Netupitant/palonosetron Research Articles

BPI20-019: Pooled Analysis of Phase 3 Studies Comparing a Single-Dose Fixed Combination of Netupitant / Palonosetron (NEPA) vs a 3-Day Aprepitant-Based Regimen (APR) for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy (HEC)

BPI20-019: Pooled Analysis of Phase 3 Studies Comparing a Single-Dose Fixed Combination of Netupitant / Palonosetron (NEPA) vs a 3-Day Aprepitant-Based Regimen (APR) for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy (HEC)

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) and dexamethasone for prevention of emesis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide: a multi-cycle, phase II study

BackgroundNEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle.MethodsIn this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2–4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined.ResultsOf the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65–0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4).ConclusionThe high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle.Trial registrationThis trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019.

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.

Abstract P5-14-07: Avoidable acute care involving chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) with NEPA prophylaxis relative to other antiemetics: An external control arm analysis

Abstract Background: Anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) is a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen. Combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) is guideline-recommended for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. CMS’ OP-35 measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care as avoidable if involving nausea and emesis (NV) or any of 8 other toxicities. Results will be publicly reported and impact Medicare reimbursement. CMS (2017) found that 10% of >58,000 patients with avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involved NV. Because NEPA is new, insufficient real world data exist to assess its CINV resource use. CINV-related acute-care after NEPA prophylaxis in AC has been reported in a prospective clinical trial. Our aim was to compare these rates to those seen after prophylaxis with other antiemetics for AC outside of a clinical trial. Methods: Pre-specified endpoints in a prospective trial of oral or IV NEPA + DEX in AC included acute-care use (emergency [ED] visits or inpatient admissions [IP]) involving CINV, defined as emesis or rescue drug use ≤5 days after AC, and concomitant ED/IP in the same period. We also evaluated CINV-related acute care after non-NEPA prophylaxis for AC in breast cancer from 10/2012-8/2018 in IBM Explorys electronic health records. We age-matched patients 3:1 to the NEPA trial. We further adjusted the event rate to address under-reporting of a) CINV rates (vs. 49.2% for aprepitant in AC in a clinical trial [Warr 2005]) and b) acute-care use, projected at 17-50% at sites external to the dataset. To compare the resulting adjusted event rate to the NEPA study, we conducted 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, using random probabilities from 5.2-8.7% for Explorys patients, and from 0-2% for NEPA patients to address potential reporting variability, despite the trial including daily patient diaries. Analysis of data was limited to the first two cycles, the median duration in the NEPA trial. Results: In the NEPA trial, 402 patients received ≥1 cycle; 391 completed two cycles. Nine patients had IP admissions; none involved CINV. Five patients had 6 total ED visits; one met criteria for involving CINV; the resulting rate of acute care rate involving CINV was 0.25 per 100 patients. For other antiemetics, 2598 patients received AC (excluding NEPA prophylaxis). Among 1206 age-matched to the NEPA trial, 15 patients had acute-care events in the first 2 cycles, (1.24 per 100 patients), an odds ratio of 1:5.1 (CI 0.7-38.5) in favor of NEPA. After adjusting via the simulation, the odds ratio was 1:8.3 (CI: 2.43-24.21) in favor of NEPA. Conclusions: Comparing CINV-related acute care seen in a large prospective trial relative to real-world evidence in patients with breast cancer treated with AC, <1% of patients receiving NEPA prophylaxis required acute care for CINV; the CINV-related acute-care risks seen with other antiemetic prophylaxis were 5 times (unadjusted) to 8 times (adjusted) the levels for NEPA. A similar comparison using only real world data should be conducted as data permit. Citation Format: Lee Schwartzberg, Kathryn J Ruddy, Rudolph M Navari, Thomas W LeBlanc, Rebecca Clark-Snow, Rita Wickham, Gary Binder, William L. Bailey, Ravi Potluri, Luke M Schmerold, Eros Papademetriou, Eric J Roeland. Avoidable acute care involving chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) with NEPA prophylaxis relative to other antiemetics: An external control arm analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-07.

