Dataset Information

Dexamethasone-Sparing Regimens with Oral Netupitant and Palonosetron for the Prevention of Emesis Caused by High-Dose Cisplatin: A Randomized Noninferiority Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline-consistent use of 4-day DEX.

Patients and methods

In this open-label, multicenter study, chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m² ), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (a) no further DEX (DEX1), (b) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (c) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) during the 5-day overall phase. The noninferiority margin was set at -15% difference (DEX1 or DEX3 minus DEX4). Secondary efficacy endpoints included complete protection (CP: CR and none or mild nausea).

Results

Two-hundred twenty-eight patients, 76 in each arm, were assessable. Noninferiority was met for both DEX-sparing regimens and the reference arm, with overall phase CR rates of 76.3% in each of the DEX1 and DEX3 arms and 75.0% in the DEX4 arm (95% confidence interval, -12.3% to 15% for each comparison). During the overall phase, CP rates were similar between groups.

Conclusion

A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers comparable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention throughout 5 days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high-emetic-risk setting of cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Implications for practice

Dexamethasone (DEX) has traditionally played an integral role in the management of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although generally considered safe, even short-term DEX use is associated with various side effects, and some evidence suggests that concurrent steroids may reduce the efficacy of immunotherapies. This study demonstrates comparable antiemetic control during the 5 days post-chemotherapy with a simplified regimen of netupitant/palonosetron plus single-dose DEX versus the standard 4-day DEX reference treatment in high-dose cisplatin. This represents a clinically relevant achievement as it not only simplifies antiemetic prophylaxis but also offers an opportunity to appropriately use in patients where caution with corticosteroid use is advised.

SUBMITTER: Celio L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8488764 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle. METHODS:In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12?mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2-4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined. RESULTS:Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552?cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio?=?0.65-0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4). CONCLUSION:The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019.

Project description:BackgroundFor the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea.Patients and methodsThis open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects.ResultsTreatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0?years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms.ConclusionThis study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510.Implications for practiceChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Nausea can be particularly prominent during the delayed period. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the available randomised evidence to assess the average effect of palonosetron plus one-day dexamethasone (DEX; also called the DEX-sparing strategy) compared with palonosetron plus 3-day DEX for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), focusing on delayed nausea. METHODS:Eligible studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Data on acute and delayed CINV were collected. Efficacy end points were complete response (CR; no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), complete protection (CP; CR plus no clinically significant nausea), and total control (TC; CR plus no nausea) during the delayed period (days 2-5 after chemotherapy initiation). All randomised studies comparing palonosetron plus single-dose DEX (with or without another active agent) on day 1 followed by either no further DEX or additional DEX doses (both alone or in combination with another active agent) qualified. RESULTS:Of 864 citations screened, 8 studies with 1970 patients were included in the meta-analysis. During the delayed period, the combined odds ratio (OR) for all comparisons was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.12) for CR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.03) for CP, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77-1.11) for TC in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (AC). The absolute risk difference (RD) computations for all end points in the delayed period did not exceed the threshold of -?4% (range, -?1% to -?4%). The effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. The absolute RD computations in the acute period did not exceed the threshold of 1% (range, 0 to 1%). For one-day vs. 3-day DEX, numbers needed to be treated in order for one additional patient to not experience CR, CP and TC over the delayed period were 100, 25 and 50, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis demonstrates that DEX-sparing regimens do not cause any significant loss in protection against not only vomiting but also nausea induced by single-day MEC or AC during the delayed period. These data should lead clinicians to optimise use of prophylactic DEX in clinical practice.

Project description:Ghrelin has well-known activity to stimulate appetite and weight gain. Evidence suggests that ghrelin may also have effects in reducing chemotherapy-induced emesis via growth hormone secretagogue receptors (GHS-R1A) in the brain. However, it is not known whether the stimulation of GHS-R1A has broad inhibitory anti-emetic effects. In the present studies, we used Suncus murinus to investigate the potential of the new and novel orally bioavailable brain-penetrating GHS-R1A mimetic, HM01 (1-[(1S)-1-(2,3-dichloro-4-methoxyphenyl)ethyl]-3-methyl-3-[(4R)-1-Methyl-3,3-dimethyl-4-piperidyl]urea), to reduce emesis induced by a variety of emetic challenges. HM01 (1 to 30 mg/kg, p.o.) antagonized emesis induced by cisplatin (30 mg/kg, i.p.) and by motion (4 cm horizontal displacement, 1 Hz) but was ineffective against emesis induced by nicotine (5 mg/kg, s.c.) and copper sulfate (120 mg/kg by intragastric gavage). In other experiments, HM01 (3 mg/kg, p.o.) enhanced the anti-emetic control of a regimen of palonosetron (0.01 mg/kg, p.o.) alone and palonosetron (0.01 mg/kg p.o.) plus netupitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.). HM01 (10 mg/kg, p.o.) also had positive effects in increasing feeding and drinking in nicotine-treated animals, and it shortened the latency to drink in animals treated with cisplatin. These data indicate that brain-penetrating GHS-R1A agonists may have use alone and/or in combination with standard anti-emetic regimens for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and motion sickness. Highlights:- The novel orally bioavailable brain-penetrating GHS-R1A agonist, HM01 (1-[(1S)-1-(2,3-dichloro-4-methoxyphenyl)ethyl]-3-methyl-3-[(4R)-1-Methyl-3,3-dimethyl-4-piperidyl]urea), antagonizes motion- and cisplatin-induced emesis.- HM01 did not reduce emesis induced by nicotine or by intragastric copper sulfate.- HM01 has positive effects on food consumption after treatment with nicotine.- HM01 has synergistic effects against cisplatin when combined with palonosetron and palonosetron/netupitant regimens.- It is suggested that GHS-R1A agonists may be protective against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in combination with traditional anti-emetics and against motion-induced emesis.