Phase IIIb Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Initial and Repeat Cycles of Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide (AC) Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5-HT3 RA, 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 NK1 RAs, 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-HT3 RA, 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 NK1 RAs, 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 NK1 RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral NEPA (Netupitant/Palonosetron), the First Fixed-Combination Antiemetic, in Patients With Gynecological Cancers Receiving Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

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.

NEPA, a fixed oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron, improves control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over multiple cycles of chemotherapy: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial versus oral palonosetron.

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.

Safety of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA): Pooled Data From the Phase II/III Clinical Program.

BACKGROUND: Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures. RESULTS: Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare. CONCLUSION: NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity.

Efficacy benefit of an NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) in patients receiving carboplatin: supportive evidence with NEPA (a fixed combination of the NK1 RA, netupitant, and palonosetron) and aprepitant regimens.

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.

Efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron compared with IV palonosetron administered with dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid tumors receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron with intravenous (IV) palonosetron for the prevention of cisplatin-related chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: A multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolling adult chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant solid tumors scheduled to receive cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients received oral palonosetron (0.50 mg) or IV palonosetron (0.25 mg), each with oral dexamethasone. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of patients with a complete response (CR, no emesis/no rescue medication) within the acute phase (0-24 h after chemotherapy administration). RESULTS: Of the 743 patients randomized, 739 received study medications and 738 were included in the full analysis set. The CR rate in the acute phase was high for both groups (oral 89.4 %; IV 86.2 %). As this difference in proportions (stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method) was 3.21 % (99 % confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to 9.17 %), non-inferiority was demonstrated (since the lower limit of the 99 % CI was closer to zero than the predefined margin of 15 %). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to the study drug were rare (oral 3.2 %; IV 6.5 %). No TEAEs related to study drug leading to discontinuation were reported. CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of oral versus IV palonosetron was demonstrated. The CR rate in the acute phase was >86 % in both patient groups. The safety profiles were comparable.

Phase 3 Study of Palonosetron IV Infusion Vs. IV Bolus for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis After Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy.

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.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of intravenous NEPA, a fixed combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron, in cancer patients: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

NEPA is the fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron. The intravenous (i.v.) formulation of NEPA (fosnetupitant 235 mg/palonosetron 0.25 mg) was developed to enhance the convenience of NEPA administration. In a phase 3 study, i.v. NEPA showed acceptable safety with low risk for injection-site reactions. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of i.v. NEPA in cancer patients. This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received a 30-min infusion of i.v. NEPA plus oral dexamethasone (12 mg) prior to chemotherapy, and oral dexamethasone (8 mg/daily) on days 2-4. Twenty-four patients received the complete i.v. NEPA infusion volume. Fosnetupitant maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was reached at the end of infusion and decreased to <1% of Cmax 30 min later. Netupitant was rapidly released from its prodrug and Cmax of 590 ng/ml was reached at the end of fosnetupitant infusion, with a mean exposure (AUC∞) of 15,588 h∙ng/ml. Palonosetron Cmax was reached at the end of infusion, with a mean AUC∞ of 36.07 h∙ng/ml. The most common adverse events were constipation (29%), nausea (17%), and vasospasm (8%). No i.v. NEPA-related injection site reactions occurred. Fosnetupitant conversion to netupitant occurred rapidly in cancer patients. Netupitant and palonosetron pharmacokinetic profiles in i.v. NEPA were similar to those reported for oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA provides additional administration convenience. Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT 2015-004750-18.

Fixed combination of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron) for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy: Efficacy data from 2 randomized, double-blind phase III studies.

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 < 0.05), no emesis (all P < 0.05), and NSN (delayed phase P < 0.05 cycles 1, 2, and 4) reported across 4 cycles. In Study 2, oral NEPA had numerically higher CR and NSN rates in the acute and delayed phases than aprepitant-palonosetron in MEC/HEC patients. CONCLUSION: Oral NEPA was highly effective in preventing both acute and delayed CINV over multiple chemotherapy cycles of HEC, AC, and MEC regimens. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Study 1, NCT01339260; Study 2, NCT01376297.

Efficacy of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) across multiple cycles of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: A subanalysis from two phase III trials.

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 (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT3RA), 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 [NK1RA]) and palonosetron (PALO [5-HT3RA]) 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.

Safety and efficacy of NEPA, an oral fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, in older patients.

OBJECTIVES: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients with cancer. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of netupitant 300mg, a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron 0.5mg, a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA. This retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of NEPA in older patients. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 and ≥70years 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 ≥65years and 80 were ≥70years. A higher CR was observed in older patients versus the total population; in the acute phase >90% of patients ≥65years 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 ≥65years, ≥70years, 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.