Search

Abstract Introduction Non‐inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5‐HT3RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non‐AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0–120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long‐lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post‐chemotherapy. In this post‐hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention. Methods This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1–3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1–4. Patients were chemotherapy‐naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male

Introduction: Non‐inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5‐HT3RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non‐AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0–120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long‐lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post‐chemotherapy. In this post‐hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention. Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1–3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1–4. Patients were chemotherapy‐naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0–144 h) phase. Results: The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012). Conclusion: A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3‐day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AimTo assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles.MethodsTwo randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1-4 in each study were evaluated.ResultsIn Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P

Aim: To further evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of single-dose versus multiple-dose dexamethasone (DEX) against nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin. Materials & methods: Two similar non-inferiority studies were pooled. Patients were randomized to single-day DEX or multiple-day DEX plus palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase. Results: The combined analysis included 242 patients. The absolute risk difference between single day versus multi-day DEX for CR was -2% (95% CI, -14 to 9%). Conclusion: Administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in the setting of single-day cisplatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We describe the results of an exploratory analysis performed on the first head-to-head study (JapicCTI-194611) comparing two different intravenous (IV) neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonists, fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant, in combination with palonosetron (PALO) and dexamethasone (DEX) for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This analysis was performed to validate the findings of the primary analysis (previously published) utilizing a last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach for missing values for the efficacy endpoint of complete response (no emetic event and no rescue medication), while also evaluating the time periods encompassing the 0–168-hour (h) "extended overall phase" interval. Methods: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to fosnetupitant 235 mg or fosaprepitant 150 mg in combination with PALO 0.75 mg and DEX. Complete response rates were calculated and compared (stratified by age category and sex with a Mantel–Haenszel test) during the study's primary overall phase (0–120 h) and during additional time intervals of interest [acute (0–24 h), delayed (24–120 h), extended delayed (> 24–168 h), beyond delayed (120–168 h), and extended overall (0–168 h)]. Results: A total of 785 patients were included (fosnetupitant N = 392, fosaprepitant N = 393). Complete response rates were numerically higher for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant for all time intervals and statistically significant for the extended overall phase. Complete response rates for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant during the overall, acute, delayed, extended delayed, beyond delayed, and extended overall phases were 75.5% vs. 71.0% (p = 0.1530), 93.9% vs. 92.6% (p = 0.4832), 77.0% vs. 72.8% (p = 0.1682), 74.7% vs. 68.4% (p = 0.0506), 86.7% vs. 81.7% (p = 0.0523), and 73.5% vs. 66.9% (p = 0.0450), respectively. Conclusion: In this exploratory analysis, fosnetupitant appeared to be more effective than fosaprepitant in preventing CINV associated with cisplatin-based HEC during the extended 7-day period following chemotherapy. Infographic: [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]

Abstract NEPA is the only fixed combination antiemetic, comprised of an NK1RA (netupitant) and a 5‐HT3RA (palonosetron). In the first head‐to‐head trial to compare NK1RA‐containing regimens, a single oral dose of NEPA was non‐inferior to a 3‐day aprepitant/granisetron (APR/GRAN) regimen for the primary endpoint of overall (0‐120 hours) complete response (no emesis/no rescue). This pre‐specified analysis evaluates the efficacy of NEPA versus APR/GRAN in the subset of Chinese patients in the study. In addition, efficacy in patients at greatest emetic risk receiving high‐dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) was explored. Chemotherapy‐naïve patients with solid tumors in this randomized, double‐blind study received either a single dose of NEPA prior to cisplatin‐based chemotherapy or a 3‐day regimen of APR/GRAN, both with dexamethasone on Days 1‐4. Efficacy was evaluated through complete response, no emesis, and no significant nausea rates during the acute (0‐24 hours), delayed (25‐120 hours) and overall phases as well as individual days post‐chemotherapy, as the daily course of CINV protection is often unstudied. The Chinese subset included 667 patients; of these, 363 (54%) received high‐dose cisplatin. Baseline characteristics were comparable. While response rates were similar for NEPA and APR/GRAN during the acute, delayed and overall phases, significantly fewer NEPA patients experienced breakthrough CINV on individual Days 3‐5 in both the Chinese patients and also in those receiving high‐dose cisplatin. As a fixed oral NK1RA/5HT3RA combination given once/cycle, NEPA is a convenient highly effective prophylactic antiemetic that may offer better protection from CINV than a 3‐day APR/GRAN regimen on Days 3‐5 following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Abstract Background NEPA 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. Methods In 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. Results Of 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). Conclusion The 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 registration This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier ( NCT03862144 ) on 05/Mar/2019.

