Back to Search Start Over

Phase III safety study of intravenous NEPA: a novel fixed antiemetic combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Authors :
Schwartzberg L
Roeland E
Andric Z
Kowalski D
Radic J
Voisin D
Rizzi G
Navari R
Gralla RJ
Karthaus M
Source :
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology [Ann Oncol] 2018 Jul 01; Vol. 29 (7), pp. 1535-1540.
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />Conclusions: Intravenous NEPA was well-tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA in patients with various solid tumors receiving HEC.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1569-8041
Volume :
29
Issue :
7
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
29722791
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy169