Search

Background Antiemetic guidelines recommend co-administration of agents to maximize the prevention of chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting (CINV), however, the control of delayed CINV is still not satisfactory. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thalidomide in the prevention of CINV. Methods Of 89 patients enrolled, 83 chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (cisplatin 70mg/m2 ) were randomized into two groups: standard therapy group (ondansetron on day 1, metoclopramide and dexamethasone on days one to five) and thalidomide group (in addition to standard emesis prevention, patients received oral 100mg thalidomide on days one to five). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was the efficacy of thalidomide in controlling vomiting and nausea on days one to five post cisplatin, and the secondary end point was the safety of the thalidomide. Results No significant differences of complete response rates (no emesis, no use of rescue therapy and no nausea) were observed between the two groups, while the percentages of patients with complete response of delayed vomiting on day four and day five were higher in the thalidomide group, furthermore, the complete response rate of delayed nausea for thalidomide group and standard therapy group showed significant differences. Thalidomide group showed a similar safety profile as standard emesis prevention group. Conclusion Addition of thalidomide was generally well tolerated and improved prevention of CINV in patients receiving cisplatinbased chemotherapy to some degree, especially for delayed nausea.

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.