Aim: In the absence of comparative studies, guidelines consider neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (RAs) as interchangeable. We evaluated the pooled efficacy from three cisplatin registration trials, each with arms containing netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), a fixed neurokinin 1 RA (netupitant)/serotonin Type 3 (5-HT3) RA (palonosetron) combination, and an aprepitant (APR) regimen. Materials & methods: Efficacy data were pooled for rates of complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication), complete protection (CR + no significant nausea), total control (CR + no nausea) and no significant nausea during acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases post chemotherapy. Results: Among 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, response rates were similar for the acute phase, and generally favored NEPA during delayed and overall phases. CR rates for NEPA versus APR were 88.4 versus 89.2%, 81.8 versus 76.9% (p < 0.05) and 78.4 versus 75.0% during the acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. Conclusion: Oral NEPA administered on day 1 was more effective than a 3-day APR regimen in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Aim To assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant‐palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles. Methods Two randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy‐naive patients receiving anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)–based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2‐3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0‐24 h) and delayed (>24‐120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1‐4 in each study were evaluated. Results In Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P

Context: Palonosetron (PALO) is one of the two active components of NEPA, the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (IV) and PALO. To increase the convenience of NEPA administration, especially for patients with swallowing difficulties, an IV NEPA formulation has been developed, where PALO is administered as a 30-minute infusion instead of the approved 30-second bolus.Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of the PALO component used in IV NEPA.Methods: Noninferiority, double-blind, and randomized Phase 3 trial in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with cancer requiring highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of PALO 0.25 mg administered IV either as a 30-minute infusion or as a 30-second bolus before highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of the 30-minute infusion vs. 30-second bolus in terms of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints were CR in the delayed and overall phases and no emesis and no rescue medication in all phases. Safety was a secondary endpoint.Results: Overall, 440 patients received study treatment. In the infusion group, 186 (82.7%) patients reported CR in the acute phase vs. 186 (86.5%) patients in the bolus group, demonstrating the noninferiority of PALO infusion vs. bolus (P < 0.001). Secondary endpoints showed similar results between the two treatment groups.Conclusion: PALO 0.25-mg 30-minute IV infusion was noninferior to 30-second IV bolus in terms of CR rate in the acute phase. These results support the use of PALO 0.25 mg as a component of IV NEPA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

NEPA is the only fixed combination antiemetic, comprised of an NK1RA (netupitant) and a 5‐HT3RA (palonosetron). In the first head‐to‐head trial to compare NK1RA‐containing regimens, a single oral dose of NEPA was non‐inferior to a 3‐day aprepitant/granisetron (APR/GRAN) regimen for the primary endpoint of overall (0‐120 hours) complete response (no emesis/no rescue). This pre‐specified analysis evaluates the efficacy of NEPA versus APR/GRAN in the subset of Chinese patients in the study. In addition, efficacy in patients at greatest emetic risk receiving high‐dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) was explored. Chemotherapy‐naïve patients with solid tumors in this randomized, double‐blind study received either a single dose of NEPA prior to cisplatin‐based chemotherapy or a 3‐day regimen of APR/GRAN, both with dexamethasone on Days 1‐4. Efficacy was evaluated through complete response, no emesis, and no significant nausea rates during the acute (0‐24 hours), delayed (25‐120 hours) and overall phases as well as individual days post‐chemotherapy, as the daily course of CINV protection is often unstudied. The Chinese subset included 667 patients; of these, 363 (54%) received high‐dose cisplatin. Baseline characteristics were comparable. While response rates were similar for NEPA and APR/GRAN during the acute, delayed and overall phases, significantly fewer NEPA patients experienced breakthrough CINV on individual Days 3‐5 in both the Chinese patients and also in those receiving high‐dose cisplatin. As a fixed oral NK1RA/5HT3RA combination given once/cycle, NEPA is a convenient highly effective prophylactic antiemetic that may offer better protection from CINV than a 3‐day APR/GRAN regimen on Days 3‐5 following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Antineoplastic 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. Aim: The 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 Review: CINV 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. Conclusion: A 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: NEPA 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.Methods: In 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.Results: Of 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).Conclusion: The 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 Registration: This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin‐1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5‐HT3RA, palonosetron] offers 5‐day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion‐site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting. Materials and Methods: This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double‐blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30‐minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only. Results: A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment‐related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment‐related injection‐site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0–120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles. Conclusion: IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection‐site reactions in patients receiving AC. Implications for Practice: As a combination of a neurokinin‐1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5‐HT3RA, NEPA offers 5‐day chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection‐site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA. Netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) is a combination antiemetic that offers five‐day prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting with a single dose. This article evaluates the safety and efficacy of intravenous NEPA in the setting of anthracycline/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV. [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]