Abstract P2-12-02: Quality of life data of breast cancer patients receiving a fixed combination of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - A real life study

Abstract Background: NEPA, an oral fixed dose combination of netupitant at 300 mg and palonosetron at 500 mg has been approved for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy (Ctx)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients (pts) receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The primary objective of the prospective, non-interventional study (NIS) AkyPRO was the evaluation of quality of life (QoL) in adults receiving NEPA as primary prophylaxis for CINV associated with MEC or HEC. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and safety of NEPA. Here, we present an interim analysis in the subgroup of breast cancer (BC) pts, who represent the largest subpopulation (66%) enrolled in the AkyPRO. Since September 2015, 2427 pts have been recruited, of whom 986 suffered from BC. Methods: This NIS has been designed to evaluate NEPA in 2,500 cancer pts receiving single day or two day MEC or HEC. QoL was recorded by FLIE questionnaires. Efficacy of NEPA as indicated by complete response (CR: no vomiting, no rescue medication), additional medication, and adverse events were recorded in patient diaries over three consecutive Ctx cycles. Patients and physicians documented overall antiemetic efficacy on a 4-point scale (very good, good, satisfactory, poor). Results: At the cut-off date November 11, 2017, 2427 pts had been enrolled in the study. For the interim analysis, 986 BC pts were evaluated who had been completely documented in the eCRF at the cut-off date. 80% of pts received HEC, mostly (79%) anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) combinations. Of the women receiving MEC, the majority were treated with carboplatin-based regimens (9%). 7% of patients received other MEC regimens. More than 84% of pts reported no impact on daily life due to vomiting in all analysed cycles. The percentage of pts with no impact on daily life due to nausea ranged from 51-56%. More than 93% of pts reported no emesis and more than 81% reported CR during the 5 days post-chemotherapy during all 3 cycles. Nausea was more difficult to control, 37% of pts documented to have suffered from nausea one or more times during the 5 days following chemotherapy. Effectiveness, evaluated by physicians’ assessment, was rated very good/good for 89 -91% of the pts in cycle 1, 2, and 3. Comparison of patients’ and physicians’ perception of antiemetic treatment effectiveness showed that patients judged the effectiveness equally well. NEPA was well tolerated. Low-grade constipation (2.2%) and insomnia (1.4%) were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Conclusion: In this real-life study, NEPA was effective in the prevention of CINV in the subgroup of breast cancer pts receiving HEC or MEC. Together with its convenient administration attributes of one single dose per ctx cycle, NEPA might facilitate adherence to antiemetic guidelines and ultimately may improve CINV control. Citation Format: Jörg Schilling, Steffi Busch, Andrea Stefek, Eberhard Müller, Jürgen Schwickerath, Falk Altmann, Martin Holländer, Meinolf Karthaus. Quality of life data of breast cancer patients receiving a fixed combination of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - A real life study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-12-02.

Phase II Multicenter, Not Comparative, Study of Multiple Doses of NEPA (netupitant + palonosetron) in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients Eligible for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Receiving Multiple Days / High Dose Chemotherapy Regimens

