Netupitant 300mg / Palonosetron hydrochloride 500micrograms capsules

Abstract 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.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 4.0

This systematic review critically evaluates the comparative efficacy of novel and traditional antiemetic agents in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC/HEC). The findings suggest that novel agents, such as netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), olanzapine, and transdermal granisetron (GTDS), offer comparable or superior efficacy to traditional antiemetic regimens, including standard options like aprepitant combined with 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. These novel agents demonstrate strong effectiveness in controlling both acute and delayed CINV and offer practical advantages, such as simplified dosing regimens and improved patient adherence, particularly in resource-limited settings. Additionally, traditional regimens incorporating aprepitant remain effective in preventing CINV. However, the review highlights the need for more direct comparisons between novel and traditional agents, as well as further studies evaluating novel therapies in real-world clinical settings. Future research should focus on larger, long-term trials to better establish the role of novel antiemetic agents and optimize CINV management strategies.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundThe effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis.Materials and methodsA literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP).ResultsThe difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs.ConclusionPalonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundPatients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) are commonly prescribed a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) as standard-of-care (SOC) antiemetic prophylaxis. However, in patients with an elevated risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to individual risk factors, prophylaxis with an neurokinin-1 (NK1) RA-containing regimen may optimise their antiemetic prevention. To address this unmet need for a more personalised antiemetic strategy, the MyRisk trial incorporated a predictive risk factor algorithm to select patients at increased risk of CINV who may benefit from enhanced antiemetic prophylaxis.Patients and methodsMyRisk was a phase IV, randomised, open-label, multicentre, multinational trial. Adult patients scheduled to receive three cycles of MEC with a high-risk CINV score were randomly assigned to NEPA (a fixed combination of an NK1 RA, netupitant, and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron) + DEX or SOC. The CINV risk score was calculated based on an algorithm that considered seven risk factors. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120 h) across three consecutive cycles.ResultsOf 401 randomly allocated patients, 388 were included in the efficacy analysis. The most common cancers were colorectal and lung; oxaliplatin and carboplatin were the most common MECs. Patients randomly assigned to NEPA were significantly more likely to experience a CR compared with SOC (odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.12-2.49, P = 0.012). The NEPA group had a significantly higher probability of CR, no nausea, no emesis, and complete protection (81.0%, 63.7%, 95.4%, and 71.8%, respectively) compared with the SOC arm (71.8%, 54.9%, 86.7%, and 62.4%, respectively) across three cycles of chemotherapy.ConclusionsWhen individual risk factors are considered before MEC, a three-drug regimen including NEPA provides superior CINV prevention across multiple cycles compared with the standard two-drug approach. These findings underscore the value of personalised risk-adapted antiemetic strategies and have practice-changing potential for optimising antiemetic control.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly impact the patients' quality of life. Whether the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) offers better protection than palonosetron against long-delayed (120-168 hours) CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) had not been prospectively tested.MethodsA multicenter, randomized clinical study was conducted in China. Patients scheduled to receive either HEC or MEC were randomly assigned (1:1) to GTDS or palonosetron, each in combination with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rate during the long-delayed phase (120-168 hours), stratified by HEC and MEC categories, to demonstrate the superiority of GTDS over palonosetron.ResultsOverall, 150 patients received either GTDS or palonosetron respectively. We found that the GTDS group demonstrated a significantly higher long-delayed CR rate (97.3%) than the palonosetron group (92%) (P = .04). This advantage was driven predominantly by the HEC subgroup (GTDS 97.5% vs palonosetron 90.8%, P = .028). No significant differences were observed between the groups for the acute (0-24 hours, 92.7% vs 90.0%; P = .412), delayed (24-120 hours, 80.0% vs 76.0%; P = .403), extended-delayed (24-168 hours, 80.7% vs 75.3%; P = .265), or overall (0-168 hours, 78.0% vs 74.0%; P = .417) phases.ConclusionA GTDS-based triple antiemetic regimen can effectively control CINV associated with HEC or MEC. It provides a convenient alternative route for delivering granisetron for up to 7 days, with superior efficacy in controlling long-delayed CINV.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04912271 (in-house ethic number: YBCSG-21-04).

