Adherence to ESMO clinical recommendations for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

The evolving landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: inspiration from cisplatin-based antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the significant advancements in antiemetic regimens for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), over 40% of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy still experience CINV in clinical practice. To figure out underlying reasons and outline the landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV, our focus centered on cisplatin, one of the most commonly used highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs. We aimed to elucidate trends in CINV management by analyzing data extracted from cisplatin-based clinical trials.

METHODS

We extracted CINV-related data from 156 eligible randomized clinical trials, comprising 39 antiemetic trials and 117 non-antiemetic trials, all with patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Subsequently, we conducted separate analyses of the extracted CINV data within antiemetic and non-antiemetic trial groups, as well as comparisons between them.

RESULTS

Over the years, both antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials showed significant improvements in no-vomiting rates, although gains in no-nausea rates were more modest. Notably, antiemetic trials frequently underreported outcomes related to nausea control. There was a distinct yet gradually narrowing disparity in vomiting control rates between antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials during the same time frame. While non-antiemetic trials achieved comparable CINV control rates using the same antiemetic regimen as antiemetic trials, they exhibited significantly greater variations in no-vomiting and no-nausea rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The landscape of CINV management in cisplatin-based chemotherapy has evolved significantly alongside improvements in antiemetic agents. Substantial progress has been made in emesis control within both antiemetic and non-antiemetic cisplatin-based clinical trials. More attention should be paid on the chemotherapy induced nausea, and multiple approaches are needed to increase guideline adherence in future clinical practice.

Overview of premedication prescription and intake in an oncology day hospital: What do we need to change to improve patient management?

BACKGROUND

Premedication of cancer therapy against nausea and vomiting (NV) and hypersensitivity reaction (HS) is essential for good patient management. However, this prescription is not always optimal. Today, as a large part of cancer therapies are administered in day hospitals (DH), premedication taken on the day of the cancer treatment is injected as a 30-min infusion.

OBJECTIVE

To assess compliance with recommendations for premedication prescription and intake; to analyse patient attitude about switching to exclusively oral forms taken at home.

METHOD

The study is conducted in the medical oncology DH of a French Hospital from 17 January to 25 February 2022. The data collection is carried out as an individual interview, associated with the distribution of two questionnaires. Data are coupled with the premedication set up on our software and the last medical report. Intakes are considered optimal when recommendations, tolerance, background, and adherence of the patient are taken into account.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were included for interviews. Regarding software prescriptions, our configuration was consistent with recommendations in 100% of cases for HS and 37% for NV. Intakes were compliant in 51.4% of cases, non-compliant in 17.1% and debatable in 31.5%. Disparities between the practices of different physicians were identified. Regarding the feasibility of oral substitution, it could concern 63.5% of patients.

CONCLUSION

This work makes it possible to improve the management of all patients and to make the operation of the care unit more fluid.

[Translated article] Have changes concerning carboplatin and anthracyclines been incorporated?

OBJECTIVE

Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).

METHODS

Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.

RESULTS

61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.

Antiemetic guidelines: Have we incorporated the changes concerning carboplatin and anthracyclines?

OBJECTIVE

Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).

METHODS

Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.

RESULTS

61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.

Chemotherapy-induced Emesis: Experienced Burden in Life, and Significance of Treatment Expectations and Communication in Chemotherapy Care

OBJECTIVE

Because antiemetics have become more effective and integrative therapies such as acupuncture are used in combination with antiemetics, people receiving chemotherapy for cancer today might expect less emesis than in the past. It is not previously described if and how people receiving modern antiemetics during chemotherapy experience emesis. The objective of this study was to describe experiences regarding emesis among persons undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy, and how it affects their quality of life, daily life and work. A further aim was to describe views on the significance of treatment expectations and communication with healthcare personnel while undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.

METHOD

Fifteen participants (median age 62 years, n = 1 man and n = 14 women, with breast (n = 13) or colorectal (n = 2) cancer) undergoing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were interviewed individually. The data were then analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes described the participants' experiences: "Your whole life is affected, or continues as usual," covering descriptions of emesis limiting some participants' everyday lives, while others experienced no emesis at all or had found ways to manage it. Overall, participants described satisfaction with their antiemetic treatment. "Experiences and expectations more important than information", that is, the participants reported wanting all the information they could get about possible adverse effects of treatment, although they believed previous experiences were more important than information in creating expectations about treatment outcomes. The participants reported that being seen as a unique person was of utmost importance: "Meet me as I am." This creates trust in healthcare personnel and a feeling of safety and security in the situation.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings underline the importance of person-centered care and support in creating positive treatment expectations. Future research is called for regarding the potential antiemetic effects of positive communication regarding strengthening positive treatment expectations during emetogenic chemotherapy.

