Avoidable Acute Care Use Associated with Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy or Oxaliplatin

NEPA (Netupitant/Palonosetron) for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients Receiving Highly or Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy Who Experienced Breakthrough CINV in Cycle 1 of Chemotherapy: A Phase II Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Although control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is substantially improved with guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis, breakthrough CINV remains a significant clinical patient problem. In subsequent cycles after breakthrough occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend adding agents not used in the initial cycle. This study was designed to evaluate the use of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) plus dexamethasone with or without olanzapine for the prevention of CINV in the second cycle of chemotherapy for patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) who developed breakthrough CINV in their first cycle despite guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetics.

METHODS

This was a Phase 2, single center, open-label study. Patients received guideline-recommended prophylactic antiemetics in Cycle 1 based on the chemotherapy emetogenicity. Patients who experienced breakthrough CINV in Cycle 1 received intravenous (IV) NEPA (Day 1) plus dexamethasone (Days 1-4) and olanzapine (Days 1-4) for HEC or IV NEPA (Day 1) plus dexamethasone (Days 1-4) for MEC in Cycle 2.

RESULTS

Of the 227 patients enrolled in Cycle 1, 100 patients (n = 37 HEC, 63 MEC) experienced breakthrough CINV and received the NEPA-based treatments in Cycle 2. The complete response (no emesis/no rescue use) rates [95% confidence intervals] during the overall (0-120 h) phase were 76% [59%, 88%] and 79% [67%, 89%] in the HEC and MEC groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These results show that NEPA with or without olanzapine is an effective approach for CINV prevention for patients receiving HEC or MEC who develop breakthrough CINV after their first course of chemotherapy. The results support the antiemetic guideline recommendations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06065722.

Assessing the Validity of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Measure in Identifying Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits by Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented chemotherapy measures (OP-35) to reduce potentially preventable emergency department visits (PPEDVs) and hospitalizations. This study evaluated the validity of the OP-35 measure in identifying PPEDVs among patients with cancer.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study, which used data from the 2012-2022 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. ED visits are assessed and compared on the basis of three measures: immediacy using Emergency Severity Index (ESI), disposition (discharge v hospitalization), and OP-35 criteria.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2022, a weighted sample of 46,723,524 ED visits were made by patients with cancer. Among reported ESI cases, 25.2% (8,346,443) was high urgency. In addition, 30.3% (14,135,496) of ED visits among patients with cancer led to hospitalizations. Using the OP-35 measure, it was found that 20.85% (9,743,977) was PPEDVs. A 21.9% (10,232,102) discrepancy between discharge diagnosis (CMS billing codes) and chief complaints was identified. Further analysis showed that 19.2% (1,872,556) of potentially preventable ED visits (CMS OP-35) were high urgency and 32.6% (3,181,280) resulted in hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

The CMS approach to identifying PPEDVs has limitations. First, it may overcount preventable visits by including high-urgency or hospitalization-requiring cases. Second, relying on final diagnoses for retrospective preventability judgment can be misleading as they may not reflect the initial reason for the visit. In addition, differentiating causes for ED visits in patients with cancer undergoing various treatments is challenging as the approach does not distinguish between chemotherapy-related complications and others. Identification inconsistencies arise because of varying coding practices and chosen preventable conditions, lacking consensus and alignment with specific hospital or patient needs. Finally, the model fails to consider crucial nonclinical factors like social support, economic barriers, and alternative care access, potentially unfairly penalizing hospitals serving underserved populations.

Efficacy and safety of traditional plant-based medicines for preventing chronic oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neurotoxicity in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis with core herb contribution

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Traditional plant-based medicines (TMs) have been widely used to prevent chronic oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (OIPN). However, the prevention and safety of TMs for chronic OIPN remain ambiguous. Furthermore, diverse TM prescriptions and complicated components limit in-depth research on the mechanisms of TMs.

