Skip to main content
. 2019 Apr 9;8(5):2064–2073. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2091

Table 1.

Summary of patient disposition from Study 1 and Study 2—all randomized patients

Study 1a Study 2b
NEPA
(N = 726)
(C = 2983)
PALO
(N = 729)
(C = 2986)
Overall
(N = 1455)
(C = 5969)
NEPA
(N = 309)
(C = 1446)
APR‐PALO
(N = 104)
(C = 515)
Overall
(N = 413)
(C = 1961)
Treated, n (%) 724 (99.7) 726 (99.6) 1450 (99.7) 309 (100.0) 103 (99.0) 412 (99.8)
Completed cycle 1, n (%) 719 (99.0) 719 (98.6) 1438 (98.8) 303 (98.1) 102 (98.1) 405 (98.1)
Completed cycle 2, n (%) 630 (86.8) 645 (88.5) 1275 (87.6) 278 (90.0) 94 (90.4) 372 (90.1)
Completed cycle 3, n (%) 596 (82.1) 603 (82.7) 1199 (82.4) 255 (82.5) 88 (84.6) 343 (83.1)
Completed cycle 4, n (%) 548 (75.5) 559 (76.7) 1107 (76.1) 230 (74.4) 81 (77.9) 311 (75.3)

C = Total number of cycles started for all treated patients.

APR, aprepitant; NEPA, netupitant‐palonosetron; PALO, palonosetron.

a

Data corresponding to cycles 5‐8 not shown.

b

Data corresponding to cycles 5‐14 not shown.