Factors affecting the implementation of guideline-based prophylactic antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: a protocol for a hospital-based qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) decrease patients' quality of life and negatively impact treatment outcomes. Although standard prophylactic antiemetic therapy for acute CINV recommended by guidelines is effective, poor guideline implementation is a worldwide problem. In Japan, prophylactic antiemetic therapy is relatively well implemented for chemotherapy associated with high emetogenic risk, while implementation gaps are observed for that with low emetogenic risk.Although most reports on factors influencing appropriate antiemetic prescription focus on physicians' attitudes and behaviours, a more comprehensive exploration is needed since chemotherapy is expected to involve pharmacists, nurses and eventually hospital directors. The purpose of this qualitative study is to comprehensively explore the factors that influence the implementation of appropriate prophylactic antiemetic procedures at cancer care hospitals in Japan.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a hospital-based qualitative study using semistructured individual interviews. The target population will be hospital directors, and chiefs (including proxies) of departments of oncology and/or chemotherapy, pharmacy and nursing, working in the hospitals, selected by purposive sampling. We will obtain information on antiemetics in chemotherapy regimens, antiemetic routine use and awareness of guidelines using prequestionnaires. Interviews will then be conducted online using an interview guide. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will be used to collect and analyse the interview data. We will also create new codes inductively, as required. In addition, we will refer to the aggregate results of the Quality Indicator survey to determine the implementation of recommended antiemetic prescriptions for each hospital and discuss the relationship with influencing factors.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the National Cancer Centre Ethics Approval Committee (approval number: 2020-305). The study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publications and presentations to academics, policy-makers, and clinicians at scientific conferences.

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Practice Patterns for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Antiemetic Guideline Adherence Based on Real-World Prescribing Data

BACKGROUND

Guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)- and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)-based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin.

METHODS

The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 45,324 chemotherapy-treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK1 RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin-, AC-, and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification.

CONCLUSION

Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC-/carboplatin-based treatments receiving guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the real-world setting in Spain

Purpose

Proper monitoring and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with antiemetics is crucial for cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of antiemetics for the treatment of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) including carboplatin in the real-world setting in Spain.

Methods

A representative panel of cancer specialists was asked to collect information about the antiemetic treatments provided to patients receiving chemotherapy. Records formed part of the Global Oncology Monitor^© database (Ipsos Healthcare, London, UK). Chemotherapy data were extrapolated using Ipsos Healthcare’s projection methodology.

Results

A total of 73 experts were finally included. Data from 9519 patients, estimated to be representative of 202,084 patients, were collected. HEC (and carboplatin-based chemotherapy) was administered to 73,118 (36%) patients, cisplatin-based therapy being the most frequent treatment (n = 34,649, 47.38%). Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK₁RAs) alone or in combination were used as prophylaxis for CINV in 14,762 (20%) patients, while the combination of NK₁RA with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RAs) and dexamethasone as recommended by the international guidelines was used in 5849 (8%) patients only. No antiemetic prophylaxis was administered to 8.46% of the patients receiving HEC (n = 6189). Physicians classified cisplatin-, anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC-), and carboplatin-based regimens as HEC in 63%, 22% and 4% of the cases, respectively.

Conclusions

The use of NK₁RA-containing regimens for CINV prevention in patients treated with HEC was less than expected, suggesting poor adherence to international antiemetic guidelines.

Evaluation of patient quality care in Spain in prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To characterise current management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Spain, as well as professional adherence to antiemetic guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective observational study. A multicenter has been designed including 360 patient case files from 18 hospitals. The involvement of pharmacists and nurses was studied, and also indicators of structure, process, and selected outcomes previously recruited from antiemetic guidelines.

RESULTS

We found 94.4% of hospitals used a written protocol for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and only 44.4% had educational programs for patients regarding this. Patients were prescribed antiemetic prophylactic treatment for delayed emesis in varying degree between highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (77.8% and 58.9%, respectively). Dexamethasone was the most prescribed antiemetic drug for patients receiving highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (98.3% and 90%, respectively), followed by ondansetron (68.9% and 95%, respectively). Nursing was more involved than pharmacy units in evaluating emetic risk factors in patients (64.7% vs 21.4%), and tracking symptom onset (88.2% vs 57.1%) and adherence to treatment (94.1% vs 28.6%). Pharmacy units were more involved than nursing in choosing the antiemetic treatment (78.6% vs 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although antiemetic guidelines were used by all hospitals, there were differences in management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Increased education directed towards patients and oncology professionals is needed to improve adherence.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among cancer patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy in cancer centers in Sichuan, China

PURPOSE

Nausea and vomiting are the most painful and feared side effects for patients during chemotherapy. Currently, most studies focus on the occurrence of CINV during the risk phase. We initiated this real-world study to understand the actual occurrence of CINV throughout all phases, to provide a basis to prevent CINV in patients during chemotherapy and improve their quality of life.

METHODS

This prospective real-world study was conducted at 17 major cancer centers in Sichuan, China. Cancer patients who were about to receive moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the study. Occurrences of nausea and vomiting were recorded using patient diaries, and physicians are responsible for recording patient clinical data.

RESULTS

A total of 1,139 patients were included in this study between August 2018 and April 2019. In this study, the incidence of acute CINV was 55.3%, delayed CINV was 62.3%, and CINV beyond the risk period was 36%. All phases overall, the overall complete control (CC) rate of CINV was 30.1 and 32.1% for highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, respectively. The median CC time for CINV was 7 days, but only 21.5% of these patients used antiemetic regimens according to the NCCN guideline.

CONCLUSION

In the real world, the incidence of CINV is high in patients receiving chemotherapy, and nausea and vomiting may occur beyond the risk period; the low level of standardized antiemetic treatment in compliance with the guideline might have been the main reason for unsatisfactory prevention and control of CINV in this study.

Adherence to ASCO for Prophylaxis of Acute Chemotherapy- Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Iran

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the scariest chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. We evaluated the adherence to the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the latest guideline recommendations, for the management of acute CINV at our institute.

METHODS

During a 6-months cross-sectional study on outpatient's cancer patients, we collected data from the prescription documents during temporary hospitalization and compared the results with ASCO guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The most prescribed prophylactic regimens for the management of CINV were combination of aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone and metoclopramide (51.8%). Regarding prescription compatibility in our center with ASCO guideline recommnedations, selection of different regimens for prophylaxis of acute CINV in our institute was compliant in 0 %, 22%, 4%, and 40% of high, moderate, low, and minimal emetogenic potential of chemotherapy regimen groupss, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although our hospital is a referral and university-affiliated center, adherence to the ASCO guideline recommendations for prophylaxis of CINV was poor.

Real-world evidence of NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron, in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention: effects on quality of life

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)–based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. ‘No impact on daily life’ due to vomiting was reported by 84%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting.

Analysis of concordance with antiemetic guidelines in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients with cancer using a large-scale administrative database

Object

The appropriate use of antiemetics is important for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, little is known about the rate of concordance with antiemetic guidelines for CINV in the field of pediatric, adolescent, and young adult.

Methods

Using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination system in Japan, we identified patients <30 years of age who were diagnosed with cancer between July 2010 and March 2016. We have assessed concordance with the ASCO antiemetic guidelines for each emetic risk category of chemotherapeutic drugs. Furthermore, we have assessed the risk factors of discordance with the antiemetic guidelines using a logistic regression.

Results

In total, 21 106 patients who underwent chemotherapy were included. The rates of concordance with the guidelines in each emetic risk category of chemotherapeutic drugs were 51.1% in high risk, ≥18 years of age; 21.5% in high risk, <18 years of age; 32.1% in moderate risk; 52.0% in low risk; and 51.6% in minimal risk. The main reason for the discordance was underuse of antiemetics, especially steroids. The factors for discordance were younger age, use of moderate and high emetic risk chemotherapeutic drugs, hematological malignancy, and brain tumor.

Conclusion

There is substantial scope to improve the antiemetic practice and reduce the risk of discordance with the antiemetic guidelines in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients. The risk factors are different from those in adults. Further investigations to evaluate the causes of discordance are warranted.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with netupitant/palonosetron, the first fixed combination antiemetic: current and future perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV.

Medication overuse in oncology: current trends and future implications for patients and society

The high cost of cancer care worldwide is largely attributable to rising drugs prices. Despite their high costs and potential toxic effects, anticancer treatments could be subject to overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to harm than to benefit a patient. We found 30 studies documenting medication overuse in cancer, which included 16 examples of supportive medication overuse and 17 examples of antineoplastic medication overuse in oncology. Few specific agents have been assessed, and no studies investigated overuse of the most toxic or expensive medications currently used in cancer treatment. Although financial, psychological, or physical harms of medication overuse in cancer could be substantial, there is little published evidence addressing these harms, so their magnitude is unclear. Further research is needed to better quantify medication overuse, understand its implications, and help protect patients and the health-care system from overuse.

Incidence of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy regimens in Italy: NAVY observational study

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event with cancer chemotherapy, despite the availability of effective antiemetic agents. This is a prospective observational study of Italian breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC), assessed CINV incidence, adherence to national antiemetic guidelines (AIOM 2012), and the relationship with CINV outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer scheduled to receive their first cycle of an AC-based regimen were enrolled at 12 Italian centers and their clinical data prospectively recorded. CINV incidence was assessed from patient diaries after the first chemotherapy cycle. The relationship between guideline adherence and CINV outcomes was examined using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

The overall incidence rates of nausea and vomiting among 246 evaluable patients were 63.0 and 25.4%, respectively. Most patients received a 5-HT3-RA agent and dexamethasone for acute phase CINV prophylaxis, whereas a triple combination including aprepitant (NK1-RA), consistent with national guidelines, was used in only 45.5% of cases. In the delayed phase, the guideline adherence was 48.8%, while the overall adherence was 43.5%. After adjusting for confounding factors, adherence to antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of three endpoints, namely any nausea, "significant nausea," and vomiting (OR = 0.49, OR = 0.54, and OR = 0.48, respectively), and a 90% increase in the odds of overall complete protection (OR = 1.90).

CONCLUSIONS

CINV is still a critical issue in AC-treated patients, despite antiemetic treatment. Non-adherence to antiemetic guidelines may lead to poorer outcomes and indicates the need for strategies to enhance the use of guidelines in clinical practice.

The compliance with antiemetic guidelines of Turkish medical oncologists. A survey study of Turkish Oncology Group

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate the compliance of Turkish Medical Oncologists to antiemetic guidelines for treatment of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving high (HEC), moderate (MEC), and low (LEC) emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHOD

A covering electronic mail letter with an online questionnaire link was sent to e-mail and mobile application groups including all 599 members of the Turkish Society of Medical Oncology in January 2018. The online survey has consisted of twelve questions.

RESULTS

Questionnaire form was responded by 146 of Turkish Medical Oncologists. The most of the participants were following up more than one antiemetic guideline (53%). While compliance with the antiemetic guidelines was higher in acute CINV prophylaxis for HEC and MEC, it was significantly lower in the delayed CINV treatment of HEC and LEC. The highest and lowest compliance rate was found in the prophylaxis of acute and delayed CINV of HEC (92% and 15%, respectively). The incidence of noncompliance for delayed CINV in HEC was statistically significantly higher in those who worked for ≤ five years in an oncology department, under 39 years of age, and non-academicians (p = 0.004, p = 0.042, p = 0.005, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Noncompliance with the antiemetic guidelines is continue to be a big problem in Turkish Medical Oncologists. The use of standardized antiemetic protocols in chemotherapy order forms or a computerized decision-support system is now seen as a better tool to enhance compliance with the guidelines.

Antiemetic Guidelines: Using Education to Improve Adherence and Reduce Incidence of CINV in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

With the development of increasingly effective antiemetic regimens, guideline adherence can prevent 70%-80% of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

This quality improvement project aims to increase rates of adherence to national guidelines and, ultimately, decrease rates of CINV experienced by patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective chart analysis was performed. In-person education was provided to staff nurses and advanced practice providers on guidelines, followed by a survey immediately postintervention and again at three months.

FINDINGS

Prior to the intervention, 49% of patients were found to experience CINV, with only 7% receiving guideline-appropriate prophylaxis. At three months, 37% of patients experienced CINV, with 22% receiving appropriate prophylaxis.

Adherence to and Implementation of ASCO Antiemetic Guidelines in Routine Practice in a Tertiary Cancer Center in India

BACKGROUND

Nonadherence of antiemetic prescriptions to evidence-based antiemetic guidelines is associated with an increased proportion of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The current project was carried out to improve the quality of antiemetic prescriptions at our institute.

METHODS

We initially performed a retrospective analysis of 1,211 consecutive antiemetic prescription records of adult patients with solid tumors who received outpatient chemotherapy regimens. The antiemetic prescription records were classified as either ASCO-guideline adherent or nonadherent, and the impact on emesis was studied. These data were used to educate clinicians regarding the importance of adherence to guidelines. We then revised our antiemetic prescription policies and made their use mandatory. In addition, a double-check system was introduced to ensure implementation. A reaudit was performed to study the impact of these interventions.

RESULTS

ASCO-guideline-adherent prescriptions in the initial part of our study were associated with a lower rate of vomiting (6.6% v 21.9%; P < .001), emergency visits (2.6% v 5.8%; P = .006), and hospitalization for emesis (0.9% v 4.9%; P < .001). The proportion of prescriptions classified as ASCO-guideline adherent in the initial audit and the reaudit were 63.6% and 98.5%, respectively ( P < .001). The proportion of patients for whom antiemetic prescriptions were overused was significantly lower on the reaudit (41.3% v 68.3% before the interventions; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Mandatory, semirigid corrective steps as carried out in this audit led to an improvement in antiemetic-guideline adherence rate.

A prospective, observational, multicenter study on risk factors and prophylaxis for low emetic risk chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

The incidence of and the risk factors for nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing low emetic risk chemotherapy (LEC) are unclear. The aim of the study was to provide information on these topics by performing a multicenter, observational, prospective study.

METHODS

The study consisted of patients who were administered first-time LEC that was consistent or inconsistent with current guidelines. Using the visual analog scale, patients recorded their daily food intake and the occurrence and severity of nausea over a 5-day treatment period.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly between patients undergoing guideline-consistent (n = 89) or guideline-inconsistent (n = 121) prophylaxis (30.3 vs. 22.3%, respectively; P = 0.19). Logistic regression analysis identified a history of nausea and LEC other than taxanes as independent risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing LEC. The mean daily visual analog scale scores for nausea severity and a decrease in food intake were <25 mm throughout the entire observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline-consistent prophylaxis appeared to control nausea and vomiting effectively in patients undergoing LEC. However, patients with a history of nausea and receiving LEC other than taxanes should be carefully observed and treatment should be adjusted according to their symptoms.

Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Incidence, and Current Management

Even when chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be effectively controlled in the acute phase, it may still occur in the delayed phase. Identifying at-risk patients is complex and requires consideration of clinical, personal, demographic, and behavioral factors. Delayed CINV has a significant detrimental effect on patients' daily life and is responsible for significant healthcare resource utilization. Patients who do not experience acute CINV are not necessarily exempt from delayed CINV, and healthcare professionals have been shown to underestimate the incidence of delayed CINV. Failure to protect against CINV during the first cycle of chemotherapy is the most significant independent risk factor for delayed CINV during subsequent cycles. Addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic prophylactic regimens involving a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid helps to ameliorate delayed CINV, particularly vomiting. Netupitant and rolapitant are second-generation neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists that provide effective prophylaxis against delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting and also have an antinausea benefit. All of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with the exception of rolapitant inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), and a reduced dose of dexamethasone (a CYP3A4 substrate) should be administered with aprepitant or netupitant; by contrast, this is not necessary with rolapitant. Here we review specific challenges associated with delayed CINV, its pathophysiology, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes relative to acute CINV, and its management within the larger context of overall CINV.

Rolapitant for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting over initial and repeat courses of emetogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Although sustained antiemetic control across repeated chemotherapy cycles is important for cancer treatment continuation, few studies have investigated the efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis over multiple chemotherapy cycles. Areas covered: Here we discuss the use of antiemetic hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor and neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor antagonists for prevention of CINV, limiting our review to clinical trials in the context of multiple-cycle chemotherapy, with a focus on the NK-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists may be effective in controlling CINV over repeated chemotherapy cycles, but evidence comes primarily from noncomparative studies. NK-1 receptor antagonists provide increased protection against CINV but differences in endpoint selection and methods of analysis preclude meaningful comparisons between agents. Rolapitant shows sustained control of emesis and nausea over multiple cycles of chemotherapy, and compared to other NK-1 receptor antagonists, has a longer half-life and reduced potential for cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated drug-drug interactions. Expert commentary: Trial design should be a key consideration in future studies of CINV therapies, including analytical methods utilized, choice of endpoints, and methods for accounting for nonresponders and patient attrition over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Patterns of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in China

BACKGROUND

Few studies have attempted to evaluate the use of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) at a national level in China or to assess how treatment regimens adhere to current guidelines.

METHODS

We searched the China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA) Database to identify patients with cancer who were ≥18 years old and received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively) between 2008 and 2012. Patients' characteristics as well as usage of specific antiemetic regimens were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 14,548 patients included in the study, 6,477 received HEC while 8,071 were treated with MEC. Approximately 89.9% used antiemetics prophylactically to prevent acute CINV and 71.5% for delayed CINV while 9.0% were prescribed antiemetics as rescue therapy. A significantly lower proportion of patients treated with HEC received prophylactic antiemetic therapy for delayed CINV as compared to those treated with MEC (59.4% vs. 81.3%; P<0.001). The HEC group had a slightly lower proportion of patients using a mixed regimen containing a 5-HT3 antagonist to prevent both acute and delayed CINV than the MEC group (P≤0.012); however, a higher proportion received a mixed regimen containing corticosteroids (P≤0.007). Although more than half of the patients in the HEC group took three antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed CINV, these rates were significantly lower than those of the MEC group (both P<0.001). Finally, analysis of the regimens used revealed that there is over-utilization of drugs within the same class of antiemetic.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that more attention is needed for treatment of delayed CINV, in terms of both overall use and the components of a typical treatment regimen.

[Perceptual gap between oncologists/oncology nurses and patients in the management and impact of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: French results of the GAP survey]

INTRODUCTION

Despite progress in the treatment of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV/RINV), their management remains insufficient.

METHODS

In order to evaluate the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV on the quality of life perceived by patients and estimated by clinicians, a declarative, cross-sectional survey was conducted in France through an online questionnaire.

RESULTS

This survey included 187 participants: 75 oncologists, 35 oncology nurses and 77 patients. Clinicians over-estimated the incidence of CINV/RINV, but underestimated their impact on the quality of life of patients. The sub-optimal prescription of anti-emetic treatments was more prominent when the therapy administered had low or medium emetogenic potential. Only 30% of patients rated their nausea and vomiting as controlled from the start. A major proportion of patients (68%) declared poor compliance with their anti-emetic regimen. The acceptance of CINV/RINV as normal side effects of the chemotherapy/radiotherapy (51%) led the patients not to report them, thus limiting their active management. The number of drugs to absorb, and the fear that the action of swallowing the pill would induce nausea or vomiting were also quoted by the patients as compliance-limiting factors.

CONCLUSION

The perceptual gap between clinicians and patients regarding the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV contributes to a sub-optimal level of anti-emetic cover and control. The anti-emetic regimen needs to be regularly assessed and adapted to the patient in order to improve CINV/RINV management.

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in autologous hematopoietic cell transplant patients: an exploratory analysis

PURPOSE

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a problem in patients undergoing a hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) despite progress in antiemetic prophylaxis. This study investigated the clinical course of nausea and vomiting (NV) and retching over the 5 days following an autologous HCT in a transplant setting.

METHODS

This longitudinal observational study was an exploratory analysis of data from a trial that assessed the efficacy of aroma in preventing NV related to dimethyl sulfoxide in 69 autologous HCT patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC; n = 56) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC; n = 13).

RESULTS

Nausea started to increase on the second day after reinfusion, with a peak between 72 and 96 hours, and decreased on the fifth day. The pattern for vomiting was similar, while retching episodes remained unchanged after the third day following transplant. Nausea and emesis were observed in 73% (n = 41) and 64% (n = 36) of HEC patients, respectively, and in 85% (n = 11) and 62% (n = 8) of MEC patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled delayed CINV is still a challenge for autologous HCT patients. Nausea, vomiting and retching are 3 different symptoms that should be assessed and managed separately in routine clinical practice.

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

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 NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and the pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 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.

Assessment of adherence to the guidelines for the management of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy

Objective:

To assess adherence of the prescribing physicians in a private cancer care center to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetic prophylaxis, in the first cycle of antineoplastic chemotherapy.

Methods:

A total of 139 chemotherapy regimens, of 105 patients, were evaluated retrospectively from 2011 to 2013.

Results:

We observed 78% of non-adherence to the guideline rate. The main disagreements with the directive were the prescription of higher doses of dexamethasone and excessive use of 5-HT3 antagonist for low risk emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. On univariate analysis, hematological malignancies (p=0.005), the use of two or more chemotherapy (p=0.05) and high emetogenic risk regimes (p=0.012) were factors statistically associated with greater adherence to guidelines. Treatment based on paclitaxel was the only significant risk factor for non-adherence (p=0.02). By multivariate analysis, the chemotherapy of high emetogenic risk most correlated with adherence to guideline (p=0.05).

Conclusion:

We concluded that the adherence to guidelines is greater if the chemotherapy regime has high emetogenic risk. Educational efforts should focus more intensely on the management of chemotherapy regimens with low and moderate emetogenic potential. Perhaps the development of a computer generated reminder may improve the adherence to guidelines.

Impact and management of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the perceptual gap between oncologists/oncology nurses and patients: a cross-sectional multinational survey

Purpose

Chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV/RINV) can affect half of oncology patients, significantly impacting daily life. Nausea without vomiting has only recently been thought of as a condition in its own right. As such, the incidence of nausea is often underestimated. This survey investigated the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV in patients compared with estimations of physicians/oncology nurses to determine if there is a perceptual gap between healthcare professionals and patients.

Methods

An online research survey of physicians, oncology nurses and patients was conducted across five European countries. Participants had to have experience prescribing/recommending or have received anti-emetic medication for CINV/RINV treatment. Questionnaires assessed the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV, anti-emetic usage and compliance, and attribute importance of anti-emetic medication.

Results

A total of 947 (375 physicians, 186 oncology nurses and 386 patients) participated in this survey. The incidence of nausea was greater than vomiting: 60 % of patients reported nausea alone, whereas 18 % reported vomiting. Physicians and oncology nurses overestimated the incidence of CINV/RINV but underestimated its impact on patients’ daily lives. Only 38 % of patients reported full compliance with physicians’/oncology nurses’ guidelines when self-administering anti-emetic medication. Leading factors for poor compliance included reluctance to add to a pill burden and fear that swallowing itself would induce nausea/vomiting.

Conclusions

There is a perceptual gap between healthcare professionals and patients in terms of the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV. This may lead to sub-optimal prescription of anti-emetics and therefore management of CINV/RINV. Minimising the pill burden and eliminating the requirement to swallow medication could improve poor patient compliance with anti-emetic regimens.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2750-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Review of oral fixed-dose combination netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Current guidelines recommend the combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, together with corticosteroids, in order to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and it is to be considered with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a novel, highly selective NK1 RA, and palonosetron, a new-generation 5-HT3 RA, targeting two major emetic pathways in a single oral capsule. In clinical trials, NEPA administered on day 1 together with dexamethasone was highly effective and well tolerated in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with solid tumors undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. NEPA offers maximal convenience, and as a simple guideline-based regimen, has the potential to improve adherence to guidelines.

Addressing the value of novel therapies in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troubling side effect of cancer treatment and is often poorly controlled. As a consequence, CINV is associated with substantially increased costs of care and significant interference with patients' lives. Inadequate control over CINV results from factors that include failure to provide guideline-adherent prophylactic medication and limitations in available therapies. Newer serotonin receptor antagonists, such as palonosetron, and addition of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists to treatment have significantly decreased both acute and delayed CINV. A fixed-dose combination of palonosetron and a new NK-1 receptor, netupitant, is significantly superior to palonosetron alone and has small, but consistent, numerical advantages over aprepitant plus palonosetron for prevention of CINV. The combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist plus an NK-1 receptor antagonist has been shown to be cost-effective for prevention of CINV and the availability of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron may enhance this benefit.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of granisetron-based versus standard antiemetic regimens in low-emetogenic chemotherapy: a hospital-based perspective from Malaysia

BACKGROUND

In a prospective cohort study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Malaysia, a total of 94 patients received low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with or without granisetron injections as the primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study is a retrospective cost analysis of two antiemetic regimens from the payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.

RESULTS

Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.

Antiemetic therapy in Asia Pacific countries for patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy--a descriptive analysis of practice patterns, antiemetic quality of care, and use of antiemetic guidelines

PURPOSE

This paper reports prescribing patterns for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries.

METHODS

In a prospective noninterventional study, 31 sites in Australia, China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan recorded details of CINV prophylaxis for the acute phase (first 24 h) and delayed phase (days 2-5) after single-day HEC or MEC for adult patients. Additional information on CINV prophylactic medications was collected from 6-day patient diaries. Primary antiemetic therapies were defined as corticosteroids, the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3-RAs), and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs).

RESULTS

Evaluable patients in cycle 1 numbered 648 (318 [49%] HEC and 330 [51%] MEC) of mean (SD) age of 56 (12) years, including 58% women. For the acute phase after HEC, overall (and country range), 96% (91-100%) of patients received a 5HT3-RA, 87% (70-100%) a corticosteroid, and 43% (0-91%) an NK1-RA. CINV prophylaxis for the HEC delayed phase was more variable: including 22% (7-65%) 5HT3-RA, 52% (12-93%) corticosteroid, and 46% (0-88%) NK1-RA. For the MEC acute phase, 97% (87-100%) of patients received 5HT3-RA and 86% (73-97%) a corticosteroid. For the MEC delayed phase, 201 patients (61%) received a primary antiemetic, including 5HT3-RA (41%), corticosteroid (37%), and/or NK1-RA (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The 5HT3-RAs were prescribed consistently in all countries, while prescribing of other antiemetic therapies was variable, and corticosteroids were under-prescribed for CINV prophylaxis, particularly in the delayed phase.

'Toxgnostics': an unmet need in cancer medicine

If we were to summarize the rationale that underpins medical oncology in a Latin aphorism, it might be 'veneno ergo sum'; that is, I poison, therefore I am. The burden of chemotherapy-associated toxicity is well recognized, but we have relatively few tools that increase the precision of anticancer drug prescribing. We propose a shift in emphasis from the focussed study of polymorphisms in drug metabolic pathways in small sets of patients to broader agnostic analyses to systematically correlate germline genetic variants with adverse events in large, well-defined cancer populations. Thus, we propose the new science of 'toxgnostics' (that is, the systematic, agnostic study of genetic predictors of toxicity from anticancer therapy).

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in patients with malignant glioma: a quality improvement project to translate evidence into practice

PURPOSE

A quality improvement project was implemented to improve adherence to evidence-based antiemetic guidelines for malignant glioma patients treated with moderately emetic chemotherapy (MEC). Poorly controlled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) reduce cancer treatment efficacy and significantly impair cancer patients' quality of life (QOL). A review of Duke University Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center (PRTBTC)'s usual practice demonstrates a high incidence (45%) of CINV, despite premedication with short-acting 5-HT3-serotonin-receptor antagonists (5-HT3-RAs). National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)'s evidence-based guidelines recommend the combination of the long-acting 5-HT3-RA palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV with MEC. Low adherence (58%) to antiemetic guidelines may have explained our high CINV incidence.

METHODS

One-sample binomial test, quasi-experimental design, evaluated a combination intervention that included a provider education session; implementation of risk-assessment tool with computerized, standardized antiemetic guideline order sets; and a monthly audit-feedback strategy. Post-implementation adherence to evidence-based antiemetic order sets and patient outcomes were measured and compared to baseline and historical data. Primary outcome was the guideline order set adherence rate. Secondary outcomes included nausea/vomiting rates and QOL.

RESULTS

Adherence to ordering MEC guideline antiemetics increased significantly, from 58% to a sustained 90%, with associated improvement in nausea/vomiting. In acute and delayed phases, 75 and 84% of patients, respectively, did not experience CINV. There was no significant change in QOL.

CONCLUSION

Combination intervention and audit-feedback strategy to translate evidence into oncology practice improved and sustained adherence to antiemetic guidelines. Adherence corresponded with effective nausea/vomiting control and preserved QOL in patients with malignant gliomas.

Changes in compliance with Japanese antiemetic guideline for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a nationwide survey using a distributed research network

OBJECTIVE

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is important for patient's quality of life and adherence to CT. Neurokinin receptor antagonist (NK1 antagonist) was marketed in Japan in December 2009 and the first guideline for antiemetics for CINV was released in May 2010 from Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO). We assessed changes in compliance with the JSCO guideline during the first 18 months from the launch of NK1 antagonist in Japan.

METHODS

Patient-level data was extracted locally using a nationwide distributed research network consisting of 39 hospitals. Monthly compliance rates for acute (day of CT) and delayed (days 2-5) phases were summarized according to the emetic risks.

RESULTS

In total, 81,739 CTs for 9,978 patients were analyzed. Prescription of oral NK1 antagonist was started in 31/39 hospitals during the study period. The compliance in acute phase for high emetic risk (HER) CTs gradually improved up to 39.3% whereas it reached only to 10-15% in delayed phase. The extra use of antiemetics decreased inversely to the increased compliance. Better compliance for HER CTs was associated with opioid use, younger age, second or later cycles, and CT regimens. Compliance in acute phase was better in inpatient whereas that in delayed phase was better in outpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-hospital survey revealed that more than half of the HER CTs remained without accompanying the standard antiemetic therapies. Association with the compliance and CINV outcomes would be also interesting to explore.

Antiemetic prescribing practices using a computerized physician order entry system

PURPOSE

Adherence to guideline-consistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is suboptimal. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of compliance to institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis using a computerized physician order entry system at a single tertiary care institution. A nurse survey was also performed to evaluate how oncology practices, within a cooperative group, managed clinician orders for the prevention of CINV.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of 100 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoint was the incidence of compliance to provide all aspects of scheduled institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis for acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-4) CINV. A descriptive analysis was performed on the convenience sample. Logistic regression was completed to determine the predictors of noncompliance.

RESULTS

The incidence of compliance on days 1-4 was 94 %. Half of the noncompliant events (three of six, 50 %) occurred on day 1 alone and involved patients receiving low-emetogenic chemotherapy. There was a high degree of compliance to institutional guidelines for the treatment of delayed CINV (97 %). Patients receiving minimally emetogenic and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (N = 70) were observed to be 100 % compliant. Patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide were numerically less likely to receive institutional guidelines, compared to patients receiving other chemotherapy regimens (OR, 0.24 (0.04, 1.36), p value, 0.05). The nurse survey suggested significant variability amongst the involved institutions with regards to antiemetic prescribing practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Computerized physician order entry is associated with impressive adherence to clinician-prescribing practices, according to institutional guidelines, for acute and delayed CINV.

Individual differences in chemotherapy-induced anticipatory nausea

Anticipatory Nausea (AN) is a severe side effect of chemotherapy that can lead cancer patients to discontinue their treatment. This kind of nausea is usually elicited by the re-exposure of the patients to the clinical context they need to attend to be treated. There has been considerable agreement that AN represents a paradigmatic example of Pavlovian conditioning, and within this framework, several behavioral interventions have been proposed in order to prevent this phenomenon. However, some studies have questioned the validity of the Pavlovian approach, suggesting that CS-US associations are neither necessary nor sufficient for AN to occur. The data and the alternative theories behind such criticisms are discussed. Additionally, it is suggested that animal models of AN could be enriched by taking into account rats' individual differences.

[Results and lessons of an innovating chemotherapy-induced nauseas and vomiting management strategy]

Current chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management guidelines recommend taking into account the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy employed as well as individual risk factors to such effects. We performed an interventional prospective study to assess the impact of an innovating therapeutic optimization strategy. The latter combines current guidelines application to a specific consultation in order to individualize the treatment. This study included 170 patients and covered a total of 1,746 days of various chemotherapies. Among these patients, 86.5% never vomited and 53.8% never had any nausea or vomiting. These results seem generally better than the ones found in the literature with all kinds of chemotherapies. Regarding them, we have attempted to highlight the determining criteria for a successful antiemetic treatment.

Antiemetic prophylaxis and frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in palliative first-line treatment of colorectal cancer patients: the Northern Bavarian IVOPAK I Project

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate adherence to guidelines of antiemetic prophylaxis and frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the palliative first-line treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in Northern Bavaria.

METHODS

We collected detailed information on chemotherapy and supportive drugs in 103 patients within a prospective observational study. The study was conducted to determine quality of care within an interdisciplinary context (first endpoint) and direct costs of palliative treatment for patients with CRC between 2006 and 2010 (second endpoint, Emmert et al. (Eur J Health Econ, 2012) [1]). In this paper, we evaluate adherence to Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) 2006 recommendations for prophylaxis of CINV during the first administration of chemotherapy as well as incidence and grade of CINV within 120 h thereafter.

RESULTS

Of the patients studied, 95 patients (92%) received moderately emetogenic (oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-containing combined chemotherapy treatment) and eight (8%) received low emetogenic chemotherapy (either 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine monotherapy). Antiemetic prophylaxis could be assessed in 101 out of 103 (98%) of patients. MASCC-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis was prescribed in three patients (3%). Nonadherence was mainly caused by omission of dexamethasone. Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in 18 patients (18%) within a 120-h period. All documented episodes were grade 1 or 2 according to the Common Toxicity Criteria of the National Cancer Institute. None of these patients received the recommended prophylaxis for CINV. In only one patient, antiemetic prophylaxis was intensified during the next chemotherapy application.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Integrated Health Care in the Palliative Treatment of Colorectal Carcinoma (IVOPAK) I Project, adherence to the MASCC clinical recommendations was very poor. Extent of CINV in this patient population seems to be underestimated. There is an urgent need to improve clinicians' awareness of this patient-relevant side effect.

Adherence to national guidelines for antiemesis prophylaxis in patients undergoing chemotherapy for lung cancer: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting (N/V) during chemotherapy can have profound clinical and economic consequences. Effective antiemetic agents are available for prophylaxis, but barriers may prevent their use. For this population-based study, the authors assessed the rates of antiemetic prophylaxis use, and predictors of such use, among patients who were receiving platinum-based chemotherapy for lung cancer between 2001 and 2007.

METHODS

The authors searched the Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare-linked database for individuals aged >65 years who received platinum-based chemotherapy within 12 months after a first diagnosis of lung cancer from 2001 to 2007; and all patients had continuous Medicare Part A and Part B coverage for the same period. Adherence to recommended regimens for N/V prophylaxis (established by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was scored as a binary variable (adherent vs nonadherent) and was calculated as the percentages of treated patients receiving each recommended agent within 1 day of beginning chemotherapy. Logistic regression with stepwise selection was used to examine whether patient characteristics influenced adherence.

RESULTS

Of 4566 selected patients, adherence rates for the receipt of serotonin antagonists (eg, ondansetron) with dexamethasone were 60% to 90% regardless of whether the chemotherapy agent was considered moderately or highly emetogenic. The receipt of substance-P antagonists was much less common (<10%) during any period. On multivariate logistic regression modeling, variables that predicted adherence were older age, white race, higher median income, and concurrent radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommended use of antiemetics for prophylaxis, especially substance-P antagonists, during chemotherapy for lung cancer is suboptimal. Factors that were correlated with adherence suggest socioeconomic barriers in the community.

The effect of guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): the Pan European Emesis Registry (PEER)

BACKGROUND

While guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are widely available, clinical uptake of guidelines remains low. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective, observational multicenter study enrolled chemotherapy-naive adults initiating single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer. Patients completed 6-day daily diaries beginning with cycle 1 for up to three chemotherapy cycles. The primary study end point, complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue therapy) during 120 h after cycle 1 chemotherapy, was compared between GCCP and guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) cohorts using multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

In cycle 1 (N=991), use of GCCP was 55% and 46% during acute and delayed phases, respectively, and 29 % for the overall study period (acute plus delayed phases). Complete response was recorded by 172/287 (59.9%) and 357/704 (50.7%) patients in GCCP and GICP cohorts, respectively (P=0.008). The adjusted odds ratio for complete response was 1.43 (95% confidence interval 1.04-1.97; P=0.027) for patients receiving GCCP versus GICP.

CONCLUSION

GCCP reduces the incidence of CINV after single-day HEC and MEC.