Personalised antiemetic prophylaxis with NEPA for patients at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results from the randomised, multinational MyRisk trial

Abstract

Background: Patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) are commonly prescribed a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist (RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) as standard-of-care (SOC) antiemetic prophylaxis. However, in patients with an elevated risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to individual risk factors, prophylaxis with an neurokinin-1 (NK₁) RA-containing regimen may optimise their antiemetic prevention. To address this unmet need for a more personalised antiemetic strategy, the MyRisk trial incorporated a predictive risk factor algorithm to select patients at increased risk of CINV who may benefit from enhanced antiemetic prophylaxis.

Patients and methods: MyRisk was a phase IV, randomised, open-label, multicentre, multinational trial. Adult patients scheduled to receive three cycles of MEC with a high-risk CINV score were randomly assigned to NEPA (a fixed combination of an NK₁ RA, netupitant, and 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron) + DEX or SOC. The CINV risk score was calculated based on an algorithm that considered seven risk factors. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120 h) across three consecutive cycles.

Results: Of 401 randomly allocated patients, 388 were included in the efficacy analysis. The most common cancers were colorectal and lung; oxaliplatin and carboplatin were the most common MECs. Patients randomly assigned to NEPA were significantly more likely to experience a CR compared with SOC (odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.12-2.49, P = 0.012). The NEPA group had a significantly higher probability of CR, no nausea, no emesis, and complete protection (81.0%, 63.7%, 95.4%, and 71.8%, respectively) compared with the SOC arm (71.8%, 54.9%, 86.7%, and 62.4%, respectively) across three cycles of chemotherapy.

Conclusions: When individual risk factors are considered before MEC, a three-drug regimen including NEPA provides superior CINV prevention across multiple cycles compared with the standard two-drug approach. These findings underscore the value of personalised risk-adapted antiemetic strategies and have practice-changing potential for optimising antiemetic control.

Keywords: CINV; NEPA; NK(1) receptor antagonist; personalised antiemetic prophylaxis; risk factors.