Antiemetic prescribing practices using a computerized physician order entry system

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.

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.

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.

Adherence to pediatric acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting guidelines in Canadian hospitals

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) impacts quality of life for patients. Guidelines for emetogenicity classification and prevention of CINV in children were recently published and endorsed by pediatric oncology organizations.

PROCEDURE

A multicenter chart review was performed at four Canadian pediatric oncology centers examining rates of prescribing adherence to CINV guidelines between January 2012 and December 2015. Eligible patients received their first chemotherapy course of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

RESULTS

Guideline adherence was described in 204 patients as antiemetic-only guideline adherence (AGA; examined medication/class prescribed only) and complete guideline adherence (CGA; examined medication/class, dose, frequency, and duration prescribed). Adherence was 29% (HEC 30%, MEC 19%, P = 0.1) and 2% for AGA and CGA patients, respectively. Vomiting in the first 24 h was experienced by 24% of AGA and 34% of non-AGA patients (P = 0.13), with mean breakthrough medication doses similar between AGA and non-AGA groups (HEC 1.8 vs 1.5, P = 0.45; MEC 3 vs 1.42, P = 0.35). In the first 24 h, HEC AGA patients achieved a complete control rate of 37% vs 45% for non-AGA patients (P = 0.31), while patients receiving AGA therapy for MEC achieved a complete control rate of 80% vs 24% for non-AGA patients (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guidelines was low across all four pediatric institutions. Each center used different approaches to implement pediatric CINV guidelines. Complete CINV control was low, with reports of emesis high, indicating that patients are not receiving optimal treatment.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Cancer: Practical Considerations for the Management of Patients with Nausea or Vomiting

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven efficacy and safety and are approved for use in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and those with atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no clear guidance on the use of DOACs in the significant proportion of these patients who have or will develop concomitant cancer. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting in these patients, despite implementation of guideline-recommended antiemetic strategies, is a particular concern because it may affect oral drug intake and consequently outcomes with anticoagulation therapy.Here, we review recent data on the incidence and management of cancer-associated nausea and vomiting and the current evidence and guidance relating to the use of DOACs in patients with cancer. On the basis of this evidence, an international working group of experts in the fields of cancer-associated thrombosis/hemostasis, hematology, and oncology discussed key issues related to the use of DOACs in patients with VTE or AF and cancer who are at risk of nausea and vomiting and developed some consensus recommendations. We present these consensus recommendations, which outline strategies for the use and management of anticoagulants, including DOACs, in patients with VTE or AF and cancer for whom oral drug intake may pose challenges. Guidance is provided on managing patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or nausea and vomiting that is caused by cancer treatments or other cancer-related factors.The recommendations outlined in this review provide a useful reference for health care professionals and will help to improve the management of anticoagulation in patients with VTE or AF and cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer several advantages over traditional anticoagulants, including ease of administration and the lack of need for routine monitoring. However, the management of patients with an indication for anticoagulation and concomitant cancer, who are at high risk of thromboembolic events, presents several challenges for administering oral therapies, particularly with regard to the risk of nausea and vomiting. In the absence of robust data from randomized trials and specific guidelines, consensus recommendations were developed for healthcare professionals regarding the use of DOACs in patients with cancer, with a focus on the management of patients who are at risk of nausea and vomiting.

What occurs in the other 20% of cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)? A single-institution qualitative study

PURPOSE

Despite recent advances in prophylaxis and management, 20% of patients who receive moderately to severely emetogenic chemotherapy continue to experience nausea and vomiting. Relying on patients' own words, this study sought to capture and characterize the lived experience with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for this important subgroup of patients.

METHODS

Solid tumor patients with a history of poorly controlled CINV provided informed consent and participated in a semi-structured interview, which was audio-recorded and transcribed. After data saturation, enrollment ceased, and inductive, qualitative analytic methods were employed.

RESULTS

The median age of the 20 enrolled patients was 56 years (range 27-83) with an equal gender split; half had gastrointestinal cancers. Two themes emerged. First, CINV is severe and multidimensional: "It's like shredding your muscles… It's doing it over and over again." This symptom complex has psychosocial implications: "Isolation is a big thing." Financial toxicity is also implicated: "I use [an antiemetic] when I feel like it is absolutely necessary because it is so expensive I cannot afford it anyway." The second theme is underreporting of symptoms. Patients seemed to accept N/V as part of treatment and were therefore less forthcoming: "God, if you're pumping poison in your system, you gotta expect some side effects."

CONCLUSIONS

These vivid data should motivate investigators to continue conducting clinical trials CINV and should remind healthcare providers about the importance of patient education on the availability of therapy for breakthrough symptomatology.

Personalization and Patient Involvement in Decision Support Systems: Current Trends

OBJECTIVES

This survey aims at highlighting the latest trends (2012-2014) on the development, use, and evaluation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) based decision support systems (DSSs) in medicine, with a particular focus on patient-centered and personalized care.

METHODS

We considered papers published on scientific journals, by querying PubMed and Web of ScienceTM. Included studies focused on the implementation or evaluation of ICT-based tools used in clinical practice. A separate search was performed on computerized physician order entry systems (CPOEs), since they are increasingly embedding patient-tailored decision support.

RESULTS

We found 73 papers on DSSs (53 on specific ICT tools) and 72 papers on CPOEs. Although decision support through the delivery of recommendations is frequent (28/53 papers), our review highlighted also DSSs only based on efficient information presentation (25/53). Patient participation in making decisions is still limited (9/53), and mostly focused on risk communication. The most represented medical area is cancer (12%). Policy makers are beginning to be included among stakeholders (6/73), but integration with hospital information systems is still low. Concerning knowledge representation/management issues, we identified a trend towards building inference engines on top of standard data models. Most of the tools (57%) underwent a formal assessment study, even if half of them aimed at evaluating usability and not effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we have noticed interesting evolutions of medical DSSs to improve communication with the patient, consider the economic and organizational impact, and use standard models for knowledge representation. However, systems focusing on patient-centered care still do not seem to be available at large.

Closing the Research-Practice Gap: Increasing Evidence-Based Practice for Nasogastric Tube Insertion Using Education and an Electronic Order Set

Patients and practitioners rate the insertion of a nasogastric tube as one of the most painful and distressing procedures performed. Research supports using lidocaine and a nasal vasoconstrictor to significantly decrease patient discomfort. The recommended medications were not being used routinely in a large urban emergency department.

METHODS

We identified departmental barriers using a nurse survey and physician interviews. We educated the nursing and physician staff about the comfort medications for nasogastric tube insertion recommended in the literature. In collaboration with the information technology department, we created an order set for the department's computerized physician order entry system linking the order for a nasogastric tube with the recommended comfort medications.

RESULTS

Six months after the educational campaign and availability of the new electronic order set, we compared the data from pre- and post-project chart reviews and found the use of literature-recommended comfort medications had increased from 23% to 93%.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses have a professional obligation to use the most current evidence-based practice available and to advocate for adequate pain management before, during, and after painful procedures. The use of evidence-based practice has been associated with an increase in both patient and staff satisfaction, improved clinical outcomes, and greater patient safety. An electronic order set combined with staff education resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of evidence-based practice for nasogastric tube insertion.