Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: ADVICE (Actual Data of Vomiting Incidence by Chemotherapy Evaluation) study

Predictive factors of chemotherapy‑induced nausea and vomiting in elderly patients with gynecological cancer undergoing paclitaxel and carboplatin therapy: A retrospective study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common and distressing adverse effect in elderly patients with gynecological cancer undergoing paclitaxel and carboplatin therapy. The present study aimed to identify predictors of CINV in this population. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 209 elderly patients with gynecological cancer treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy at The Affiliated Hospital, Southwest Medical University (Luzhou, China) between May 2019 and July 2023. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (MAT) was used to assess the presence, frequency, and severity of CINV. Patients were categorized into the CINV group (n=76) and non-CINV group (n=133) based on the MAT results. Age, hypertension, pre-chemotherapy sleep duration and pre-chemotherapy anxiety level were identified as significant predictors of CINV in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, age, pre-chemotherapy sleep duration and pre-chemotherapy anxiety level remained significant predictors. In conclusion, age, pre-chemotherapy sleep duration and pre-chemotherapy anxiety level are significant predictors of CINV in elderly patients with gynecological cancer undergoing paclitaxel and carboplatin therapy. These findings could help in tailoring preventative strategies for CINV in this population.

Impact of oncology pharmacy services on the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of oncology services rendered by clinical pharmacists on reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improving overall treatment experiences.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Research Information Sharing Service (RISS). The incidence and severity of CINV were evaluated as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were patient adherence, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and costs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were selected for systematic review, with 8 studies eligible for meta-analysis. We found that clinical pharmacy services contributed to preventing and alleviating CINV as well as improving patient's medication adherence, treatment satisfaction, and QoL, reducing hospital visits, and achieving cost savings. In the meta-analysis, pharmacists' interventions were notably effective in reducing the incidence of nausea (odds ratio [OR], 1.917; 95% CI, 1.243-2.955; P = 0.003) and vomiting (OR, 2.491; 95% CI, 1.199-5.177; P = 0.014) during overall treatments periods relative to results in control groups. In addition, the impact of clinical pharmacy services on CINV control was greater during the delayed phase compared to the acute phase.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the important role of clinical pharmacy services in controlling CINV and enhancing the overall treatment experience for patients with cancer. Further studies with standardized pharmacists' services and outcome measures are needed to validate our findings.

The effect of self-care education with smart phone applications on the severity of nausea and vomiting after stem cell transplantation in leukemia patients

INTRODUCTION

Common side effects after stem cell transplantation (SCT), such as anorexia, nausea, and vomiting, can disrupt the quality of life of patients. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effect of self-care education with smart phone applications on the severity of nausea and vomiting after SCT in leukemia patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this clinical trial study, using the blocked randomization method 104 leukemia patients undergoing SCT were assigned to two groups, intervention and control. The patients of the Control Group received routine care, and the Intervention Group received self-care education with a smart mobile phone application, in addition to routine care. Two weeks, one month, and three months after the start of the intervention, the severity of nausea and vomiting was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Khavar Oncology scale, both of which were completed by both Control and Intervention Groups. Data were analyzed using chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney, and Friedman tests using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 25 software.

RESULTS

The severity of nausea and vomiting in leukemia patients undergoing SCT was significantly different in the two groups at all three timepoints (two weeks, one month, and three months) after transplantation (p-value = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

The severity of nausea and vomiting after SCT in leukemia patients was improved by self-care education with a smart phone application. Therefore, this method is recommended to reduce the severity of nausea and vomiting in leukemia patients who undergo transplantation.

Effect of a Standardized Ginger Root Powder Regimen on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

There is substantial interest in the role of ginger as an adjuvant therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, available evidence lacks robust methodology.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of adjuvant ginger compared with placebo on chemotherapy-induced nausea-related quality of life (QoL) and CINV-related outcomes.

DESIGN

A parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial with 1:1 allocation was conducted.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

One hundred three chemotherapy-naïve adults scheduled to receive moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy at two hospitals in Australia were enrolled and analyzed.

INTERVENTION

Four standardized ginger capsules (totaling 84 mg/day active gingerols/shogaols), or placebo, were administered commencing the day of chemotherapy and continuing for 5 days for chemotherapy cycles 1 through 3.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was chemotherapy-induced nausea-related QoL. Secondary outcomes were vomiting- and CINV-related QoL; anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting; fatigue; nutritional status; depression and anxiety; health-related QoL; and adverse events.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED

Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Mixed analysis of variance with repeated measures determined differences between groups. The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. After applying a Bonferroni multiple testing correction, evidence against the null hypothesis was considered at P= 0.003.