Vito Lorusso National Cancer Research Centre, Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II, Bari, Italy Abstract: 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 antiemetic 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. Keywords: NEPA, netupitant, NK1, CINV, vomiting, risk factors

Background: NEPA, an oral fixed combination of the NK1RA netupitant (300 mg) and clinically/pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA palonosetron (PALO, 0.50 mg), is the first fixed antiemetic combination to have been approved. A single oral NEPA capsule plus dexamethasone (DEX) given before anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) showed superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over PALO plus DEX for 5 days postchemotherapy. The safety of NEPA was well-established in the phase II/III clinical program in 1169 NEPA-treated patients. An intravenous (i.v.) formulation of the NEPA combination (fosnetupitant 235 mg plus PALO 0.25 mg) has been developed. Patients and methods: This randomized, multinational, double-blind, stratified (by sex and country) phase III study (NCT02517021) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors assessed the safety of a single dose of i.v. NEPA infused over 30 min before initial and repeated cycles of HEC. Patients received either i.v. NEPA or oral NEPA, both with oral DEX on days 1-4. Safety was assessed primarily by treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and electrocardiograms. Results: A total of 404 patients completed 1312 cycles. The incidence and type of treatment-emergent AEs were similar for both treatment groups with the majority of AEs as mild/moderate in intensity. There was no increased incidence of AEs in subsequent cycles in either group. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was similar and relatively low in both groups (12.8% i.v. NEPA and 11.4% oral NEPA during the entire study), with constipation being the most common (6.4% i.v. NEPA, 6.0% oral NEPA). No serious treatment-related AEs occurred in either group. No infusion site or anaphylactic reactions related to i.v. NEPA occurred. No clinically relevant changes in QTc and no cardiac safety concerns were observed. Conclusions: Intravenous NEPA was well-tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA in patients with various solid tumors receiving HEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Co-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist, netupitant (300 mg), and the pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), has shown superior CINV prevention compared with PALO in cisplatin and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based settings. This study is the first head-to-head comparison of NEPA versus an aprepitant (APR)/granisetron (GRAN) regimen. Patients and methods: This randomized, double-blind phase III study conducted in Asia was designed with the primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of a single oral dose of NEPA compared with a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. Secondary efficacy endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN). Results: Treatment groups were comparable for the 828 patients analyzed: predominantly male (71%); mean age 54.5 years; ECOG 0-1 (98%); lung cancer (58%). NEPA demonstrated non-inferiority to APR/GRAN for overall CR [NEPA 73.8% versus APR/GRAN 72.4%, 95% CI (-4.5%, 7.5%)]. No emesis [NEPA 75.0% versus APR/GRAN 74.0%, 95% CI (-4.8%, 6.9%)] and NSN rates [NEPA 75.7% versus APR/GRAN 70.4%, 95% CI (-0.6%, 11.4%)] were similar between groups, but significantly more NEPA patients did not take rescue medication [NEPA 96.6% versus APR/GRAN 93.5%, 95% CI (0.2%, 6.1%)]. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to APR/GRAN. Conclusions: In this first study comparing NK1RA regimens and DEX, NEPA administered only on day 1 was non-inferior to a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in preventing CINV associated with HEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With constantly improving cancer therapies, patient's quality of life, the management of potential side effects and treatment-related symptoms have also made considerable progress. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still constitutes a major problem for many patients. New developments in the field allow a more comfortable administration of guideline-based antiemetic therapy and may further improve the control of nausea. Therapeutic options for the cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS), common in advanced cancers, are still limited and hampered by numerous side effects. Among these, targeting the ghrelin-receptor pathway could be a novel approach; however, data are still immature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Breast 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 (NK 1 RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT 3 RA), 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 [NK 1 RA]) and palonosetron (PALO [5-HT 3 RA]) in BC patients from two phase III studies. Methods Overall, 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. Results In 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. Conclusion NEPA+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 numbers Study 1 : NCT01339260 , Study 2: NCT01376297 . [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]