Cancer chemotherapy may be associated with a high incidence of nausea and vomiting (CINV), which may occur acutely within 24 hours after the start of chemotherapy (acute phase) or in the following days (delayed phase). Despite the availability of several antiemetics, clinical findings show that control of nausea and vomiting continue to be a serious concern for hematological patients, mainly for those receiving multiple-day (MD) and high-dose (HD) chemotherapy (CT), for which no specific international recommendations have been formulated, due to the lack of a unanimous consensus between the main international guidelines. NEPA is the first antiemetic developed as an oral fixed dose combination of two drugs that are antagonists of two receptors involved in the control of nausea and vomiting: a new highly selective NK1-RA, netupitant, and a second generation 5HT3-RA, palonosetron, that simplify the antiemetic regimen allowing for a lower number of capsules and days of treatment. In clinical practice, NEPA is administered together with dexamethasone that contributes to CINV prophylaxis by its intrinsic antiemetic properties. However, dexamethasone also exhibits an important immunosuppressive activity, which could lead to several adverse events, such as increasing the risk of serious infections, especially in patients undergoing myeloablative treatment. The rational of this study was to explore the efficacy of multiple doses of NEPA given with an every-other-day regimen without dexamethasone in preventing CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and treated with MD-HD-CT. The chemotherapy regimen (BEAM/FEAM) was administered for 6 days, NEPA was taken on day 1, 3 and 5, and nausea and vomiting were monitored up to day 15. No dexamethasone was given for antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a Complete Response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase, defined as the period from day 1 (first day of chemotherapy) until 2 days after the last dose of chemotherapy. Seventy patients participated to the study. According to the adopted Fleming one-stage design, the primary endpoint of this study was achieved. Indeed, the number of complete responders for the overall phase was 60, which is greater than the predetermined cut-off of 42, representing the minimum frequency of responders for which the treatment is considered effective. In addition to the primary efficacy result, several additional endpoints were evaluated for the study period (Figure 1). 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 the complete control (CR with no more than mild nausea) was 85.7% (overall phase), 88.6% (acute phase) and 95.7% (delayed phase) (Figure 1A). Moreover, the percentages of patients that did not have any emetic episodes were 88.6% (overall phase), 90% (acute phase) and 98.6% (delayed phase) and patients that did not require a rescue therapy for controlling CINV were 94.3% (overall phase), 94.3% (acute phase) and 100% (delayed phase). Daily records taken from day 1 to day 15 showed that values for all these categories were above 85% for all the days of observation (Figure 1B). Patients also documented the grade of their nausea according to the Likert scale. Moderate and severe episodes of nausea were reported by less than 10% for the overall phase and less than 5% in both acute and delayed phase and the daily values of no nausea were above 65% for each day of the treatment (Figure 1C and 1D). Indeed, the mean patient global satisfaction for the antiemetic prophylaxis for the study period was 9.13 ± 1.59 out of 10. Regarding safety, a total of 12 Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) occurred in 6 (8.6%) subjects enrolled in the study. Among these, only 1 (8.3%, constipation) was evaluated as possibly related to NEPA administration. Moreover, the only two TEAEs classified as SAE (Serious Adverse Event) were two episodes of fever that have been evaluated as not-related to NEPA. Therefore, the safety profile of NEPA was confirmed also in this setting. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that multiple alternate dosing of NEPA without the addition of dexamethasone can effectively prevent nausea and vomiting in a difficult setting, such as MD/HD-CT with a good tolerability profile. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Acute care and hydration due to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving NEPA prophylaxis for anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC).

112 Background: In the US, the CMS OP-35 oncology outcome measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care involving nausea and emesis (NV) or 8 other toxicities as avoidable, with studies showing 15% of > 2500 patients receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy had avoidable acute care, of which 32% involved NV. Our aim was to evaluate resource use (emergency department [ED] visits, inpatient admissions [IP], or hydration) in a prospective trial of women with breast cancer who received combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) for CINV prophylaxis for AC-based chemotherapy. Methods: Women initiating AC received oral or IV NEPA + DEX. Pre-specified endpoints included safety, complete response, acute care (ED/IP), unplanned IV hydrations (as determined by investigator), days of CINV, and ≥3 days of CINV. We defined CINV as emesis or rescue drug use up to 5 days after AC, and defined concomitant ED/IP or hydrations in the same period as CINV-related. We limited our analysis to the first 2 cycles, the median duration in the NEPA study. Results: 402 patients received ≥1 cycle of AC and 391 completed 2 cycles. Nine patients had IP (none CINV-related), and 5 patients had a total of 6 ED visits (1 CINV-related). Three patients had a CINV-related unplanned hydration. Patients had ≥1 day of CINV in 172 of 793 cycles (21.7%); of these, the majority had symptom duration for 1-2 days, while 78 (9.8%) had ≥3 days of CINV in a cycle. Conclusions: In this prospective CINV prophylaxis study in women receiving AC chemotherapy, < 1% of women receiving NEPA + DEX required acute care for CINV and < 1% required unplanned hydrations for CINV. These rates are below previously reported CINV-related acute care rates for AC suggesting NEPA may help avoid CINV-related acute care. Clinical trial information: NCT03403712.

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70–80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT3) and neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact. Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT3 RA + NK1 RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care. Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.