RESULTS

One hundred three participants (ginger: n = 52; placebo: n = 51) were enrolled and analyzed. There was clinically relevant evidence against the null hypothesis, favoring ginger, in change scores for nausea-related QoL (F[df] = 9.34[1,101]; P = 0.003; partial η2 = 0.09), overall CINV-related QoL (F[df] = 12.26[1,101]; P < 0.001; partial η2 = 0.11), delayed nausea severity (F[df] = 9.46[1,101]; P = 0.003; partial η2 = 0.09), and fatigue (F[df] = 10.11[1,101]; P = 0.002; partial η2 = 0.09). There was a clinically meaningful lower incidence of delayed nausea and vomiting in the ginger group at Cycle 2 (53% vs 75%; P = 0.020 and 4% vs 27%; P = 0.001, respectively) and Cycle 3 (49% vs 79%; P = 0.002 and 2% vs 23%; P = 0.001, respectively). There was a clinically meaningful lower incidence of malnutrition in the ginger group at Cycle 3 (18% vs. 41%; P = 0.032) and in change scores for Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (F[df)] = 4.32[1,100]; P = 0.040; partial η2 = 0.04). Change scores between groups favored ginger for vomiting-related QoL and number of vomiting episodes; however, findings were not clinically meaningful. There was no effect of ginger on anticipatory or acute CINV, health-related QoL, anxiety, or depression. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Ginger supplementation was a safe adjuvant to antiemetic medications for CINV that enhanced QoL during chemotherapy treatment. Future trials are needed to examine dose-dependent responses to verify optimal dosing regimens.

Awareness and interest in cannabis use for cancer management among cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

We examined the awareness, interest, and information sources relating to cannabis use for cancer management (including management of cancer symptoms and treatment-related side effects) and determined factors associated with cancer survivors' awareness and interest in learning about cannabis use for cancer management.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of adult cancer survivors (N = 1886) receiving treatment at a comprehensive cancer center. Weighted prevalence and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Among cancer survivors, 88% were aware and 60% were interested in learning about cannabis use for cancer management. Common sources of information to learn about cannabis use for cancer management were cancer doctors/nurses (82%), other patients with cancer (27%), websites/blogs (26%), marijuana stores (20%), and family/friends (18%). The odds of being aware of cannabis use for cancer management was lower among male compared to female survivors (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.90), non-Hispanic Blacks compared to non-Hispanic Whites (AOR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.21-0.62), and survivors who do not support the legalization of cannabis for medical use compared to those who do (AOR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.04-0.23). On the other hand, the odds of being interested in cannabis use for cancer management was higher among non-Hispanic Blacks compared to non-Hispanic Whites (AOR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.04-2.62), and among cancer survivors actively undergoing cancer treatment compared to patients on non-active treatment (AOR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.74-2.91).

CONCLUSION

Awareness of cannabis use for cancer management is high within the cancer survivor population. Results indicated health care providers are leading information source and should receive continued medical education on cannabis-specific guidelines. Similarly, tailored educational interventions are needed to guide survivors on the benefits and risks of cannabis use for cancer management.

Cannabis Use among Cancer Survivors: Use Pattern, Product Type, and Timing of Use

Despite growing interest in the use of cannabis for the treatment of cancer-related symptoms, there are limited studies that have assessed the use pattern, type, and mode of delivery of cannabis products used by cancer survivors. This study describes the current state of the use pattern, product type, and mode of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors. This was a cross-sectional study of cancer survivors from 41 U.S. states who received treatment at the largest NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. The weighted prevalence of the use patterns, product types, and modes of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors was estimated. A total of 1886 cancer survivors were included in the study, with 915 (48% [95% CI: 45-51]) reporting ever using cannabis. Of survivors who had ever used cannabis, 36% (95% CI: 33-40) were current users. Among survivors who reported cannabis use after diagnosis, 40% used cannabis during and after cancer treatment, 35% used cannabis during treatment, and 25% used cannabis after completing their cancer treatment. Additionally, 48% of survivors reported an increase in cannabis use since cancer diagnosis. The commonest types of cannabis products used by cancer survivors were dry leaf cannabis (71%), cannabidiol (CBD) oil (46%), and cannabis candy (40%). Moreover, cancer survivors frequently used baked goods (32%), creams and gels (21%), and tinctures (18%). Furthermore, among ever users, the predominant mode of use was cannabis inhalation/smoking (69%) compared to eating/drinking (59%). More so, the common mode of inhalation/smoking of cannabis products were rolled cannabis cigarettes (79%), pipes (36%), water pipes (34%), vaporizers or vapes (14%), and e-cigarette devices (14%). A substantial number of cancer survivors use cannabis during cancer treatment, with increased use following cancer diagnosis. The forms and modes of delivery of cannabis varied among survivors, with most survivors inhaling or smoking cannabis. There is a need to educate healthcare providers (HCPs) and survivors on current evidence of cannabis use and strengthen cannabis regulatory frameworks to optimize benefits and minimize adverse events from cannabis use during cancer treatment.