Objectives Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients with cancer. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of netupitant 300 mg, a new NK 1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron 0.5 mg, a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT 3 RA. This retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of NEPA in older patients. Methods Patients aged ≥ 65 and ≥ 70 years from one phase II and two phase III trials were considered. Chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant tumors were treated with anthracycline–cyclophosphamide (AC), non-AC-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (non-AC MEC), or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Following single-dose NEPA, patients received oral dexamethasone on day 1 (AC and non-AC MEC) or days 1–4 (HEC). Efficacy was evaluated through complete response (CR) in cycle 1. Safety was evaluated by AEs and ECGs. Data were summarized by descriptive statistics. Results Overall, 214 patients were ≥ 65 years and 80 were ≥ 70 years. A higher CR was observed in older patients versus the total population; in the acute phase > 90% of patients ≥ 65 years experienced CR. Efficacy was maintained over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. No significant nausea rates were generally higher in the older patients versus total population. Similar rates of AEs in the first treatment cycle were reported for patients ≥ 65 years, ≥ 70 years, and total population (72.9% vs 67.5% vs 70.0%, respectively). No cardiac safety concerns were raised. Conclusion NEPA is highly effective in older patients receiving MEC or HEC regimens. NEPA is also well tolerated, demonstrating suitability for use in older patients who may have comorbidities. [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]