Abstract licence: CC BY

PurposeNEPA, a fixed-antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, is available via two administration routes (oral and intravenous). A new oral suspension was developed to offer a more convenient option for patients. This study evaluated the bioequivalence between the oral capsule and the oral suspension.MethodsOpen-label, randomized, single-center phase I trial conducted according to a two-treatment, four-period, two-sequence replicative design. Two treatments were investigated for bioequivalence: a 10-mL oral suspension (Test [T]) and the hard capsule (Reference [R]), both containing 300 mg netupitant/0.5 mg palonosetron. Healthy individuals were randomized (1:1) to receive two doses of both Test and Reference formulations, in either T-R-T-R or R-T-R-T sequence. The primary objective was to demonstrate AUC0-t bioequivalence of netupitant and palonosetron after a single dose of Test and Reference formulations.ResultsIn total, 72 participants were included. The geometric mean plasma concentration-time profiles of netupitant and palonosetron were similar for the Test and Reference formulations. The AUC0-t geometric means of both analytes were similar for the Test and Reference formulations. The 90% confidence interval of the Test/Reference ratios for AUC0-t of netupitant and palonosetron were within the acceptance range for bioequivalence of 80-125%. The AUC0-t variability was moderate for netupitant and low for palonosetron. Both formulations were well tolerated.ConclusionThe NEPA oral suspension is pharmacokinetically bioequivalent to the capsule formulation in healthy individuals, with no new safety concerns. These findings support NEPA oral suspension as a potentially beneficial option for patients who prefer an oral suspension over a hard capsule and for those with swallowing difficulties. EUCT Number: 2023-504355-28-00 (25/08/2023).

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

BackgroundA phase II study evaluated a corticosteroid-free regimen (olanzapine, netupitant, and palonosetron) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The results showed control rates comparable to those of standard protocols, demonstrating its feasibility without dexamethasone. ■ Evaluation of a corticosteroid-free antiemetic regimen. ■ Primary endpoint: 46% nausea control. ■ Secondary endpoint: 68% emesis control. ■ Comparable to standard four-drug protocols.ObjectiveChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are highly prevalent adverse events that can lead to poor treatment adherence and a decreased quality of life. To the best of our knowledge, the complete omission of dexamethasone from any regimen for preventing nausea and vomiting has not yet been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a three-drug protocol without corticosteroids for preventing nausea and vomiting.MethodsThis prospective, single-arm, phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine, netupitant, and palonosetron in controlling nausea and vomiting induced by emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were assigned to receive olanzapine on days 1-5 and netupitant and palonosetron on day 1. No corticosteroids were administered. The primary endpoint was complete nausea control during the first 5 days after chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included complete emesis control (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) and overall complete control (no emesis, no rescue medication, and no nausea).ResultsThe complete nausea control rate was 46% (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.32-0.59). The emesis control rate was 68% (95%CI= 0.55-0.80), and the overall control rate was 46% (95%CI= 0.32-0.59).ConclusionThese findings suggest that omitting dexamethasone in highly emetogenic chemotherapy is feasible and results in nausea and vomiting control rates similar to those of the standard four-drug protocol. However, randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this hypothesis.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly impacts patient's quality of life and treatment adherence. This study investigated the efficacy of Generic Netupitant and Palonosetron tablets (Nykron) with dexamethasone single dose for CINV prophylaxis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Additionally, this approach aligns with the principles of the SHIELD study (Sparing High Efficacy Intervention for Low Dose Dexamethasone), which focuses on maximizing antiemetic effectiveness while minimizing dexamethasone use.MethodologyThis multicenter retrospective study evaluates data from patients who received HEC/MEC and were administered a fixed-dose combination of Generic NEPA (Netupitant 300 mg and Palonosetron 0.5 mg tablets, Nykron combi-pack) along with a single dose of dexamethasone (12 mg/8 mg) before chemotherapy. The data were collected from September 2022 till September 2023. Outcomes measured included complete response (no vomiting and no need for rescue medications), complete protection (no significant nausea (ResultsThe data of 372 patients was evaluated in which breast cancer was the most common cancer with 223 (59.95%) patients for which doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (192, 51.61%) was the most administered chemotherapy combination. The second most common cancer was gastrointestinal (GI) cancer with stomach cancer in 47 (12.6%), colorectal cancer in 4 (1%), and pancreatic cancer in 2 (0.54%). A total of 360 (96.8%) patients received an HEC regimen across the cycle, while only 5 (1.3%) received an MEC regimen. The regimen demonstrated exceptional efficacy with a 96.9% overall response rate across all cycles. Complete control rates for acute CINV were 92% and 90% for delayed CINV across chemotherapy cycles. Complete response rates remained consistently high (94%-98%) across all cycles and overall phases. Only 3% of patients experienced anticipatory CINV.ConclusionsThis dexamethasone-sparing Generic NEPA regimen showed remarkable efficacy in CINV management for HEC/MEC regimen-receiving patients, maintaining high response rates in both acute and delayed across all cycles. These findings indicate a potential paradigm shift in CINV prophylaxis, necessitating further investigation through prospective, randomized controlled trials to validate long-term safety and efficacy.

Abstract licence: CC BY