Phase II Clinical Trial of NEPA (Netupitant/Palonosetron) for Prevention of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patient Receiving the BEAM Conditioning Regimen

The management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during preparative regimens for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HSCT) continues to be a poorly studied area and an unmet patient need. The primary aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of NEPA to prevent N/V both during and after HSCT conditioning. NEPA is a recently approved combination antiemetic, containing fixed doses of netupitant and palonosetron. Nausea, emesis, and nutritional intake, were evaluated from the start of conditioning through day 4 post-transplant. NEPA was administered Days 1, 3 and 6 of conditioning, dexamethasone (Days 1-6) and BEAM (Carmustine (300 mg/m2 D1), Etoposide/Cytarabine (200/400 mg/m2 D2-5), Melphalan (140 mg/m2 D 6)) preparative regimen (Days 1-6) in 17 patients. Patient nausea and emesis was self-reported using daily assessments and rescue therapy was determined using chart review. Two out of 17 patients experienced emesis (11.7%) after all chemotherapy was completed with no emesis in any patient during chemotherapy. During the observation period, 6 patients did not receive rescue medications (35%) and time to first rescue in other patients was a mean of 188.9 hours from the start of chemotherapy (median 172.4, SD 89 hrs). Responses were classified as either complete (CR) or major (MR), with CR defined as: no emesis, mild-moderate nausea for hours 0-264 (6 days of chemotherapy and 5 days post-chemotherapy), and (MR) defined as: 1-2 emesis on only 1 day with any level nausea or no emesis with severe nausea. Five out of 16 patients reported CR (31%) and 11 reported a major response (69%) at their end of treatment (EOT) visit. One patient did not participate in the EOT visit. The patient population in this study was 47% female, 100% Caucasian, the average age was 62 years old and the following diagnoses were included: Peripheral T-cell Lymphoma (24%), Hodgkin lymphoma (23%), mantle cell lymphoma (29%), and Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (24%). The following expected adverse events were reported amongst 17 treated patients: anemia (82%); neutropenia (65%); lymphocyte decrease (94%); decreased neutrophils (94%); white blood cell decrease (88%); abdominal pain (59%); constipation (53%); diarrhea (59%); abdominal cramping (35%); nausea (82% all grades); bacteremia (29%); hypophosphatemia (24%); and hypokalemia (29%). Constipation was deemed possibly related to NEPA; additional reported adverse events were not related to study drug. In this interim analysis, NEPA plus dexamethasone was effective in preventing emesis with BEAM conditioning with no increase in adverse events prior to HSCT.

NEPA (netupitant + palonosetron) Administration Is Safe and Effective in cHL Patients Receiving ABVD Regimen: A Single-Center Real Life Experience