Retrospective Evaluation of a Dexamethasone Sparing Antiemetic Regimen: An Antiemetic Prophylaxis Study on NEPA (Netupitant Plus Palonosetron) for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Cancer Patients

Background Corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone (DEX), have been extensively utilized for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, their usage is associated with a range of adverse events. In contrast, the combination of Netupitant Plus Palonosetron (NEPA) with a single dose of DEX provides comparable efficacy in preventing CINV over a five-day period following chemotherapy administration. This regimen offers the advantage of reducing the need for additional doses of DEX, particularly in the high-risk setting of HEC (Highly emetic chemotherapy). Objective To evaluate dexamethasone sparing anti-emetic regimen (single dose dexamethasone with NEPA) for prophylaxis of CINV in patients receiving HEC. Methodology This is a retrospective, observational, real-world, single-center study including data of 69 patients who received high-dose emetogenic chemotherapy and were administered DEX (8 or 12 mg) on day 1, with no dose of DEX on days 2, 3, and 4, combined with an oral combination of tablet netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg. NEPA was taken orally an hour prior to the start of the HEC cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR) which is defined as no nausea, emesis, or no rescue medication during the Acute (< 24 hours) and Delayed Phase (25-120 hours) of chemotherapy. Results The overall CR achieved in the acute and delayed phase for vomiting is 100% at all four follow-ups. The CR achieved in the acute phase is 95.7% whereas 98.6% of patients showed CR in the delayed phase respectively. No patient required any rescue medication. No acute and delayed phase of vomiting was reported. Conclusion A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers effective CINV prevention throughout five days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high-emetic-risk setting chemotherapy.

Cancer cachexia as a blueprint for treating obesity

Effective pharmacological treatments to achieve significant and sustained weight loss in obese individuals remain limited. Here, we apply a 'reverse engineering' approach to cancer cachexia, an extreme form of dysregulated energy balance resulting in net catabolism. We discuss three phenotypic features of the disease, summarize the underlying molecular checkpoints, and explore their translation to obesity research. We then provide examples for established pharmaceuticals, which follow a reverse engineering logic, and propose additional targets that may be of relevance for future studies. Finally, we argue that approaching diseases from this perspective may prove useful as a generic strategy to fuel the development of innovative therapies.

Neural networks involved in nausea in adult humans: A systematic review

Nausea is a common clinical symptom, poorly managed with anti-emetic drugs. To identify potential brain regions which may be therapeutic targets we systematically reviewed brain imaging in subjects reporting nausea. The systematic review followed PRISMA statements with methodological quality (MINORS) and risk of bias (ROBINS-I) assessed. Irrespective of the nauseagenic stimulus the common (but not only) cortical structures activated were the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the anterior insula (AIns) with some evidence for lateralization (Left-IFG, Right-AIns, Right-ACC). Basal ganglia structures (e.g., putamen) were also consistently activated. Inactivation was rarely reported but occurred mainly in the cerebellum and occipital lobe. During nausea, functional connectivity increased, mainly between the posterior and mid- cingulate cortex. Limitations include, a paucity of studies and stimuli, subject demographics, inconsistent definition and measurement of nausea. Structures implicated in nausea are discussed in the context of knowledge of central pathways for interoception, emotion and autonomic control. Comparisons are made between nausea and other aversive sensations as multimodal aversive conscious experiences.

Evaluation of Current Antiemetic Therapy Response in Patients Undergoing MEC or HEC Regimens in Portugal

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) negatively impact cancer patients' quality of life and treatment outcomes. This study evaluated the achievement of complete response to CINV prophylaxis during the first five days after chemotherapy in adult outpatient cancer clinics with solid malignant tumours receiving Moderate or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) in Portugal. During the study, patients completed three evaluations, and nausea severity and CINV impact on patients' daily life was assessed. A complete response (no emetic episodes, no use of rescue antiemetic medication, and no more than mild nausea) was observed in 72% of the cycles (N = 161) throughout the five days after chemotherapy. Amongst the patient population, 25% classified their CINV episodes as severe. Though more than half of the patients achieved a complete response, suggesting that a therapeutic effort is being made to minimise this side effect, the overall scenario is barely optimistic. Significantly, new CINV-control measures in MEC/HEC patients should be adopted, specifically avoiding the single use of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 and raising awareness of using NK1-RAs. Thus, it is critical to improve CINV prophylactic treatment and implement practical international antiemetic guidelines in Portuguese clinical practice, envisaging the improvement of supportive care for cancer patients.

Evaluation of adverse drug reactions of chemotherapeutic agents used in advanced non-small cell lung cancer - experience from a rural tertiary care institution in North Eastern India

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality both in developed and developing countries. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are inevitable, albeit unwanted aspects of cancer chemotherapeutic agents used in lung cancer.

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

To determine common ADRs and the severity of ADRs of different chemotherapeutic agents used in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted among purposively selected 160 patients who had undergone chemotherapy for lung carcinoma. Clinical records of NSCLC patients were reviewed and data related to the socio-demographic and clinic-therapeutic profiles of patients were collected. ADRs were graded according to the Common toxicity criteria (CTC) grading. Data analysis was done using the IBM-SPSS software and presented using the principle of descriptive statistics. Relationships between ADRs and drug regimens were determined using Chi-square tests considering a 95% confidence interval and P value ≤ 0.05 as significant.