AIM OF THIS STUDY

To determine core TMs and potential pharmacological pathways on the basis of a thorough investigation into the preventive benefits and safety of oral TMs for chronic OIPN in colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases for RCTs reporting on TMs for chronic OIPN was conducted through December 1, 2022. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were applied to assess the impacts of influencing variables. The assessment of Risk of Bias was relied on Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The funnel plot, Egger's test, and the Trim and Fill method were applied to identify potential publication bias. Trial sequential analyses (TSA) were carried out by the TSA tool to increase the robustness. The assessment of the quality of evidence was according to the GRADE system. System pharmacology analysis was employed to screen core herbal combinations to elucidate possible mechanisms for preventing chronic OIPN in CRC.

RESULTS

The pooled effect estimate with robustness increased by TSA analysis demonstrated that oral TMs appeared to significantly decrease the incidence of chronic OIPN (RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.56, 0.78); P＜0.00001), leukocytopenia (RR = 0.65, 95% CI (0.54,0.79); P＜0.00001), and nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.72, 95% CI (0.61,0.84); P＜0.0001) as well as improve the Objective Response Rate (ORR) (RR = 1.31, 95% CI (1.09,1.56); P = 0.003). The incidence of severe chronic OIPN was revealed a significant reduction, particularly when chemotherapy was administered for periods of time shorter than six months (RR = 0.33, 95% CI (0.15,0.71); P = 0.005; actuation duration＜3 months; RR = 0.33, 95% CI (0.17,0.62); P = 0.0007; actuation duration≥3 months, ＜6 months). The considerable heterogeneity among studies may be attributable to the severity of dysfunction categorized by grade and accumulated dosage. Using core TMs consisting of Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bunge, Atractylodes Macrocephala Koidz., Poria cocos (Schw.) Wolf, and Codonopsis pilosula (Franch.) Nannf. To regulate nuclear factor-kappa B against inflammation caused by activation of microglia might be an approach to preventing chronic OIPN.

CONCLUSIONS

TMs appear to be effective and safe in the prevention of chronic OIPN, especially severe chronic OIPN. Additionally, core TMs consisting of Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bunge, Atractylodes Macrocephala Koidz., Poria cocos (Schw.) Wolf, and Codonopsis pilosula (Franch.) Nannf were presumably responsible for reducing the incidence of chronic OIPN, and the mechanism may be related to relieving inflammation. However, quality-assured trials with long-term follow-up for exploring inflammatory factors and preliminary research on core TMs and pharmacological pathways are needed.

Drivers of Emergency Department Use Among Oncology Patients in the Era of Novel Cancer Therapeutics: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with cancer are frequent users of the emergency department (ED). While many visits are unavoidable, a significant portion may be potentially preventable ED visits (PPEDs). Cancer treatments have greatly advanced, whereby patients may present with unique toxicities from targeted therapies and are often living longer with advanced disease. Prior work focused on patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, and often excluded those on supportive care alone. Other contributors to ED visits in oncology, such as patient-level variables, are less well-established. Finally, prior studies focused on ED diagnoses to describe trends and did not evaluate PPEDs. An updated systematic review was completed to focus on PPEDs, novel cancer therapies, and patient-level variables, including those on supportive care alone.

METHODS

Three online databases were used. Included publications were in English, from 2012-2022, with sample sizes of ≥50, and reported predictors of ED presentation or ED diagnoses in oncology.

RESULTS

45 studies were included. Six studies highlighted PPEDs with variable definitions. Common reasons for ED visits included pain (66%) or chemotherapy toxicities (69.1%). PPEDs were most frequent amongst breast cancer patients (13.4%) or patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (20%). Three manuscripts included immunotherapy agents, and only one focused on end-of-life patients.

CONCLUSION

This updated systematic review highlights variability in oncology ED visits during the last decade. There is limited work on the concept of PPEDs, patient-level variables and patients on supportive care alone. Overall, pain and chemotherapy toxicities remain key drivers of ED visits in cancer patients. Further work is needed in this realm.

Work loss and activity impairment due to extended nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving CINV prophylaxis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)'s impact on work loss remains poorly described. We evaluated associations between the duration of CINV episodes, CINV-related work loss (CINV-WL), and CINV-related activity impairment (CINV-AI) in patients with breast cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a prospective CINV prophylaxis trial of netupitant/palonestron and dexamethasone for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer (NCT0340371). Over the observed CINV duration (0-5 days), we analyzed patient-reported CINV-WL and CINV-AI for the first two chemotherapy cycles. We categorized patients as having either extended (≥ 3 days) or short (1-2 days) CINV duration and quantified its impact on work using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI).