BACKGROUNDIn the setting of cHL, ABVD (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) is the most widely used first line chemotherapeutic treatment and it is well known that this regimen is associated with a high emetic risk (HEC). Palonosetron (PALO) currently represents one of the most effective and implemented drug for CINV prevention, but after many ABVD cycles patients (pts) frequently need to add other antiemetic drugs to obtain a good control of their symptoms. Netupitant (NETU) is the NK1-RA (neurokinin receptor antagonist) component of NEPA, the first antiemetic drug available as oral fixed combination: NETU (300mg) + PALO (0.5mg). Both ABVD drugs and NETU are metabolized by cytochrome P-450 isoform 3A4 (CYP3A4), but respect to other NK1-receptor antagonist available, NETU has demonstrated to have no clinical relevant interaction with chemotherapy drugs like etoposide, cyclophosphamide and docetaxel. However, no data are currently available about the safety profile of NETU in the setting of ABVD treatment; for that reason we started the use of this drug as salvage therapy after PALO failure.METHODSWe retrospectively analyzed the cHL pts treated with ABVD at our Center from September 2016 to January 2018. We used PALO + dexamethasone as first-line anti-CINV prophylaxis, while NEPA was introduced as salvage drug for those pts with inadequately controlled CINV.We collected data regarding demographics; diagnosis; planned chemotherapeutic treatment; performed chemotherapeutic treatment; acute, delayed and anticipatory CINV (before and after NEPA); laboratory findings including transaminases, creatinine and electrolytes (before and after NEPA); adverse reactions (before and after NEPA).The primary endpoint of the study was safety of NEPA in ABVD treated pts, while CINV control (no nausea or vomiting) was the secondary endpoint. NEPA-related safety data have been compared to the same data collected at the moment of the last previous PALO-containing regimen.RESULTSAmong the 32 pts treated with ABVD during the study period, 13 (41%) received NEPA.Three pts were males and 10 females, and median age was 33 years (range 18-61). According to disease characteristics at diagnosis the planned ABVD administrations were 12 (6 cycles) in 9 pts, 8 (4 cycles) in 3 pts and 4 (2 cycles) in 1 pt. Nine pts completed the planned chemotherapy, 1 pt skipped the last cycle for personal decision, 3 pts are ongoing treatment at the time of analysis.Reasons for shift to NEPA are as follows: acute (grade 2) CINV alone in 3/13 pts; late (grade 2) CINV alone in 3/13 pts; combined acute (4 grade 2, 1 grade 1) and late (4 grade 2, 1 grade 1) CINV in 5/13 pts; combined anticipatory (grade 1), acute (grade 1) and late (grade 2) CINV in 2/13 pts.NEPA was started after a median of 4 ABVD administrations (range 1-10). Globally 53 NEPA administrations were delivered during subsequent cycles (median number of 3 NEPA administrations for each pt, range 1-11).With regard to the primary endpoint, the observed adverse events are listed in Table 1.With regard to the secondary endpoint, anticipatory, acute and delayed CINV were detected in 15%, 77%, 77%, of PALO pts and 15%, 46% and 15% of NEPA pts, respectively (see Table 2)CONCLUSIONIn our experience NETU did not show drug-drug interaction with ABVD chemotherapy agents, and NEPA administration was globally well tolerated with mild and transient adverse events. Furthermore, in cHL ABVD treated pts who experienced nausea and/or vomiting after failure of PALO + dexamethasone antiemetic prophylaxis, NEPA has demonstrated to be effective in CINV control. In 4 out of 13 cases, after an initial improvement in CINV control, pts subsequently required to shift to anti-CINV third line treatments. On the other hand, the 9 pts who continued on NEPA administration could experience an optimal CINV control immediately after the first administration.At our knowledge no data have been published regarding NEPA toxicities in the ABVD setting. Our safety and efficacy data come from a real life experience of consecutive pts treated homogeneously at a single center and would suggest the use of NEPA as primary anti-CINV prophylaxis in previously untreated cHL pts. DisclosuresRusconi:Celgene: Research Funding.

Pro-netupitant/palonosetron (IV) for the treatment of radio-and-chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Prevention of nausea and vomiting is of paramount importance for ensuring that patients undergoing anticancer treatments have optimal quality of life. The oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) was developed to improve dual-targeted anti-emetic prophylaxis administration.Areas covered: This article summarizes the available evidence for the pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of the new intravenous formulation of NEPA (IV NEPA). The clinical role of NEPA and future perspectives for anti-emetic research are also discussed.Expert opinion: Each patient undergoing emetogenic anticancer treatments should receive guideline-consistent prophylaxis from the beginning of therapy. However, physicians may be nonadherent to guidelines in prescribing prophylaxis, while patients may be nonadherent in taking their medication as prescribed. Therefore, simplification of anti-emetic regimens with agents that are administered once per treatment cycle may contribute to improve guideline adherence by physicians and compliance with regimens by patients. IV NEPA may also help overcome potential logistical issues surrounding the oral administration of NEPA. While short-term olanzapine can improve control of nausea, it also causes transient but significantly increased sedation. This side effect as well as new evidence support further efforts to explore the overall potential of NEPA against nausea caused by either chemotherapy or concurrent chemo-radiotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral NEPA (Netupitant/Palonosetron), the First Fixed-Combination Antiemetic, in Patients With Gynecological Cancers Receiving Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