RESULT

Among 160 patients, 78.8% were males and 21.3% were females. The mean age was 59.15 ± 10.6 years, illness duration was 7.5 ± 10.6 months, and treatment duration was 4.4 ± 0.91 months. The overall mortality rate and systemic toxicity of the paclitaxel-carboplatin combination were the lowest. Almost an equal proportion of moderate to severe changes in parameters such as myelosuppression, anemia, thrombocytopenia, alopecia, skin changes, allergic reaction, and peripheral neuropathy, were observed with all chemotherapeutic regimens. Gemcitabine-carboplatin regimen was associated with a higher proportion of altered liver enzymes, electrolyte imbalance, diarrhea, pleural effusion, and renal toxicities.

CONCLUSION

There was a high prevalence of ADRs with different chemotherapeutic agents. Early detection of these ADRs may help in minimizing the damage by either modifying the dose or changing the offending agent.

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.

Dietary strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing cancer treatment side effects, affecting 20-70% of patients despite routine antiemetic prescription. Although dietary modifications are routinely recommended in clinical practice, there is lack of data synthesis to determine which dietary strategies for managing CINV are supported by quality evidence. This systematic review was conducted to examine the effect of dietary strategies on incidence and severity of CINV in adults compared with no intervention, usual care, or alternative strategies.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched from inception to 15th July 2021 for original research studies of interventional or observational design assessing dietary strategies for CINV. The quality of evidence was appraised, data were synthesized narratively, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment of the certainty of the evidence was applied.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, 10 (48%) interventional studies and 11 (52%) observational studies. Most interventional and observational studies had a high or neutral risk of bias (70% and 72%, respectively). Of the interventions studied, strongest evidence with highest certainty was found for the very large positive effect of CINV-specific education and support with a personalized meal plan from a dietician, implemented in person or in writing, for reducing the severity of nausea and overall CINV (effect size: very large; GRADE: high). A statistically significant very large positive effect of ginger tea consumption was also found on overall CINV severity; however, certainty in this effect was very low. Although confidence in the findings from observational studies was very low to low, a statistically significant positive association was also found between a moderate intake of alcohol and incidence of nausea, vomiting, or overall CINV as well as nausea severity; the Mediterranean diet and nausea incidence and severity; and adequate intake of energy, protein, fat, or carbohydrate and nausea or vomiting incidence.

CONCLUSION

Improved CINV was associated with CINV-specific nutrition education and support from health professionals. Non-restrictive dietary patterns that include adequate energy and macronutrient intakes, particularly protein, and include ginger, and Mediterranean diet concepts may benefit CINV; however, the confidence in the body of evidence to inform these conclusions is mostly very low to moderate. Future rigorous trials with adequate sample sizes, clearly defined dietary strategies, and valid outcome measures are warranted prior to dietary strategies being routinely prescribed alongside antiemetic regimens.

The longitudinal effects of chronotype on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The object of this longitudinal cohort study was to investigate whether chronotype affects the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

The study included a total of 203 breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy using a regimen of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with high emetogenicity. Patients received four cycles of chemotherapy in approximately three months. Patients completed questionnaires including the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire (MCTQ) before the first chemotherapy and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (MAT) after each of the four chemotherapy sessions. To confirm the effect of chronotype on CINV during the four cycles, we performed statistical analyses using a generalized estimating equation (GEE).

RESULTS

CINV occurred in 108 (53.2%), 112 (55.2%), 102 (50.3%), and 62 (30.5%) patients during four cycles of treatment. In the GEE approach, late and early chronotypes (vs. intermediate chronotype) were associated with an increased risk of CINV (late chronotype: odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.99; p < 0.001, early chronotype: OR, 1.84; CI, 1.25-2.73; p = 0.002), which remained significant even after adjusting for age, BMI, antiemetic treatment, history of nausea and vomiting, anxiety, and sleep quality.

CONCLUSION

Chronotype affected CINV across the four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, suggesting the need to consider chronotype in predicting and managing CINV.

Incidence, causes, and timing of peripheral intravenous catheter failure related to insertion timing in the treatment cycle in patients with hematological malignancies: A prospective descriptive study

AIM

We aimed to reveal detailed descriptive data on peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) failure related to insertion timing during the treatment cycle, in patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective descriptive study to investigate the incidence of PIVC failure, defined as PIVC removal prior to completing infusion therapy. This was judged by ward nurses for adult patients requiring PIVC insertion for chemotherapy. A research nurse confirmed the timing and determined the causes of PIVC failure using ultrasonographic imaging. Descriptive data were collected in the hematology and oncology ward of a tertiary hospital in Japan.

