influenced by the patient characteristics and history, such as gender, age, alcohol intake, nausea during pregnancy and motion sickness. In pivotal and post-registration studies, NEPA has demonstrated to be effective and safe in both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.ConclusionA proper assessment of both chemotherapy- and patient-related risk factors is paramount to properly evaluate an appropriate prophylaxis of CINV and NEPA by simplifying the therapy, guarantees fully adherence to antiemetic guidelines, and consequently improves the control of CINV, especially in high risk patients.

Efficacy and safety of multiple doses of NEPA without dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day and high-dose chemotherapy in patients with non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a phase IIa, multicenter study

Despite the availability of several antiemetics, clinical findings show that control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a serious concern for hematological patients, mainly for those receiving multiple-day (MD) and high-dose (HD) chemotherapy (CT). For CINV prophylaxis, 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3-RAs) and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs) are usually administered together with dexamethasone, which may increase the risk of serious infections in patients undergoing myeloablative treatment. The rationale of this multicenter, open-label and phase IIa study was to explore the efficacy of multiple doses of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) given as an every-other-day regimen without dexamethasone in preventing CINV in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (R/R-NHL), eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and treated with MD-HD-CT. Seventy patients participated to the study. According to the adopted Fleming one-stage design, the primary endpoint of this study was achieved. The CR values were 87.1% (primary endpoint, overall phase: days 1–8), 88.6% (acute phase: days 1–6), and 98.6% (delayed phase: days 7–8), while complete control (CR with no more than mild nausea) was 85.7% (overall phase), 88.6% (acute phase), and 95.7% (delayed phase). Moderate and severe episodes of nausea were reported by less than 10% of patients in the overall phase and less than 5% in both the acute and delayed phases. Regarding safety, NEPA was well tolerated with only one adverse event (constipation) evaluated as possibly related to NEPA administration. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that multiple alternate dosing of NEPA without the addition of dexamethasone is highly effective for preventing nausea and vomiting in this difficult setting, with a good tolerability profile.

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 85%/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.