Published January 1, 2017 | Version v.1
Journal article Restricted

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

  • 1. Breast Center, IMO Clinique de Genolier, Switzerland
  • 2. Department of Internal Medicine IV, Hematology/Oncology, Martin-Luther-University Halle/Wittenberg, Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120 Halle/Saale, Germany
  • 3. Jacobi Medical Center, 1400 Pelham Parkway South Building 1, Room 3N20, Bronx, NY 10461, USA
  • 4. Corporate Clinical Development, Helsinn Healthcare SA, PO Box 357, 6915 Pambio-Noranco, Lugano, Switzerland
  • 5. Corporate Drug Safety, Helsinn Healthcare SA, PO Box 357, 6915 Pambio-Noranco, Lugano, Switzerland
  • 6. Federal State Institution, Privolzhsky District Medical Center, Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia, Urology Department #2, Nizhny Novgorod 603001, Russian Federation
  • 7. St. Petersburg Clinical Oncology Dispensary, 3/5 Nizhne-Volzhskaya Nab, Nizhny Novgorod 603001, Russia
  • 8. Department of Supportive Oncology, Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Pasterova 14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
  • 9. Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA 01805, USA

Description

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

Notes

The authors would like to thank the patients, investigators, andstudy teams. The authors would also like to acknowledge ChristinaBalser, MD, for her contribution to the execution of the study andmanuscript preparation. The trials described within this paper weresponsored by Helsinn Healthcare SA, Lugano, Switzerland. Editorialand medical writing assistance was provided by Joanne Franklin, PhD,CMPP, TRM Oncology, The Hague, The Netherlands, and funded byHelsinn Healthcare SA, Lugano, Switzerland. The authors are responsiblefor all content and editorial decisions for this manuscript.

Files

Restricted

The record is publicly accessible, but files are restricted to users with access.

Additional details

Related works

Is identical to
20221861 (PMID)
Is part of
1879-4068 (ISSN)