NEPA is an oral single, fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective NK1 RA and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically/clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA. It delivers antiemetic guideline-recommended prophylaxis by targeting two critical molecular pathways associated with chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting. This Phase III study demonstrated the superiority of NEPA compared with PALO.Background Antiemetic guidelines recommend co-administration of agents that target multiple molecular pathways involved in emesis to maximize prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). NEPA is a new oral fixed-dose combination of 300 mg netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) and 0.50 mg palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, which targets dual antiemetic pathways. Patients and methods This multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel group phase III study (NCT01339260) in 1455 chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving moderately emetogenic (anthracycline–cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of NEPA versus a single oral dose (0.50 mg) of PALO. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 only (12 mg in the NEPA arm and 20 mg in the PALO arm). The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the delayed (25–120 h) phase in cycle 1. Results The percentage of patients with CR during the delayed phase was significantly higher in the NEPA group compared with the PALO group (76.9% versus 69.5%; P = 0.001), as were the percentages in the overall (0–120 h) (74.3% versus 66.6%; P = 0.001) and acute (0–24 h) (88.4% versus 85.0%; P = 0.047) phases. NEPA was also superior to PALO during the delayed and overall phases for all secondary efficacy end points of no emesis, no significant nausea and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea). NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile as PALO. Conclusions NEPA plus a single dose of DEX was superior to PALO plus DEX in preventing CINV following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in acute, delayed and overall phases of observation. As a fixed-dose antiemetic drug combination, NEPA along with a single dose of DEX on day 1 offers guideline-based prophylaxis with a convenient, single-day treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was designed to determine the appropriate clinical dose of netupitant (NETU), a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), to combine with the 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (PALO) in a fixed-dose antiemetic combination (NEPA). All NEPA doses provided superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared with PALO, with NEPA300 (300mg NETU + 0.50 mg PALO) being the best dose studied.Background NEPA is a novel oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant (NETU), a new highly selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) RA. This study was designed to determine the appropriate clinical dose of NETU to combine with PALO for evaluation in the phase 3 NEPA program. Patients and methods This randomized, double-blind, parallel group study in 694 chemotherapy naïve patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy for solid tumors compared three different oral doses of NETU (100, 200, and 300 mg) + PALO 0.50 mg with oral PALO 0.50 mg, all given on day 1. A standard 3-day aprepitant (APR) + IV ondansetron (OND) 32 mg regimen was included as an exploratory arm. All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1–4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall (0–120 h) phase. Results All NEPA doses showed superior overall CR rates compared with PALO (87.4%, 87.6%, and 89.6% for NEPA100, NEPA200, and NEPA300, respectively versus 76.5% PALO; P < 0.050) with the highest NEPA300 dose studied showing an incremental benefit over lower NEPA doses for all efficacy endpoints. NEPA300 was significantly more effective than PALO and numerically better than APR + OND for all secondary efficacy endpoints of no emesis, no significant nausea, and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea) rates during the acute (0–24 h), delayed (25–120 h), and overall phases. Adverse events were comparable across groups with no dose response. The percent of patients developing electrocardiogram changes was also comparable. Conclusions Each NEPA dose provided superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with PALO following highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, NEPA300 was the best dose studied, with an advantage over lower doses for all efficacy endpoints. The combination of NETU and PALO was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to PALO and APR + OND. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this multinational, phase III study, the safety and efficacy of NEPA, a convenient, fixed-dose antiemetic combination of netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron, a distinct 5-HT3 RA, were evaluated over multiple cycles of highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. NEPA was shown to be safe, well tolerated and highly effective over 1961 chemotherapy cycles.Background Safe, effective and convenient antiemetic regimens that preserve benefit over repeated cycles are needed for optimal supportive care during cancer treatment. NEPA, an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron (PALO), a distinct 5-HT3 RA, was shown to be superior to PALO in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after a single cycle of highly (HEC) or moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy in recent trials. This study was designed primarily to assess the safety but also to evaluate the efficacy of NEPA over multiple cycles of HEC and MEC. Patients and methods This multinational, double-blind, randomized phase III study (NCT01376297) in 413 chemotherapy-naïve patients evaluated a single oral dose of NEPA (NETU 300 mg + PALO 0.50 mg) given on day 1 with oral dexamethasone (DEX). An oral 3-day aprepitant (APR) regimen + PALO + DEX was included as a control (3:1 NEPA:APR randomization). In HEC, DEX was administered on days 1–4 and in MEC on day 1. Safety was assessed primarily by adverse events (AEs), including cardiac AEs; efficacy by complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue). Results Patients completed 1961 total chemotherapy cycles (76% MEC, 24% HEC) with 75% completing ≥4 cycles. The incidence/type of AEs was comparable for both groups. Most frequent NEPA-related AEs included constipation (3.6%) and headache (1.0%); there was no indication of increasing AEs over multiple cycles. The majority of AEs were mild/moderate and there were no cardiac safety concerns based on AEs and electrocardiograms. The overall (0–120 h) CR rates in cycle 1 were 81% and 76% for NEPA and APR + PALO, respectively, and antiemetic efficacy was maintained over repeated cycles. Conclusions NEPA, a convenient single oral dose antiemetic targeting dual pathways, was safe, well tolerated and highly effective over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• An NK 1 RA, 5-HT 3 RA, and dexamethasone are recommended to prevent CINV in patients at high emetic risk. • IV NEPA is an innovative fixed combination antiemetic, comprised of the NK 1 RA, fosnetupitant, and 5-HT 3 RA, palonosetron. • IV NEPA has had no associated injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions. • This paper presents the efficacy of IV NEPA relative to oral NEPA and also to historical data for other NK 1 RA regimens. This paper presents an overview of the efficacy of intravenous (IV) NEPA (fixed combination of the NK 1 RA, fosnetupitant, and 5-HT 3 RA, palonosetron) relative to oral NEPA and also to historical data for other NK 1 RA regimens. Data is compiled from 5 pivotal NEPA studies in adult chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors undergoing either cisplatin- or anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Additionally, data was reviewed from 10 pivotal Phase 3 studies utilizing other NK 1 RA regimens approved for clinical use. The overall (0−120 h) complete response (no emesis, no rescue use), no emesis, and no significant nausea rates for IV NEPA were similar to that of oral NEPA and were consistently numerically higher than historical NK 1 RA regimens. As a single-dose prophylactic antiemetic combination given with dexamethasone, IV NEPA is a highly effective and convenient guideline-compliant antiemetic agent which may offer a safety benefit over other IV NK 1 RA regimens due to its lack of associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]