
A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy‐Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy
Author(s) -
Zelek Laurent,
Debourdeau Philippe,
Bourgeois Hugues,
Wagner Jean Philippe,
Brocard Fabien,
LefeuvrePlesse Claudia,
Chauffert Bruno,
Leheurteur Marianne,
Bachet JeanBaptiste,
Simon Hélène,
Mayeur Didier,
Scotté Florian
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
the oncologist
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.176
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1549-490X
pISSN - 1083-7159
DOI - 10.1002/onco.13888
Subject(s) - aprepitant , palonosetron , antiemetic , medicine , chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting , vomiting , nausea , oncology , regimen , ondansetron , anesthesia , pharmacology
Background Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5‐hydroxytryptamine‐3 (5‐HT 3 ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5‐HT 3 RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK 1 RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK 1 RA, netupitant, and the 5‐HT 3 RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long‐lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head‐to‐head NK 1 RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non‐AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Materials and Methods This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single‐cycle, open‐label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single‐dose NEPA to a 3‐day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy‐naive patients receiving AC/non‐AC MEC in a real‐life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0–120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at −10%. Results Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, −2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant. Conclusion This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non‐AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3‐day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA. Implications for Practice In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK 1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK 1 RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head‐to‐head study comparing one NK 1 RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non‐AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single‐dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard‐of‐care.