Patients with gynecological cancers are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after platinum-based chemotherapy (CT). NEPA (300-mg netupitant, 0.50-mg palonosetron) is the first oral fixed-combination antiemetic. Pivotal trials demonstrated the superiority of oral NEPA over intravenous palonosetron in preventing CINV after highly emetogenic (anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based [AC] and cisplatin-based [non-AC]) CT. This post hoc subset analysis considered patients with gynecological cancer receiving cisplatin- or carboplatin-based CT from 1 pivotal trial and from 1 multicycle safety trial to evaluate the efficacy of oral NEPA in preventing CINV. Single-dose NEPA was given before CT in combination with dexamethasone. The efficacy end points for the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (25-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) CINV phases after CT included complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (<25 mm on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale). Safety was also assessed. For cisplatin-induced CINV, NEPA achieved high CR rates (acute phase: >90%; delayed, overall phases: ≥85%). For carboplatin-induced CINV, NEPA was also highly effective, with high acute, delayed, and overall CR rates (cycle 1: >75%; cycles 2-4: >95%). No significant nausea rates were more than 90% and more than 80% in the acute and delayed phases, respectively, for patients receiving cisplatin or carboplatin. NEPA was well tolerated. Results suggest that oral NEPA is effective and safe in preventing CINV in patients with gynecological cancers treated with cisplatin- or carboplatin-based CT. Single fixed-combination NEPA is a convenient option for CINV prevention in high-risk CINV patients.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer: efficacy of NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron), the first combination antiemetic

PurposePatients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy are at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a distressing side effect of treatment. This post-hoc subgroup analysis of two pivotal trials evaluated the efficacy of NEPA in preventing CINV in subsets of patients with lung cancer who received cisplatin or carboplatin.MethodsIn each study, the efficacy endpoints complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (NSN; defined as a score of < 25 mm on a visual analog scale of 0–100 mm) during the acute (0–24 h), delayed (25–120 h), and overall (0–120 h) phases post-chemotherapy in cycle 1 (study 1) and cycles 1–4 (study 2) were assessed. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related AEs.ResultsNEPA treatment resulted in high CR rates across the acute, delayed, and overall phases (cisplatin: > 88% overall CR; carboplatin: > 75% overall CR), with higher CR rates for NEPA-treated patients than those receiving palonosetron; moreover, CR rates were sustained over multiple chemotherapy cycles (> 75%). High rates of NSN observed during cycle 1 (> 79%) were also maintained over multiple chemotherapy cycles. NEPA was well tolerated in all patients.ConclusionsNEPA appears to be effective and well tolerated in patients with lung cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, across the acute, delayed, and overall phases and throughout multiple cycles. As a highly effective oral combination antiemetic agent administered as a single dose once per cycle, NEPA may offer a convenient, simplified prophylactic antiemetic.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy

ObjectiveTo 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....

Efficacy of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) across multiple cycles of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: A subanalysis from two phase III trials

ObjectivesBreast cancer (BC) patients represent a high-risk population for experiencing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), since they frequently receive highly emetogenic anthracycline-cyclophosphamide–based (AC) chemotherapy, and are often female and young, two predisposing risk factors for CINV. Guidelines recommend the combination of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT3RA), and dexamethasone (DEX) for CINV prophylaxis in AC-treated patients. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of NEPA, a fixed combination of netupitant (NETU [NK1RA]) and palonosetron (PALO [5-HT3RA]) in BC patients from two phase III studies. MethodsOverall, 1460 BC patients received AC (Study 1) or non-AC (Study 2) therapy over 6060 cycles. Randomized patients received DEX with either NEPA or oral PALO (Study 1), or NEPA or aprepitant+oral PALO (Study 2) before chemotherapy. ResultsIn AC-receiving patients, overall complete response (CR) rates with NEPA+DEX were statistically significantly higher than oral PALO+DEX rates (cycles 1–4: 73.9% vs 65.9%, 80.0% vs 66.0%, 83.6% vs 69.9%, 83.6% vs 74.4%, respectively). Overall, no significant nausea (NSN) rates were also superior with NEPA+DEX vs oral PALO+DEX (respectively, 74.2%–79.9% vs 68.5%–74.9%). A greater proportion of NEPA+DEX patients experienced “no-impact-on-daily-life” due to CINV (78.4% vs 71.4%) in cycle 1. In non-AC–receiving patients, prophylaxis with NEPA+DEX resulted in high CR and NSN rates across 1–4 chemotherapy cycles; no formal comparison with the control arm was performed. ConclusionNEPA+DEX administered as a single dose is an effective option for preventing CINV in BC patients receiving AC and non-AC, across multiple chemotherapy cycles. Clinical trials registration numbersStudy 1: NCT01339260, Study 2:NCT01376297.