RESULTS

Overall, we captured data for 792 cycles in 402 women, including 136 (33.8%) employed patients with 35.3% reporting CINV. Of those with CINV, patients reported CINV-WL in 26 cycles and CINV-AI in 142 cycles. Of those with CINV, 55.3% of extended CINV cycles experienced CINV-WL compared to 16.7% of short CINV cycles (p < 0.001). The relative risk of CINV-WL between extended and short CINV was 3.32 (p < 0.01) for employed patients. The mean difference in CINV-AI scores (higher = worse) between extended and short duration CINV was 5.0 vs. 3.0 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Extended (≥ 3 days) CINV was associated with more than triple the risk of CINV-WL and higher CINV-AI compared with short CINV.

Duration of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) as a Predictor of Recurrent CINV in Later Cycles

BACKGROUND

The relationship between CINV duration and recurrence in subsequent cycles is largely unstudied. Our objective was to determine if patients experiencing CINV in their first cycle of chemotherapy (C1) would face increased risk of CINV in later cycles and whether the duration of the CINV would predict increased risk of recurrence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using data from a previously reported phase III trial, we assessed patients' recurrence of breakthrough CINV after antiemetic prophylaxis for anthracycline+cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer, comparing C1 short CINV vs. extended CINV as a secondary analysis. Complete response (CR) and CINV duration were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. CR was considered prophylaxis success; lack of CR was considered treatment failure (TF).

RESULTS

Among 402 female patients, 99 (24.6%) had TF in C1 (TF1). The remaining 303 patients (CR1) had ≥93% CR rates in each subsequent cycle, while the 99 patients with TF1 had TF rates of 49.8% for cycles 2-4 (P < .001). The 51 patients with extended TF (≥3 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 73/105 later cycles (69.5%, P < .001), while the 48 patients with short TF (1-2 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 33/108 later cycles (30.6%). The relative risk of recurrence after C1 extended TF was 2.28 (CI 1.67-3.11; P < .001) compared to short TF.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis success in C1 led to >90% repeat success across cycles of AC-based chemotherapy. For patients with breakthrough CINV, extended duration strongly predicted recurrent CINV. The duration of CINV should be closely monitored, and augmenting antiemetic prophylaxis considered for future cycles when extended CINV occurs.

Trends and Characteristics of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Cancer in the US

IMPORTANCE

An initial step to reducing emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer is to identify the characteristics of patients visiting the ED and examine which of those visits could be prevented.

OBJECTIVE

To explore nationwide trends and characteristics of ED visits and examine factors associated with potentially preventable ED visits and unplanned hospitalizations among patients with cancer in the US.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019; US Cancer Statistics reports were used to estimate new cancer cases each year. Frequencies and trends among 35 510 014 ED visits by adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with cancer were calculated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was potentially preventable ED visits, and secondary outcomes were unplanned hospitalizations and the immediacy of the ED visits. Potentially preventable ED visits were identified using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition. The Emergency Severity Index, a triage algorithm that ranks patients based on the urgency of their health care condition, was used to measure the immediacy of ED visits (immediate [most urgent], emergent, urgent, less urgent, and nonurgent), with the categories of immediate and emergent classified as high acuity. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate trends in ED visits among patients with cancer over time. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations of patient, hospital, and temporal factors with potentially preventable ED use and ED use resulting in hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 854 911 106 ED visits, 35 510 014 (4.2%) were made by patients with cancer (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [16.2] years); of those, 55.2% of visits were among women, 73.2% were among non-Hispanic White individuals, 89.8% were among patients living in a private residence, and 54.3% were among Medicare enrollees. A total of 18 316 373 ED visits (51.6%) were identified as potentially preventable, and 5 770 571 visits (21.3%) were classified as high acuity. From 2012 to 2019, potentially preventable ED visits increased from 1 851 692 to 3 214 276. Pain (36.9%) was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits. The number of patients who visited an ED because of pain increased from 1 192 197 in 2012 to 2 405 849 in 2019 (a 101.8% increase). Overall, 28.9% of ED visits resulted in unplanned hospitalizations, which did not change significantly over time (from 32.2% in 2012 to 26.6% in 2019; P = .78 for trend). Factors such as residence in a nursing home (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.25-2.41) were positively associated with having a potentially preventable ED visit, and factors such as the presence of more than 1 comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.43-2.32) were positively associated with having an unplanned hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, 51.6% of ED visits among patients with cancer were identified as potentially preventable, and the absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits increased substantially between 2012 and 2019. These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings.

Slow Uptake of an Effective Therapy: Patterns of Olanzapine Prescribing for Those Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

For the past 5 years, most major antiemesis guidelines have included olanzapine-containing regimens among the recommended options for prophylaxis with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We analyzed the uptake of olanzapine in clinical practice and the changing composition of multidrug antiemetic regimens.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using an OptumLabs deidentified database of medical and pharmacy claims, which was filtered for patients starting HEC in the interval of 2006 to Q2 of 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and year-by-year antiemetic prescribing patterns, coinciding with cycles 1 and 2 of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 63,154 distinct patients were included. The median age was 58 years (range, 18-88). Breast (45.2%) and hematologic (20.8%) cancers were the most common diagnoses. In 2016, olanzapine was prescribed to 1.4% of patients with cycle 1 of HEC. Prescriptions increased modestly each year, and by 2021, 13.9% of patients received olanzapine with their first cycle of chemotherapy. An additional 5.7% of patients received olanzapine for breakthrough symptoms or enhanced prophylaxis during cycle 2. In 2021, more than three-quarters of patients were prescribed antiemetics in a guideline-concordant manner, with an olanzapine-containing quadruplet (12.2%), an NK1-receptor antagonist triplet (64.5%), or an olanzapine triplet (suppressed for small sample size).

CONCLUSION

Despite inclusion in major antiemesis guidelines, there has been relatively slow uptake of olanzapine for prophylaxis with HEC. This finding highlights the challenges of disseminating information and keeping prescribing systems updated with the newest evidence in supportive oncology.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings.

METHODS

A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained.

RESULTS

NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125.

CONCLUSION

By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃ ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT₃ RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK₁ RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK₁ RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK₁ ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK₁ RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK₁ RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Synthesis and Antitumor Activity of (3-Hydroxyacrylato-O,O′) Diammineplatinum(II)

As an indispensable part of cancer chemotherapy, platinum drugs still play an important role in cancer treatment. In this study, two platinum(II) complexes with Michael acceptor 3-hydroxyacrylic acid as the leaving group were synthesized from cis-diamminediiodo platinum(II) and 3-ethoxyacrylic acid. The structures of complexes 1 and 2 were confirmed by elemental analysis, infrared, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and HRMS (high-resolution mass spectrometry). Results from MTT assay showed that complexes 1 and 2 significantly inhibited the growth of the four human tumor cell lines (HCT-116, A549, CFPAC-1, and BxPC-3) with the IC50 values of the two compounds similar to that of the control drug (oxaliplatin) on HCT-116 and A549. Besides, results from an in vivo study in a mouse S180 sarcoma model showed that complex 1 had a higher antitumor activity in comparison to oxaliplatin. In conclusion, our article indicated that complex 1 deserved further research and development in cancer treatment.

Reconsidering Dexamethasone for Antiemesis when Combining Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy

Whether the immune suppressive action of glucocorticoid steroids, such as dexamethasone, might reduce the benefits of cancer immunotherapy has long been a concern. Observations that established tumor regressions in response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) often persist, despite the use of steroids to mitigate ICI-related autoimmune breakthrough, are not sufficiently reassuring, because these observations do not address the potential blunting of immune priming at the initiation of ICI therapy. With increasing indications for ICI in combination with chemotherapy, this issue merits reconsideration. Professional society guidance advises that dexamethasone should be used as first-line prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting in patients receiving ICI and highly emetogenic chemotherapy combination regimens. Here, we review the availability of data on this subject and propose an alternative approach focused on the adoption of steroid minimization or sparing for prophylaxis of nausea until the underlying immune biology is better understood.