RESULTS

We recruited 85 patients (with 303 PIVCs), and analyzed 67 patients (with 280 PIVCs). Of these, 118 PIVCs (42%) were inserted during the chemotherapeutic dosing period of the treatment cycle, and 106 (38%), during the rest period. The incidence of cumulative PIVC failure was 43.2% of all analyzed PIVCs (89.97 per 1,000 PIVC days). Of the PIVCs in patients with lymphoma, those inserted during the dosing period were less likely to show PIVC failure (32% vs. 57%, p < .001). Conversely, those inserted after the treatment cycle were more likely to show PIVC failure (22% vs. 7%, p = .002).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the incidence of PIVC failure in patients with hematological malignancies was unacceptably high. Conceivably, the incidence of PIVC failure varies by the onset time of side effects in the treatment cycle. This should be considered when using PIVCs and selecting optimal vascular access devices for patients with hematological malignancies.

Chemotherapy-Associated nausea and vomiting: A cross-sectional survey of occurrence and management patterns at jos university teaching hospital, Nigeria

Background:

The management patterns for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting (CANV) in Sub-Saharan African settings have not been previously reported. The objectives of this study were to describe the prescribing pattern of antiemetics for CANV, to assess their adherence to guidelines, and to determine the occurrence of CANV.

Subjects and Methods:

This was a cross-sectional study, with data extracted from the records of adult patients who received chemotherapy from 2015 to 2018 at Jos University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Harmonized Guidelines™ for Sub-Saharan Africa for Antiemesis Version 3.2018 was used to determine the extent of guideline adherence.

Results:

Records of 165 patients were analyzed. Majority of the patients (76.4%, n = 126) received moderate-to-high emetic risk intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. Out of 129 antiemetic prescriptions for acute-phase prophylaxis, ondansetron (75.2%), corticosteroids (61.2%), and promethazine (24.8%) were the most prescribed agents. In the delayed phase, 50 patients received prophylactic antiemetics in the order of corticosteroids, ondansetron, and promethazine at 74%, 34%, and 26%, respectively. Guideline adherence was low for the acute-phase (23.6%), delayed-phase (20.6%), and overall period (17.6%). Among inpatients (n = 85), occurrences of nausea were negligible, whereas acute vomiting (9%) and delayed vomiting (15%) levels were considerable. Not receiving highly emetogenic IV chemotherapy was associated with significantly lower odds for nausea or vomiting occurrence, odds ratio 0.228 (95% confidence interval 0.054–0.967).

Conclusions:

Antiemetic guideline adherence was low due to antiemetic under-prescribing. A few nausea and vomiting events were recorded predominantly among patients who received highly emetogenic IV chemotherapy.

Effects of auricular acupressure on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients: a preliminary randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Auricular acupressure (AA) has been viewed as a promising approach to managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) but relevant research evidence has been inconclusive. This study aimed to examine the effects of AA on CINV in breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

A preliminary randomized controlled trial was conducted in 114 BC patients. Participants were randomly allocated to a true AA group (n = 38), a sham AA group (n = 38), and a standard care group (n = 38). All the participants were provided with standard antiemetic treatment and care, while the true AA group and the sham AA group received an additional 5-day true AA and a 5-day sham AA, respectively. Acute and delayed CINV were assessed by using the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT), anticipatory nausea and vomiting were measured by the Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching (INVR), and patients' quality of life (QoL) was evaluated by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B).

RESULTS

Both the true and sham AA groups reported improved CINV outcomes than the standard care group, with the true AA demonstrating larger effects than the sham comparison. The true and sham AA groups had higher complete response (CR) rates of CINV when compared with the standard care group, with the difference in the CR of acute CINV achieving statistical significance (p = 0.03). Both the true and sham AA groups demonstrated lower incidence and severity of acute CINV compared with the standard care group with the among-group difference reaching statistical significance for the occurrence (p = 0.04) and severity (p = 0.001) of acute nausea. No significant differences in anticipatory CINV and QoL were found among the groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of AA plus standard antiemetic treatment and care was superior to the use of standard antiemetic treatment and care alone in managing CINV among BC patients receiving chemotherapy. The antiemetic effects of AA were identified to be more profound in improving acute CINV, particularly acute nausea. The antiemetic effects of AA were deemed to be a mixture of specific treatment effects and placebo effects, and the placebo effects were very large and even reached clinical significance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02403037 ; Registered March 31, 2015.

Metagenomics and chemotherapy-induced nausea: A roadmap for future research

Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can reduce patients' quality of life and may result in premature discontinuation of chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting are commonly grouped together, research has shown that antiemetics are clinically effective against chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) but less so against chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). Nausea remains a problem for up to 68% of patients who are prescribed guideline-consistent antiemetics. Despite the high prevalence of CIN, relatively little is known regarding its etiology independent of CIV. This review summarizes a metagenomics approach to the study and treatment of CIN with the goal of encouraging future research. Metagenomics focuses on genetic risk factors and encompasses both human (ie, host) and gut microbial genetic variation. Little work to date has focused on metagenomics as a putative biological mechanism of CIN. Metagenomics has the potential to be a powerful tool in advancing scientific understanding of CIN by identifying new biological pathways and intervention targets. The investigation of metagenomics in the context of well-established demographic, clinical, and patient-reported risk factors may help to identify patients at risk and facilitate the prevention and management of CIN.

FLOT (a chemotherapy regimen for gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer): to be treated as a highly emetogenic regimen or a moderately emetogenic one? Comparison of the emetogenic potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC regimens

PURPOSE

The current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin + docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients.

STUDY

Patients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic risk), or TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide/high-emetic risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant.

RESULTS

A total of 165 chemotherapy-naïve patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day 5, "complete response" (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning "complete response" achievement in delayed (p = 0.014) and overall (p = 0.017) phases, "no emesis" in delayed (p = 0.018) and overall (p = 0.010) phases, and also "complete protection" in acute (p = 0.023), delayed (p = 0.009), and overall (p = 0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints, was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison with the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison with the TAC group.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen; provided that, as recommended by the antiemetic guidelines towards better management of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic regimens, executing clinical trials concerning the efficacy of continuing dexamethasone on days 2-4 in aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen schedule is required.

Integrative surgical oncology: A model of acute integrative oncology

Integrative oncology has emerged as a recognized medical subspecialty because of growing interest in the use of integrative medicine in modern cancer care on behalf of both patients and providers. Acutherapy and mind-body techniques, such as meditation and yoga, have been shown to aid in symptom control and improve quality of life in oncologic patient populations, and the Society of Integrative Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology have recently endorsed a set of guidelines for the implementation of these techniques specifically in patients with breast cancer. Although the current guidelines focus largely on the management of chronic symptoms, there exists evidence to support the use of these techniques in acute symptom management as well. With surgical resection representing the backbone of many cancer treatment regimens, symptoms that arise during the perioperative period are prime examples of the acute symptomatology common among patients with cancer. Here, the authors provide a detailed literature review of the current evidence supporting the use of integrative techniques during the perioperative period and demonstrate their applicability for acute symptom management within oncologic and surgical populations. In doing so, the authors introduce a new paradigm of surgical practice they call integrative surgical oncology and integrative surgery.

Evaluation of a Broad-Spectrum Partially Automated Adverse Event Surveillance System: A Potential Tool for Patient Safety Improvement in Hospitals With Limited Resources

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the sensitivity and resource efficiency of a partially automated adverse event (AE) surveillance system for routine patient safety efforts in hospitals with limited resources.

METHODS

Twenty-eight automated triggers from the hospital information system's clinical and administrative databases identified cases that were then filtered by exclusion criteria per trigger and then reviewed by an interdisciplinary team. The system, developed and implemented using in-house resources, was applied for 45 days of surveillance, for all hospital inpatient admissions (N = 1107). Each trigger was evaluated for its positive predictive value (PPV). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the surveillance system (overall and by AE category) was estimated relative to incidence ranges in the literature.

RESULTS

The surveillance system identified a total of 123 AEs among 283 reviewed medical records, yielding an overall PPV of 52%. The tool showed variable levels of sensitivity across and within AE categories when compared with the literature, with a relatively low overall sensitivity estimated between 21% and 44%. Adverse events were detected in 23 of the 36 AE categories defined by an established harm classification system. Furthermore, none of the detected AEs were voluntarily reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The surveillance system showed variable sensitivity levels across a broad range of AE categories with an acceptable PPV, overcoming certain limitations associated with other harm detection methods. The number of cases captured was substantial, and none had been previously detected or voluntarily reported. For hospitals with limited resources, this methodology provides valuable safety information from which interventions for quality improvement can be formulated.

Effectiveness of Inhaled Aromatherapy on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and feared side effects of cancer treatments. Their presence has a negative impact on the quality of life and morbidity associated with the disease. Despite increasingly effective antiemetic treatments, 40% of cancer patients experience CINV during the acute or delayed phase of their treatment. This distressing experience lived through by a large number of people makes it a priority in the improvement of cancer patients and a daily concern for nurses in cancer care units. In an attempt to alleviate this problem, the idea of using aromatherapy as supportive care has led the authors to research the knowledge available on this subject. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the existing scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of respiratory aromatherapy on CINV in addition to standard treatment compared with their recommended management in people with cancer. Design: Systematic review. Methods: This review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and queried six databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Database, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar). An analysis of the risk of bias using the Cochrane "Risks of Bias" tools and a qualitative synthesis of the results of the studies were carried out. Results: Eleven studies were included, nine in adults and two in children. Seven out of nine studies showed statistically significant results in adults with either direct or dry inhalation. Four out of seven alleviated both nausea and vomiting thanks to peppermint, ginger essential oil; three decreased nausea only with chamomilla, ginger or cardamom essential oil. Atmospheric diffusion and the use of inhaled aromatherapy in children did not show any benefit. Conclusions: Results appear promising for the use of direct inhaled aromatherapy in the management of CINV. However, most of the studies found the women concerned suffered from gynecologic cancers and had certain methodological limitations. Indeed, small samples and a wide variety of interventions were studied (different essential oils, number of drops of essential oils used, method of administration, etc.), making it impossible so far to generalize these results. Studies with a more robust methodology and larger samples will make it possible to confirm the potential usefulness of this complementary treatment.

