Comparative effectiveness of netupitant-palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus aprepitant-based regimens in mitigating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), there remains a need to clarify the optimal use of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists. Comparing the effectiveness of NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron) plus dexamethasone with other NK1 antagonist-based regimens combined with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is crucial for informed decision-making and improving patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of NEPA plus dexamethasone and other NK1 antagonist-based regimens combined with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched, with the latest update performed in December 2023. Data on patient demographics, chemotherapy regimen characteristics, and outcomes were extracted for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were analyzed. NEPA plus dexamethasone showed superior efficacy in achieving complete response in the overall (risk ratio [RR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02--1.30) and delayed phases (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41) of chemotherapy. It was more effective in controlling nausea (overall phase RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.36; delayed phase RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40) and reducing rescue therapy use (overall phase RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-1.95; delayed phase RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.10-2.78). Adverse event rates were comparable (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.10). Subgroup analysis indicated NEPA's particular efficacy in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.60). CONCLUSION: NEPA plus dexamethasone regimens exhibit superior efficacy in preventing CINV, supporting their preferential inclusion in prophylactic treatment protocols. Its effective symptom control, safety profile, and cost-effectiveness endorse NEPA-based regimens as a beneficial option in CINV management.

Low dose of dexamethasone combined with netupitant and palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients induced by anthracycline drugs.

BACKGROUND: To study the effects of various courses of dexamethasone (DEX) combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RA) and NK-1 RA in suppressing high-grade nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy regimens (AC or EC) in breast cancer (BC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study was performed with 252 BC patients who received AC between January, 2019 and June, 2022 in our hospital. Patients were randomly separated into control Group (N = 130) who received DEX 12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg per dose on day 2-4 and observation group (N = 122) treated with DEX 5 mg per dose on days 1-4. The response was monitored. Primary study endpoint was complete resolution (CR) of patients nausea or vomiting; secondary study endpoints included acute CR and delayed CR; and complete control (CC), acute CC, delayed CC, and safety. RESULTS: All patients underwent six rounds of chemotherapy, and no difference was found in the clinical data. CR of acute/delayed phase was (94.3%/88.5%, P > 0.05), (89.3%/90.8%, P > 0.05); total CR was (80.3%/81.5%, P > 0.05); CC was (56.6%/59.2%, P > 0.05), (64.8%/67.7%, P > 0.05); total CR was (48.4%/53.1%, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The preventive antiemetic effects of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron combined with DEX 5 mg per dose on days 1-4, can be similar to DEX 12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg per dose on days 2-4, low-dose hormone with better safety, which is beneficial.

Risk Factors Associated with Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Women with Breast Cancer Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Individual Patient-Based Analysis of Three Prospective Antiemetic Trials.

Purpose: Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified in previous studies, only a few studies have evaluated the risk factors associated with contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis, including olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA-containing regimens. This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with CINV development in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Methods: Data from 304 patients enrolled in 3 previously reported prospective antiemetic studies were included. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV occurrence. Additionally, the likelihood of treatment failure in relation to the number of risk factors in individual patients was evaluated. Results: Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that obesity status (defined as body mass index/= 25.0 kg/m2) and the use of olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA-containing anti-emetic regimens were associated with a high likelihood, while a history of motion sickness was associated with a lower likelihood, complete response (CR), and "no nausea" in the overall phase. A history of vomiting during pregnancy was also associated with a lower likelihood of an overall CR. Patients with an increasing number of risk factors had a higher likelihood of treatment failure and shorter time to first vomiting. Those who did not achieve CR and "no nausea" in the first cycle were less likely to achieve these parameters in the subsequent cycle of chemotherapy. Conclusion: The present study confirmed previously reported risk factors for CINV in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Further optimization of CINV control is required for patients with identifiable risk factors; olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA- containing prophylaxis are the preferred contemporary anti-emetics regimens for Chinese breast cancer patients undergoing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Observational Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Akynzeo® in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in India.

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common and unpleasant treatment-related side effect reported by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Akynzeo® or NEPA (NEtupitant + PAlonosetron) is the first fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron that targets both critical pathways involved in emesis while providing a convenient, single oral dose therapy. The current study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of NEPA in a real-world setting in India. Methodology This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm study conducted at six different locations across India. The study included patients of either gender, aged ≥18 years, naive to chemotherapy, scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC), and scheduled to receive oral NEPA, as determined by the investigator. Results A total of 360 people were screened and enrolled in the study. HEC was prescribed to 289 (81.64%) patients, while MEC was prescribed to 65 (18.36%) patients. Complete response was achieved in 94.92% of patients during the acute phase, 95.20% during the delayed phase, and 93.22% during the overall phase. During the overall phase, 92.73% and 95.38% of patients on the HEC and MEC regimens, respectively, achieved complete response. Adverse events were reported in 3.88% of patients. Conclusions Oral NEPA was found to be effective in the Indian real-world setting, eliciting a >90% complete response with HEC and MEC regimens across the acute, delayed, and overall phases.

