9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Review of NEPA, a Novel Fixed Antiemetic Combination with the Potential for Enhancing Guideline Adherence and Improving Control of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Combination antiemetic regimens targeting multiple molecular pathways associated with emesis have become the standard of care for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) related to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapies. Antiemetic consensus guidelines from several professional societies are widely available and updated regularly as new data emerges. Unfortunately, despite substantial research supporting the notion that guideline conformity improves CINV control, adherence to antiemetic guidelines is unsatisfactory. While studies are needed to identify specific barriers to guideline use and explore measures to enhance adherence, a novel approach has been taken to improve clinician adherence and patient compliance, with the development of a new combination antiemetic. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of a new highly selective NK 1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and the pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT 3 RA, palonosetron. This convenient antiemetic combination offers guideline-consistent prophylaxis by targeting two critical pathways associated with CINV in a single oral dose administered only once per cycle. This paper will review and discuss the NEPA data in the context of how this first combination antiemetic may overcome some of the barriers interfering with adherence to antiemetic guidelines, enhance patient compliance, and offer a possible advance in the prevention of CINV for patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update.

          To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for antiemetics in oncology. A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and meeting materials from ASCO and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer were all searched. Primary outcomes of interest were complete response and rates of any vomiting or nausea. Thirty-seven trials met prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review. Two systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration were identified; one surveyed the pediatric literature. The other compared the relative efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists. Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours after treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. The Update Committee noted the importance of continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy. Clinicians underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as emesis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Guideline update for MASCC and ESMO in the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of the Perugia consensus conference.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin--the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group.

              In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons). Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Biomed Res Int
                Biomed Res Int
                BMRI
                BioMed Research International
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2314-6133
                2314-6141
                2015
                3 September 2015
                : 2015
                : 651879
                Affiliations
                1Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA 01805, USA
                2Institut Multidisciplinaire d'Oncologie, Clinique de Genolier, Case Postale 100, Route du Muids 3, 1272 Genolier, Switzerland
                3Department of Internal Medicine IV, Hematology/Oncology, Martin-Luther-University Halle/Wittenberg, Ernst-Grube-Straße 40, 06120 Halle, Germany
                4The West Clinic, 100 Humphreys Boulevard, Memphis, TN 38120, USA
                5Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Pasterova 14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
                6University of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1600 Divisadero Street, P.O. Box 1710, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Min Li

                Article
                10.1155/2015/651879
                4573229
                395fcb0e-fc53-4a5f-8f72-7715e368e64d
                Copyright © 2015 Paul J. Hesketh et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 18 November 2014
                : 20 February 2015
                : 25 February 2015
                Categories
                Review Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article