Abstract P2-11-01: Non interventional study with netupitant/ palonosetron (NEPA) as CINV prophylaxis in highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Abstract Background Nausea and Vomiting due to cancer therapy is still a problem for patients and physicians and therefore an ongoing item of research in oncology. International antiemetic guidelines (ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO) have been published and new drugs are introduced into the market. The fixed oral combination of the NK1-receptor antagonist (RA) netupitant and the 5-HT3-RA palonosetron (NEPA) was recently approved in US and EU for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The MASCC guidelines 2016 recommend a triple combination of 5-HT3- and NK1-RA and dexamethasone given on day 1 for patients receiving HEC, anthracycline / cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy as well as for carboplatin-based MEC for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Objectives The primary endpoint of this non interventional study is the evaluation of quality of life in adult cancer patients receiving NEPA for CINV prevention in MEC or HEC. Secondary endpoints are efficacy and safety of NEPA. Methods This non-interventional study evaluates CINV prophylaxis with NEPA and QoL in 2500 cancer patients receiving single day or two day MEC or HEC in an ambulatory setting in German cancer hospitals and specialized cancer practices. NEPA is prescribed in accordance with the EU marketing authorization. Quality of life is recorded by FLIE questionnaires. Efficacy - measured as complete response (CR, no vomiting, no rescue medication) –as well as additional medication, safety and adverse events (AEs) are documented by an online questionnaire filled by the physician and a patient diary. 3 consecutive chemotherapy cycles are documented online using the ODM QuaSi documentation system. All specifications in the online documentation must be verifiable. Results 700 patients from 175 centers (93 gynaecologic oncology, 79 medical oncology, 3 urologic oncology) are included to date. The majority of patients were women (88.7%). 71% of all patients had breast cancer. 92.6% had an ECOG performance status of 0-1. 77.6% received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Most common chemotherapy regimens were AC-based regimens (53.9%), carboplatin-based regimens (15.9%) and cisplatin-based regimens (12%). Efficacy data are available for 486 patients in cycle 1 and 350 patients over 3 cycles. During 3 consecutive chemotherapy cycles, 89% of patients had a CR on day 1 as recorded by patient diaries. In the delayed phase (days 2-5), 85% of patients had a CR. 93% recorded no vomiting during the entire 5 days at risk following chemotherapy and 69% reported no or only mild nausea. &amp;gt; 90% of the medical staff rated the efficacy of the CINV-prophylaxis with NEPA as good or very good over 3 cycles. Adverse events (AE), mostly constipation were rare and mild and only of grade 1 or 2. No serious AEs were observed. Summary NEPA is a safe and efficacious option for the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Citation Format: Schilling JP, Karthaus M, Klare P, Guth D, Ortner PA. Non interventional study with netupitant/ palonosetron (NEPA) as CINV prophylaxis in highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-11-01.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by risk profile: role of netupitant/palonosetron.

As recommended by most recent antiemetic guidelines, the optimal prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) requires the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) with an NK1-RA. Moreover, the major predictors of acute and delayed CINV include: young age, female sex, platinum- or anthracycline-based chemotherapy, nondrinker status, emesis in the earlier cycles of chemotherapy, and previous history of motion/morning sickness. Despite improved knowledge of the pathophysiology of CINV and advances in the availability of active antiemetics, an inconsistent compliance with their use has been reported, thereby resulting in suboptimal control of CINV in several cases. In this scenario, a new anti-emetic drug is now available, which seems to be able to guarantee better prophylaxis of CINV and improvement of adherence to guidelines. In fact, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a ready-to-use single oral capsule, combining an NK1-RA (netupitant) and a 5-HT3-RA (palonosetron), which is to be taken 1 hour before the administration of chemotherapy, ensuring the coverage from CINV for 5 days. We reviewed the role of NEPA in patients at high risk of CINV receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In these patients, NEPA plus dexamethasone, as compared to standard treatments, achieved superior efficacy in all primary and secondary end points during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, including nausea assessment. Moreover, these results were also achieved in female patients receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. NEPA represents a real step forward in the prophylaxis of CINV.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