Characteristics of nausea and its impact on health-related quality of life in cisplatin-treated patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing prophylaxis: an analysis of the LUNG-NEPA study.

PURPOSE: We investigated the intensity and duration of nausea as well as its impact on health-related quality of life among cisplatin-treated patients who participated in a study of dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens based on NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron). METHODS: This retrospective analysis included chemo-naive patients from a trial evaluating non-inferiority of DEX on day 1 (DEX1 arm) combined with NEPA, compared with the same regimen with DEX administered on days 1-4 (DEX4; reference arm) following cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) administration. Nausea intensity was self-rated using a four-point Likert scale. Extended nausea duration was considered ≥ 3 days within the 5 days post-chemotherapy. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on day 6. RESULTS: In the DEX1 arm, more patients (20/76) experienced acute nausea, influencing the outcome of delayed nausea (38/76). During days 1 to 5, 51.3% (39/76) and 39.5% (30/76) of patients experienced nausea in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms, respectively (P = 0.192). Of these, 43.6% and 60% reported moderate-to-severe nausea, respectively, in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms (P = 0.200), while 74.4% and 56.7% of patients experienced extended nausea duration (P = 0.122). Similar between-arm rates of nauseated patients reported an impact on daily life (79.5% vs. 70%; P = 0.408). In analyses stratified for antiemetic regimen, moderate-to-severe nausea or extended nausea duration was associated with an impact on daily life (P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite the higher incidence, there was no suggestion of any strong adverse effect of NEPA plus single-dose DEX on the characteristics of nausea as well as its impact on daily life in patients with cisplatin-induced nausea. Further prospective controlled study is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019.

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in solid cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is known to induce nausea and vomiting (CINV) in approximately 90% of cancer patients undergoing this regimen unless proper prophylactic antiemetics are administered. This study aimed to analyze the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen during the first cycle of chemotherapy and assess the compliance rate with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2020 provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The claims data encompassed 10 to 13% of inpatients admitted at least once each year. Patients with solid cancers treated with two HEC regimens, namely anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) and cisplatin-based regimens, were selected as the study population. We evaluated the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone and compliance with the NCCN guidelines. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to estimate the influence of variables on guideline adherence. RESULTS: A total of 3119 patients were included in the analysis. The overall compliance rate with the NCCN guidelines for prophylactic antiemetics was 74.3%, with higher rates observed in the AC group (87.9%) and lower rates in the cisplatin group (60.4%). The AC group had a 6.37 times higher likelihood of receiving guideline-adherent antiemetics than the cisplatin group. Further analysis revealed that, compared to 2016, the probability of complying with the guidelines in 2019 and 2020 was 0.72 times and 0.76 times lower, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that a considerable proportion of HEC-treated patients received guideline-adherent antiemetic therapies. However, given the variations in adherence rates between different chemotherapy regimens (AC vs. cisplatin), efforts to improve adherence and optimize antiemetic treatment remain essential for providing the best possible care for patients experiencing CINV.

Single-dose NEPA versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT3 RA, 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.

Epidemiology and clinical features of Hypnale nepa (hump-nosed pit viper) envenoming in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka homes 3 species of hump-nosed pit vipers including Hypnale Hypnale, H. zara and H. nepa from which, latter 2 are endemic to the country. Even though former 2 are the subject of several publications, no major clinical studies have been done regarding H. nepa bites. As these snakes confine only to central hills of the country, their bites are very rare. The objectives of this study were to describe epidemiological and clinical features of H. nepa bites. A prospective observational study was conducted for patients admitted with H. nepa bites to Teaching Hospital, Ratnapura, Sri Lanka for 5 years commencing from June 2015. Species identification was done using a standard key. There were 14 (3.6%) patients with H. nepa bites of which 9 (64%) were males and 5 (36%) were females. Their age ranged from 20 to 73 years (median 37.5). Seven bites (50%) occurred on lower limbs. Majority of bites (10; 71%) happened at daytime [0600-1759 h] in tea estates (8; 57%). Most patients (8; 57%) were admitted within 1-3 h from bite. Hospital stay was 2.5 days (IQR 2-3). Local envenoming was observed in all patients including local pain and swelling [mild (7; 50%), moderate (5; 36%), severe (2; 14%)], local bleeding (1; 7%) and lymphadenopathy (1; 7%). Nonspecific features were observed in 3 (21%). Systemic manifestations were found in 2 (14%) including microangiopathic haemolytic anaemia and sinus bradycardia. Two (14%) had myalgia. H. nepa bites frequently cause local envenoming. But, rarely systemic manifestations may occur.

