Search

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R–CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R–CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R–CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings. Methods: A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained. Results: NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125. Conclusion: By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is particularly challenging for patients receiving highly emetogenic preparative regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) due to the daily and continuous emetogenic stimulus of the multiple day chemotherapy. While studies have shown effective prevention of CINV during the conditioning phase with NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA)-containing regimens, there have been no studies evaluating antiemetic use during chemomobilization prior to ASCT. Methods: This multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study evaluated the efficacy of every-other-day dosing of NEPA administered during chemomobilization in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eighty-one patients participated. Results: Response rates were 77.8% for complete response (no emesis and no rescue use), 72.8% for complete control (complete response and no more than mild nausea), 86.4% for no emesis, and 82.7% for no rescue use during the overall phase (duration of chemomobilization through 48 h after). NEPA was well tolerated with no treatment-related adverse events reported. Conclusion: NEPA, administered with a simplified every-other-day schedule, show to be very effective in preventing CINV in patients at high risk of CINV undergoing to chemomobilization of hematopoietic stem cells prior to ASCT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Oral NEPA, the only fixed-combination antiemetic, is composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant (300 mg) and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (0.50 mg). This study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile of netupitant and its main metabolites M1 and M3, and palonosetron in Chinese subjects. Oral NEPA tolerability and safety were also analyzed.Methods: This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in healthy, adult Chinese volunteers. Eligible subjects received oral NEPA, and blood samples were collected on day 1 predose and at various time points up until day 10 postdose. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using noncompartmental methods. For safety assessments, adverse events (AEs) were monitored during the study.Results: In total 18 Chinese healthy volunteers received oral NEPA. Netupitant mean maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) [± standard deviation] of 698 ± 217 ng/mL was reached at 3-6 h, with a mean total exposure (AUC0-inf) of 22,000 ± 4410 h·ng/mL. For palonosetron, a mean Cmax of 1.8 ± 0.252 ng/mL was reached at 2-6 h postadministration, with a mean AUC0-inf of 81.0 ± 14.0 h·ng/mL. The most common treatment-related AEs in > 2 subjects were constipation (n = 9) and tiredness (n = 3). No severe AEs were observed, and no subject withdrew due to AEs.Conclusion: Following single-dose administration of oral NEPA in Chinese subjects, the pharmacokinetic profiles of the NEPA components were mostly similar to those reported previously in Caucasians. NEPA was well tolerated with a safety profile in line with that observed in pivotal trials in Caucasians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared and disturbing adverse events of cancer treatment associated with decreased adherence to effective chemotherapy regimens. For high-risk soft tissue sarcoma patients, receiving multiple-day chemotherapy (MD-CT), antiemetic guidelines recommend a combination of an NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA), and dexamethasone on each day of the antineoplastic treatment. NEPA is the first oral fixed-dose combination of a highly selective NK1-RA, netupitant, and second-generation 5HT3-RA, palonosetron. So far, no data has been published in literature about the efficacy of a single dose of NEPA in MD-CT.Methods: We performed a prospective, non-comparative study to assess the efficacy of one shot of NEPA plus dexamethasone in sarcoma patients receiving MD-CT. The primary efficacy endpoint was a complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120 h) in cycle 1. The main secondary endpoints were CR during the overall phase of cycles 2 and 3.Results: The primary endpoint was reached in 88.9% of patients. Cycles 2 and 3 overall CR rates were 88.9% and 82.4%, respectively. The antiemetic regimen was well tolerated.Conclusions: This pilot study showed the benefit of one shot of NEPA to prevent CINV in sarcoma patients receiving MD-chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The administration timing of antiemetic and chemotherapeutic regimens is often determined by regulatory indications, based on registration studies. Oral NEPA, fixed combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT3RA) palonosetron, is recommended to be administered approximately 60 min before chemotherapy. Reducing chair time for chemotherapy administration at oncology day therapy units would improve facility efficiency without compromising patient symptom management. The objective was to determine if oral NEPA can be administered closer to chemotherapy initiation without compromising patient symptom management.Methods: NK1 receptor occupancy (NK1RO) time course in the brain was determined using positron emission tomography; netupitant and palonosetron plasma concentration-time profiles were described by pharmacokinetic (PK) models; and the rate, extent, and duration of RO by netupitant and palonosetron were predicted by pharmacodynamic modeling. Clinical efficacy data from a pivotal study in cisplatin and oral NEPA-receiving patients were reviewed in the context of symptom management.Results: Striatal 90% NK1RO, assumed to correlate with NK1RA antiemetic efficacy, was predicted at netupitant plasma concentration of 225 ng/mL, reached at 2.23 h following NEPA administration. Palonosetron 90% 5-HT3RO was predicted at a 188-ng/L plasma concentration, reached at 1.05 h postdose. The mean time to first treatment failure for the 1.5% of NEPA-treated patients without complete response receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy was 8 h. Antiemetic efficacy was sustained over 5 days despite the expected decrease of NK1RO and 5-HT3RO.Conclusions: Results suggest that administering oral NEPA closer to initiation of cisplatin administration would provide similar antiemetic efficacy. Prospective clinical validation is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Antiemetic guidelines recommend co-administration of targeted prophylactic medications inhibiting molecular pathways involved in emesis. NEPA is a fixed oral combination of a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant (NETU 300 mg), and palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA. NEPA showed superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with oral PALO in a single chemotherapy cycle; maintenance of efficacy/safety over continuing cycles is the objective of this study.Methods: This study is a multinational, double-blind study comparing a single oral dose of NEPA vs oral PALO in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy along with dexamethasone 12 mg (NEPA) or 20 mg (PALO) on day 1. The primary efficacy endpoint was delayed (25-120 h) complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the multicycle extension by calculating the proportion of patients with overall (0-120 h) CR in cycles 2-4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles.Results: Of 1455 patients randomized, 1286 (88 %) participated in the multiple-cycle extension for a total of 5969 cycles; 76 % completed ≥4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was significantly greater for NEPA than oral PALO for cycles 1-4 (74.3 vs 66.6 %, 80.3 vs 66.7 %, 83.8 vs 70.3 %, and 83.8 vs 74.6 %, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 each cycle). The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over all 4 cycles was also greater for NEPA (p < 0.0001). NEPA was well tolerated over cycles.Conclusions: NEPA, a convenient, guideline-consistent, fixed antiemetic combination is effective and safe over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Antiemetic guideline recommendations are inconsistent as to whether a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) should be administered with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5HT3) RA + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving carboplatin. Patients receiving cisplatin routinely receive an NK1 RA-containing regimen with a resulting 14-22 % benefit in no emesis rates over a 5-HT3 RA/DEX control. Recent studies suggest a similar benefit in patients receiving carboplatin. NEPA is the first fixed antiemetic combination agent and comprises the highly selective NK1 RA, netupitant, and pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (PALO). This paper presents the efficacy of NEPA in the subset of patients receiving carboplatin in a phase 3 trial (NCT01376297), in the context of aprepitant (APR) data in the carboplatin setting.Methods: One hundred ninety-six patients (47 % of all study patients: n = 145 NEPA + DEX; n = 51 APR + PALO + DEX) received carboplatin in a multinational, double-blind, randomized phase 3 study. Complete response (CR: no emesis/rescue) and no significant nausea (NSN: score ≤25 on 100 mm visual analog scale) rates were calculated.Results: Cycle 1-4 overall (0-120 h) CR rates were similar for NEPA (80, 91, 92, and 93 %) and APR (82, 88, 88, and 90 %). Overall NSN rates were also similar (NEPA 84-96 %; APR 82-90 %).Conclusions: Response rates for NEPA and APR regimens were similar and consistent with prior studies evaluating the contribution of adding NK1 RAs in patients receiving carboplatin. Considering such evidence, guideline groups/practitioners should consider giving a NK1 RA antiemetic triplet in patients receiving carboplatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting includes the use of both 5-HT and NK receptor antagonists. Acute emesis has largely been alleviated with the use of 5-HT receptor antagonists, while an improvement in preventing delayed emesis has been achieved with NK receptor antagonists. Delayed emesis, however, remains a problem with a significant portion of cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Like other drugs in its class, palonosetron, a 5-HT receptor antagonist, has shown efficacy against acute emesis. However, palonosetron has also shown consistent improvement in the suppression of delayed emesis. Since both 5-HT and NK receptor antagonists are often simultaneously administered to patients, the question remains if palonosetron's effect on delayed emesis would remain distinct when co-administered with an NK receptor antagonist. Recent mechanistic studies using NG108-15 cells have shown that palonosetron and netupitant, an NK receptor antagonist currently in phase 3 clinical trials, exhibited synergistic effects when inhibiting the substance P response. The present studies showed that both netupitant and palonosetron-induced NK receptor internalization in NG108-15 cells and that when used together receptor internalization was additive. Palonosetron-induced NK receptor internalization was dependent on the presence of the 5-HT receptor. Results provide a possible explanation for palonosetron's enhancement of the inhibition of the SP response and suggest that the effect of palonosetron and NK receptor antagonists on prevention of delayed emesis could be additive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK RAs) are commonly coadministered with a 5-HT RA such as palonosetron to prevent nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. Netupitant, a new highly selective NK RA, is both a substrate for and a moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4. Three studies were designed to evaluate the potential drug-drug interaction of netupitant with palonosetron and of the fixed dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, NEPA, with an inhibitor (ketoconazole), an inducer (rifampicin) and a substrate (oral contraceptives) of CYP3A4. Methods: Study 1 was a three-way crossover in 18 healthy subjects receiving netupitant alone, palonosetron alone, and the combination of both antiemetics. Studies 2 and 3 were two-way crossover trials where healthy subjects received NEPA (the fixed dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron). In study 2, 36 subjects received NEPA alone (day 1) and in combination with ketoconazole or rifampicin. In study 3, 24 healthy women received ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel alone or in combination with NEPA (day 1). Results: There were no significant pharmacokinetic interactions between netupitant and palonosetron. Ketoconazole increased netupitant area under curve (AUC) by 140 % and C by 25 %. Rifampicin decreased netupitant AUC by 83 % and C by 62 %. NEPA did not significantly affect exposure to ethinylestradiol, while systemic exposure to levonorgestrel increased by 40 %, but this was not considered clinically relevant. Conclusions: There were no clinically relevant interactions between netupitant and palonosetron, or between NEPA and oral contraceptives. The coadministration of NEPA with inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4 may require dose adjustments. Treatments were well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Netupitant is a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist being studied for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In vitro studies suggest that netupitant inhibits the cytochrome P-450 isoenzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4). Because netupitant may be used with a variety of drugs, which may be substrates of CYP3A4, two studies were designed to establish the potential risk for drug-drug interaction with three different CYP3A4 substrates: midazolam, erythromycin, and dexamethasone. Methods: Both trials were three-period crossover studies performed in healthy subjects. In the first study, 20 subjects received netupitant and either midazolam or erythromycin. In the second study, 25 subjects received netupitant and dexamethasone. Serial blood samples were collected over the course of the two studies and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for all analytes. Results: Netupitant, by inhibiting the CYP3A4, increased the C and AUC of midazolam by 40 and 144 %, respectively, and the C and AUC of erythromycin by 30 %. Netupitant was shown to increase the exposure to dexamethasone in a dose-dependent manner with the mean increase in AUC and C by 72 and 11 %, respectively, on day 1 and by 138 and 75 %, respectively, on day 4 when co-administered with 300 mg of netupitant. Conclusions: The results of these studies suggest that netupitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4 and therefore, co-administration with drugs that are substrates of CYP3A4 may require dose adjustments. Treatments were well tolerated in both studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]