Phase III study of NEPA, a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Authors

Li Zhang

Li Zhang

Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China

Li Zhang , Shun Lu , Ji Feng Feng , Arunee Dechaphunkul , Salvatore Chessari , Corinna Lanzarotti , Karin Jordan , Matti S. Aapro

Organizations

Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China, China Jinagsu Province Institute of Cancer Research, Jiangsu, China, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand, Helsinn Healthcare SA, Lugano, Switzerland, Department of Medicine V, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany, Cancer Center, Clinique de Genolier, Genolier, Switzerland

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: Co-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize CINV control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a novel fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant (300 mg), and palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, has shown superior CINV prevention compared to PALO in cisplatin and AC-based settings. This study is the first head-to-head comparison of NEPA versus an aprepitant (APR)/granisetron (GRAN) regimen, with the primary objective being to demonstrate non-inferiority in preventing CINV. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, parallel group Phase III study conducted in an Asian population was designed to compare efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of NEPA with a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. Secondary efficacy endpoints included no emesis and no significant nausea (NSN: < 25mm on 100mm VAS). Results: Treatment groups were comparable for the 828 patients analyzed: predominantly male (71%); mean age 54.5 years; ECOG 0-1 (98%); lung cancer (58%). NEPA demonstrated non-inferiority to APR/GRAN for overall CR; no emesis and NSN rates favored NEPA. Most frequent study drug-related adverse events (AEs) for NEPA included constipation (8.0%) and hiccups (2.7%). The type/incidence/severity of AEs were similar for NEPA and APR/GRAN. Conclusions: In this first study comparing NK1RA regimens and 4 days of DEX, NEPA administered only on day 1 was non-inferior to a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in preventing CINV associated with HEC.

Overall (0-120 h)NEPAAPR/GRANRisk Difference %
% Patients(N = 412)(N = 416)(95% CI)
CR73.872.41.5 (-4.5, 7.5)
No Emesis75.074.01.1 (-4.8, 6.9)
NSN75.770.45.4 (-0.6, 11.4)

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2017 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Patient and Survivor Care

Track

Patient and Survivor Care

Sub Track

Palliative Care and Symptom Management

Citation

J Clin Oncol 35, 2017 (suppl; abstr 10090)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.10090

Abstract #

10090

Poster Bd #

79

Abstract Disclosures