211 Background: Prevention of CINV in the delayed phase (24-120 h post-chemotherapy) and over multiple cycles of chemotherapy remains a challenge. NEPA, a fixed combination of the NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) netupitant (300 mg) and the 5-HT3 RA palonosetron (PALO; 0.5 mg), has demonstrated efficacy in multiple studies, in both acute and delayed phases, during the first cycle of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively) regimens. Two clinical trials evaluated NEPA over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. We report data for the delayed phase for each cycle. Methods: Both studies were Phase 3, double-blind, active-controlled studies. In study 1 (MEC), patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a single oral dose of NEPA (n = 724) or PALO 0.5 mg (n = 725) on Day 1; following cycle 1, patients could participate in a multi-cycle extension phase. In study 2 (MEC or HEC), patients were randomized 3:1 to receive a single oral dose of NEPA on Day 1 (n = 309) or oral aprepitant (APR) 125 mg plus oral PALO 0.5 mg on Day 1, then APR 80 mg/d on days 2 and 3 of each cycle (n = 103). In both studies, all patients also received dexamethasone. Efficacy endpoints included complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) and no significant nausea. Results: In both studies, CR rates were consistently numerically higher with NEPA (Study 1 range: 77%-89%; Study 2 range: 83%-93%) than with PALO (Study 1; range: 69%-83%) or APR/PALO (Study 2; range: 78%-88%) in each cycle up to cycle 6 (Table). In both studies, rates of no significant nausea in the NEPA group were similar to or higher than in the control group. NEPA was well tolerated in both studies; treatment-related adverse events included constipation and headache. Conclusions: These studies demonstrate sustained efficacy of NEPA (administered as a single dose on Day 1) across multiple cycles of MEC or HEC for prevention of CINV in the delayed phase. Clinical trial information: 2009-016775-30; 2010-023297-39. [Table: see text]

Mechanisms and latest clinical studies of new NK1 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Rolapitant and NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron).

Many patients undergoing moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy experience chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) and report reduced daily functioning, despite prophylaxis with antiemetic drugs. While modern antiemetics have largely alleviated acute emesis, management of nausea and delayed emesis remains particularly challenging. We briefly review the pathophysiologic mechanisms of CINV and the clinical impact of current antiemetics, i.e., the serotonin subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 (NK1)RAs, before summarizing recent data from clinical trials of new agents. The new antiemetics reviewed include the two most recently approved drugs, the NK1RA rolapitant and the fixed-dose combination product, NEPA, which is composed of the NK1RA netupitant and the 5-HT3RA palonosetron. Phase 3 studies demonstrate improved control of CINV in the delayed and overall phases when rolapitant is added to a standard 5-HT3RA regimen. Phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials with NEPA demonstrate improved control of CINV in the acute, delayed, and overall phases vs. 5-HT3RA regimens. These data suggest that delayed emesis can be substantially reduced via combined 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor neurotransmitter pathway inhibition.

Prophylactic treatment for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after non-AC based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

PurposeDelayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important adverse effect of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy not containing anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide (non-AC MEC). In this review, we summarize current literature to update recommendations for delayed CINV prophylaxis after non-AC MEC.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in PubMed and conference proceedings from ASCO, ESMO, and MASCC. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of two or more antiemetic strategies in the prevention of delayed CINV after the administration of non-AC MEC. At least one of the following endpoints was used: complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and/or no use of rescue medication.ResultsOur search provided 247 publications. Nine met the predefined criteria. Included RCTs reported outcomes on palonosetron, aprepitant, casopitant, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), olanzapine, and megestrol acetate.ConclusionsSuperiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV after non-AC MEC has not been proven. The addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists does not significantly improve the incidence of delayed CINV after non-AC MEC. The efficacy of a single-day regimen of dexamethasone with palonosetron is non-inferior to multiday dexamethasone. NEPA, olanzapine, and megestrol acetate show highly effective complete response (CR) rates.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2778-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.