4.6 Review

Efficacy of intravenous NEPA, a fixed NK1/5-HT3 receptor antagonist combination, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during cisplatin- and anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy: A review of phase 3 studies

Journal

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY
Volume 157, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103143

Keywords

NEPA; Netupitant; Palonosetron; CINV; Antiemetic; NK1 receptor antagonist

Funding

  1. Helsinn Healthcare, SA, Lugano, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the efficacy of intravenous NEPA with oral NEPA and other NK(1)RA regimens, showing that intravenous NEPA has significant advantages in the treatment of nausea and vomiting, potentially offering a safer and more effective option.
This paper presents an overview of the efficacy of intravenous (IV) NEPA (fixed combination of the NK(1)RA, fosnetupitant, and 5-HT3RA, palonosetron) relative to oral NEPA and also to historical data for other NK(1)RA regimens. Data is compiled from 5 pivotal NEPA studies in adult chemotherapy-naive patients with solid tumors undergoing either cisplatin- or anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Additionally, data was reviewed from 10 pivotal Phase 3 studies utilizing other NK(1)RA regimens approved for clinical use. The overall (0-120 h) complete response (no emesis, no rescue use), no emesis, and no significant nausea rates for IV NEPA were similar to that of oral NEPA and were consistently numerically higher than historical NK(1)RA regimens. As a single-dose prophylactic antiemetic combination given with dexamethasone, IV NEPA is a highly effective and convenient guideline-compliant antiemetic agent which may offer a safety benefit over other IV NK(1)RA regimens due to its lack of associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available