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.

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.

Elevated serum substance P level as a predictive marker for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A prospective cohort study

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an unbearable side effect. Identifying high emetic risk patients and providing more active antiemetics strategies are mandatory to improve the tolerability of chemotherapy. In this prospective cohort study, leptin, ghrelin, and substance P were measured at baseline, day 3, and day 14 during the first cycle of chemotherapy. Nausea and vomiting were measured each day for the first 4 days of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Eighty‐two patients were enrolled. Colorectal cancer (61%) and gastric cancer (35.4%) were common cancer types. All patients received moderate emetic risk chemotherapy. Forty‐five (54.9%) patients had nausea, and 15 (18.3%) patients experienced vomiting. In univariate analysis, a higher level of baseline substance P, which is a target of NK1‐RA (Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist), was a significant predictive marker for chemotherapy‐induced nausea [odds ratio (OR): 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02–6.62, p = 0.046]. Regarding chemotherapy‐induced vomiting, patients with higher levels of substance P had a greater chance of vomiting [OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.49–5.99, p = 0.395] than those with lower levels of substance P. In patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy, active antiemetics, including NK1‐RA, could be considered for those with high levels of substance P.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Recommendations, and New Trends

The significant physical and emotional effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are experienced by cancer patients. Severe symptoms decrease the patient's quality of life and potentially deters further treatment. The five main forms of CINV (i.e., acute, delayed, anticipatory, breakthrough, and refractory) require different treatment regimens, which often include 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids. Despite a significant amount of research and development of antiemetic agents, management of CINV remains a great challenge with many needs waiting to be adequately addressed, such as controlling non-acute CINV, developing appropriate CINV treatment protocols for multiple-day chemotherapy patients, and providing options for those prone to CINV despite treatment. Further research is required to optimize CINV management for these patients.

The Effects of Peppermint Oil on Nausea, Vomiting and Retching in Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: An Open Label Quasi-Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

The current study evaluated the effects of peppermint oil on the frequency of nausea, vomiting, retching, and the severity of nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

DESIGN

A quasi-randomized controlled study.

SETTING

Patients were recruited from the ambulatory chemotherapy unit of a public hospital located (Batman, Turkey) between September 2017 and September 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants in the intervention group applied one drop the aromatic mixture on the spot between their upper lip and their nose, three times a day for the five days following chemotherapy administration, in addition to the routine antiemetic treatment. Participants in the control group underwent only the routine antiemetic treatment. Main outcome measures VAS-the severity of nausea and the Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching.

RESULTS

The VAS nausea score was significantly lower after peppermint oil applying in the patients receiving Folfirinox (treatment effect (mean dif.): 4.00±2.28; P<0.001), Paclitaxel-Trastuzumab (treatment effect (mean dif.): 1.70±0.90; P=0.014), Carboplatin-Paclitaxel (treatment effect (mean dif.): 3.71±1.41; P<0.001), and Cyclophosphamide-Adriamycin (treatment effect (mean dif.): 1.41±0.73; P=0.005) excluding cisplatin scedule (treatment effect (mean dif.): 0.56±2,18; P=0.642). We detected a statistical significant difference in the change in frequency of nausea, vomiting, retching in the other all schedules excluding cisplatin schedule (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The peppermint oil was significantly reduced the frequency of nausea, vomiting, retching and the severity of nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Therefore, usage of peppermint oil together with antiemetics after chemotherapy with moderate and low emetic risk may be recommended to cope with CINV.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) with GI Cancer Chemotherapy: Do We Need CINV Risk Score Over and Above Antiemetic Guidelines in Prescribing Antiemetic Regime?

Background  Various predictive models have been developed which incorporates patient risk factors into the selection of optimal antiemetic therapy, one of which is chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk scoring system developed by Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). Patients and Methods  Consecutive patients with gastrointestinal malignancy who had not received previous chemotherapy were eligible for enrollment in the study if they were scheduled to receive at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The CINV risk assessment tool was used to collect the study data and to assess CINV risk score. Results  Ninety-eight patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in this study, out of which 57% were males, median age was 48 years (range: 28-77). Colorectal cancer (32.7%) was the most common diagnosis followed by gastric cancer (27.6%). Gemcitabine/cisplatin and CAPOX regimen were the most common regimen being administered in 19.4% each. As per MASCC guidelines, 19.4% patients received highly emetogenic chemotherapy, 69.4% moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, while 11.2% received regimen with low emetogenicity. CINV risk module characterized 52% patients to have high risk for CINV, while 48% to have low risk of CINV, thus, 52% had the discrepancy in risk assigned by two methods, and this was statistically significant ( p = 0.025). In subgroup analysis, although patient cohort with acute nausea had no statistically significant discrepancy ( p = 0.123), but statistically significant discrepancy was found in patient cohort with delayed nausea ( p = 0.001), acute ( p = 0.038), and delayed ( p < 0.001) vomiting. Conclusion  A significant percentage of patients who receive chemotherapy continue to experience nausea and vomiting despite receiving antiemetic treatment as per standard guidelines. The study generates a hypothesis for future large randomized studies looking at change in antiemetic prophylaxis based on CINV risk tool, leading to improvement in complete response rates of acute and delayed CINV.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations - Part I: Preoperative and intraoperative management