Compensatory mechanisms from different exercise intensities in type 2 diabetes: a secondary analysis of a 1-year randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: This investigation aimed to determine the effect of different intensities of training on non-exercise physical activity (NEPA) and estimated thermogenesis (NEAT) from a 1-year exercise randomized controlled trial (RCT) in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on non-training days. Additionally, changes in NEPA and estimated NEAT in those who failed (low-responders) or succeeded (high-responders) in attaining exercise-derived clinically meaningful reductions in body weight (BW) and fat mass (FM) (i.e., 6% for FM and 3% for BW) was assessed. METHODS: Individuals with T2DM (n = 80) were enrolled in a RCT with three groups: resistance training combined with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) or high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and a control group. Of the 80 participants, 56 (completed data) were considered for this secondary analysis. NEPA and estimated NEAT were obtained by accelerometry and body composition through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: After adjustments, no time*group interactions were found for estimated NEAT in the MICT (ß = - 5.33, p = 0.366) and HIIT (ß = - 5.70, p = 0.283), as well as for NEPA in the MICT (ß = - 452.83, p = 0.833) and HIIT (ß = - 2770.76, p = 0.201), when compared to controls. No compensatory changes in NEPA and estimated NEAT were observed when considering both low-responders and high-responders to FM and BW when compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Both MICT and HIIT did not result in any compensatory changes in estimated NEAT and NEPA with the intervention on non-training days. Moreover, no changes in estimated NEAT and NEPA were found when categorizing our participants as low-responders and high-responders to FM and BW when compared to controls. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov ID. NCT03144505.

Concise or comprehensive? Predictors of impact assessment choices for electric transmission line projects.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures required in the United States and many other countries are often highlighted as a major hindrance to timely and efficient deployment of critical infrastructure projects. Under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act, a more extensive environmental impact statement (EIS) review can take several more years and cost much more than a succinct environmental assessment (EA). This not only affects the project in question, but also likely informs how-or whether-additional projects are pursued. Thus, understanding key predictors of the EA versus EIS choice sheds light on supply-side considerations affecting infrastructure deficits. Using the case of NEPA reviews conducted for 244 transmission line projects between 2005 and 2018 by two U.S. federal agencies in the western United States, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Department of Energy (DOE), this addresses the following question: What project features most predict whether EA or an EIS is used to assess a transmission line project? Drawing upon NEPA assessment guidance and agency NEPA records, we use a regression classification tree to analyze how protocols and project attributes relate to assessment choice. The result is essentially a null finding: transmission line length is by far the most important predictor of whether a project receives an extensive EIS or a shorter EA, with little predictive value provided by other attributes. While absolute project size undoubtedly influences impacts, the lack of further differentiation in what predicts use of EISs versus EAs suggests assessment does not simply respond to project details but also shapes proposal and design choices beforehand.

Retrospective Evaluation of a Dexamethasone Sparing Antiemetic Regimen: An Antiemetic Prophylaxis Study on NEPA (Netupitant Plus Palonosetron) for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Cancer Patients.

Background Corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone (DEX), have been extensively utilized for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, their usage is associated with a range of adverse events. In contrast, the combination of Netupitant Plus Palonosetron (NEPA) with a single dose of DEX provides comparable efficacy in preventing CINV over a five-day period following chemotherapy administration. This regimen offers the advantage of reducing the need for additional doses of DEX, particularly in the high-risk setting of HEC (Highly emetic chemotherapy). Objective To evaluate dexamethasone sparing anti-emetic regimen (single dose dexamethasone with NEPA) for prophylaxis of CINV in patients receiving HEC. Methodology This is a retrospective, observational, real-world, single-center study including data of 69 patients who received high-dose emetogenic chemotherapy and were administered DEX (8 or 12 mg) on day 1, with no dose of DEX on days 2, 3, and 4, combined with an oral combination of tablet netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg. NEPA was taken orally an hour prior to the start of the HEC cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR) which is defined as no nausea, emesis, or no rescue medication during the Acute (< 24 hours) and Delayed Phase (25-120 hours) of chemotherapy. Results The overall CR achieved in the acute and delayed phase for vomiting is 100% at all four follow-ups. The CR achieved in the acute phase is 95.7% whereas 98.6% of patients showed CR in the delayed phase respectively. No patient required any rescue medication. No acute and delayed phase of vomiting was reported. Conclusion A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers effective CINV prevention throughout five days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high-emetic-risk setting chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective.

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.

Efficacy of the dexamethasone-sparing triplet regimen for preventing cisplatin-induced emesis: a combined analysis.

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.

We aimed at further evaluating how well the corticosteroid, dexamethasone (DEX), works as measured in two similar clinical studies of single-day versus multiple-day DEX for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin, a cell-killing drug, which has high potential of triggering nausea and vomiting. In both studies, cancer patients were randomly assigned to 1-day DEX or multiple-day DEX (3­4 days) in combination with palonosetron (this antagonist attaches to a specific receptor for serotonin without triggering nausea and vomiting), and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs; they attach to the NK-1 receptor without triggering nausea and vomiting). The combined analysis of the two studies, which includes 242 patients, showed that a single dose of DEX is as effective as multiple-day DEX in terms of the number of patients achieving complete response (defined as no vomiting and no 'as-needed' use of antiemetics) during the 5 days after cisplatin administration. Therefore, administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in patients undergoing single-day cisplatin.

Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis. RESULTS: In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL. CONCLUSION: Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04201769 . Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Quality of Life Effects of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prevention: Real-World Evidence in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Anthracycline-Cyclophosphamide-Based Chemotherapy.

Introduction: In a prospective non-interventional study involving 2,173 patients, we showed that use of the oral fixed combination of netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy (Ctx)-induced nausea and vomiting has beneficial effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with various types of cancers receiving highly or moderately emetogenic Ctx. Here, we report on the effects on QoL, effectiveness, and tolerability of NEPA in patients with breast cancer exposed to anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based Ctx. Methods: This is a post hoc subanalysis of a prospective non-interventional study in 1,197 patients with breast cancer receiving up to 3 cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide and NEPA. NEPA administration was per the summary of product characteristics. Results: In cycle 1 of Ctx, a large proportion of patients (84%) reported "no impact on daily life" (NIDL) due to vomiting; 53% of patients reported NIDL due to nausea. The complete response rate was 86/88/81% in the acute/delayed/overall phase in cycle 1, and NEPA was well tolerated throughout the study. Conclusion: The real-world beneficial effects of NEPA prophylaxis on QoL were confirmed for patients with breast cancer receiving AC. NEPA was effective with a good safety profile in this patient population in clinical practice.

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Exploratory Analysis Comparing Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study (CONSOLE).

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.

Netupitant/palonosetron without dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with multiple myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-center experience.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent adverse events compromising quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, CINV prophylaxis is still lacking uniformity for high-dose melphalan (HDM), which is used to condition patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is administered with dexamethasone (DEXA) for CINV prevention in several chemotherapy regimens. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of NEPA, without DEXA, in preventing CINV in 106 adult patients with MM receiving HDM and ASCT. All patients had antiemetic prophylaxis with multiple doses of NEPA 1 h before the start of conditioning and after 72 h and 120 h. A complete response (CR) was observed in 99 (93%) patients at 120 h (overall phase). The percentage of patients with complete control was 93%. The CR rate during the acute phase was 94% (n = 100). During the delayed phase, the CR rate was 95% (n = 101). Grade 1 nausea and vomiting were experienced by 82% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Grade 2 nausea was reported in 18% and vomiting in 10% of patients. Our results showed, for the first time, that NEPA, without DEXA, was a well-tolerated and effective antiemetic option for MM patients receiving HDM followed by ASCT.

Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions.

Due to the continuous rising ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) used in modern societies-primarily from wireless technologies-that have now become a ubiquitous biologically active environmental pollutant, a new vision on how to regulate such exposures for non-human species at the ecosystem level is needed. Government standards adopted for human exposures are examined for applicability to wildlife. Existing environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the U.S. and others used in Canada and throughout Europe, should be strengthened and enforced. New laws should be written to accommodate the ever-increasing EMF exposures. Radiofrequency radiation exposure standards that have been adopted by worldwide agencies and governments warrant more stringent controls given the new and unusual signaling characteristics used in 5G technology. No such standards take wildlife into consideration. Many species of flora and fauna, because of distinctive physiologies, have been found sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. Such exposures may now be capable of affecting endogenous bioelectric states in some species. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that low-level EMF exposures have numerous adverse effects, including on orientation, migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance, defense, vitality, longevity, and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as 'habitat' so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. A robust dialog regarding technology's high-impact role in the nascent field of electroecology needs to commence. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards should be set accordingly for wildlife, including, but not limited to, the redesign of wireless devices, as well as infrastructure, in order to reduce the rising ambient levels (explored in Part 1). Possible environmental approaches are discussed. This is Part 3 of a three-part series.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron combination (NEPA) in preventing nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients undergoing to chemomobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation.

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.