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.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NK1RAs when combined with 5-HT3RA-dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron-dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin- or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone-metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant-dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NK1RAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant-granisetron-dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NK1RAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.

Incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients with colorectal cancer receiving irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study sought to prospectively determine the frequency of delayed nausea and vomiting with irinotecan-based chemotherapy following day 1 prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer aged ≥ 18 years with ECOG performance status ≤ 2 receiving irinotecan alone, combined with cetuximab or as part of a standard folinic acid, 5- fluorouracil, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen for the first time were eligible. All patients received a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone 8 mg on day 1 prior to irinotecan. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis was given. Antiemetic outcome was recorded in patient-completed diaries for the 120-h study period after irinotecan administration. Primary endpoint was frequency of delayed (24-120 h) emesis. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled, and all are evaluable. The median age was 61 (39-79) years; the male-female ratio was 37:7. Four patients (9%) experienced vomiting or retching during the delayed period. Three patients (7%) vomited during the first 24 h after irinotecan. The overall no emesis rate was 89% (39/44). Fifteen patients (34%) experienced delayed nausea (mildin 11 patients, moderate in four patients). Six patients (14%) took rescue antiemetics during the delayed period. Delayed and overall complete response (no emesis or use of rescue antiemetics) rates were 82% and 77% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone prior to irinotecan results in excellent control of nausea and vomiting (CR 86%) during the 24 h after chemotherapy. Without further antiemetic treatment, most patients (82%) will not experience delayed emesis or require rescue antiemetics. Routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis following irinotecan does not appear to be warranted.

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.

Cancer and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a focus on olanzapine.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: The purpose of review is to critically present the evidence supporting the use of olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, as an antiemetic for cancer and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). RECENT FINDINGS: Two phase III clinical studies demonstrated superior efficacy of olanzapine in comparison with the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RA) for substance P (aprepitant, fosaprepitant) in the prevention of nausea after highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine is inexpensive and the replacement of NK1RA with olanzapine can reduce the costs of the prevention of CINV. The addition of olanzapine to aprepitant-containing combination regimens for the prevention of CINV was also investigated, and has the potential to further improve the prevention of CINV after highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, without substantial increase in costs. In the treatment of uncontrolled ('breakthrough') CINV, olanzapine was more effective than metoclopramide. Existing clinical data also support the use of olanzapine to relieve a cluster of gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with advanced cancer (chronic nausea, vomiting, and anorexia). When used in cancer patients, olanzapine is well tolerated, with sedation being the major dose-limiting side effect. SUMMARY: Existing data from clinical trials justify further research of the role of olanzapine in the prevention of CINV. Olanzapine may be used instead of or in addition to NK1RA in the preventive antiemetic regimens. Olanzapine-containing preventive regimens may provide better nausea control after chemotherapy. When used instead of NK1RA it may also provide substantial reduction in costs of CINV prevention. In patients with advanced cancer, olanzapine was effective against a cluster of gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and anorexia). The use of olanzapine as an antiemetic for CINV, or to relieve nausea, vomiting, and anorexia in palliative care is currently off-label.

A Multifaceted Approach to Improve the Availability and Accessibility of Opioids for the Treatment of Cancer Pain in Serbia: Results From the International Pain Policy Fellowship (2006-2012) and Recommendations for Action.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in Serbia, and at least 14,000-16,000 patients experience moderate-to-severe cancer pain every year. Cancer pain relief has been impeded by inadequate availability of opioid analgesics and barriers to their accessibility. In 2006, a Serbian oncologist was selected as an International Pain Policy Fellow. The fellow identified barriers to opioid availability in Serbia and implemented an action plan to address the unavailability of oral morphine, attitudinal and knowledge barriers about opioids, and barriers in the national opioid control policy, in collaboration with the government, local partners, and international experts, including those from the World Health Organization. Collaborative efforts resulted in availability of immediate-release oral morphine, registration of controlled-release hydromorphone, and reimbursement of oral methadone for cancer pain; numerous educational activities aimed at changing inadequate knowledge and negative attitudes toward opioids; recognition of opioids as essential medicines for palliative care in a new National Palliative Care Strategy; and recognition of the medical use of opioids as psychoactive-controlled substances for the relief of pain included in a new national law on psychoactive-controlled substances, and the development of recommendations for updating regulations on prescribing and dispensing opioids. An increase in opioid consumption at the institutional and national levels also was observed. This article outlines a multifaceted approach to improving access to strong opioids for cancer pain management and palliative care in a middle-income country and offers a potential road map to success.

Severe skin toxicity observed with the combination of capecitabine and weekly paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Skin toxicity has recently been recognized as a dose-limiting toxicity of antineoplastic therapy. DISCUSSION: We report severe skin toxicity observed in anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients receiving the combination of capecitabine and weekly paclitaxel.