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to considerably reduce complications, length of stay and costs after most of surgical procedures by standardised application of best evidence-based perioperative care. The aim was to elaborate dedicated recommendations for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in a two-part series of guidelines based on expert consensus. The present part I of the guidelines highlights preoperative and intraoperative management.

METHODS

The core group assembled a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts involved in peritoneal surface malignancy surgery representing the fields of general surgery (n = 12), gynaecological surgery (n = 6), and anaesthesia (n = 6). Experts systematically reviewed and summarized the available evidence on 72 identified perioperative care items, following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, evaluation) system. Final consensus (defined as ≥50%, or ≥70% of weak/strong recommendations combined) was reached by a standardised 2-round Delphi process, regarding the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

Response rates were 100% for both Delphi rounds. Quality of evidence was evaluated high, moderate low and very low, for 15 (21%), 26 (36%), 29 (40%) and 2 items, respectively. Consensus was reached for 71/72(98.6%) items. Strong recommendations were defined for 37 items, No consensus could be reached regarding the preemptive use of fresh frozen plasma.

CONCLUSION

The present ERAS recommendations for CRS±HIPEC are based on a standardised expert consensus process providing clinicians with valuable guidance. There is an urgent need to produce high quality studies for CRS±HIPEC and to prospectively evaluate recommendations in clinical practice.

Duration of dexamethasone administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the most common non-haematological toxicity of chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing short course (1-2 days) with long course (3+ days) dexamethasone in preventing CINV was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

1535 articles were screened to identify the 11 studies included in the review. Nine studies of 1892 patients were included in meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in complete response of nausea and vomiting between a short or long course of dexamethasone (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.89-1.07, p = 0.58). There was a lower risk of adverse events with a short course of dexamethasone (RR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between a short or long course of dexamethasone in preventing nausea or vomiting, but a short course was associated with fewer adverse effects. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42019133785.

Metoclopramide, Dexamethasone, or Palonosetron for Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEDEA): A Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects.

RESULTS

Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient-Related Nausea and Vomiting Management Barriers Questionnaire

CONTEXT

The Nausea and Vomiting Management Barriers Questionnaire (NVMBQ) measures patient-related barriers to antiemetic medication.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to test the construct validity, internal consistency, and content validity of the NVMBQ. The secondary aim was to develop a shortened version of the NVMBQ.

METHODS

A quantitative secondary data analysis from a previous cross-sectional study of the NVMBQ (n = 299) was performed. It included analyses of descriptive data, factor structure, internal consistency, and patient comments. Content validity was established with 10 experts (including patients, nurses, physicians, and scientists) using the item-wise content validity index and the scale CVI (S-CVI).

RESULTS

The exploratory factor analysis revealed eight underlying dimensions that were mostly congruent with the hypothesized structure when developing the NVMBQ. Internal consistency was high (α = 0.90). More than 70% of the items were estimated as relevant by the experts. However, the S-CVI was moderate (S-CVI = 0.74). A 14-item short version of the NVMBQ was identified. Qualitative analysis suggested the inclusion of additional clinically relevant items (e.g., the inability to take oral antiemetics if nausea was already present).

CONCLUSION

The NVMBQ provides a good basis for assessing patient-related barriers to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management. We will use the resulting and translated NVMBQ in a larger study to assess the relationships between chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, patient-related barriers, and current antiemetic regimens.

Dronabinol Prescribing and Exposure Among Children and Young Adults Diagnosed with Cancer

Purpose: The therapeutic utility of Cannabis in cancer is a topic of intense interest. Dronabinol is synthetic Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive component of Cannabis sativa, and is approved for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Little is known about dronabinol prescribing in children and young adults, and no published concentration data are available. This study evaluated national level dronabinol use and assessed concentrations of THC and its primary metabolites in patients with cancer <27 years of age prescribed dronabinol. Methods: Observational review of records from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) and a regional network of hospitals in the Intermountain West, including a tertiary care children's hospital, Primary Children's Hospital (PCH), for inpatients <27 years of age prescribed dronabinol. Prospective blood samples were collected from children with cancer at PCH. Results: Across PHIS institutions, overall dronabinol prescribing aligned with the pharmacy records for those with cancer (p < 0.0001), and of these, 10.4% received dronabinol as inpatients. Blood collected within 72 hours of dronabinol administration was available from 10 children with a median age of 12.5 (range 6-17) years. Quantifiable concentrations were found in 4 (13%), 6 (20%), and 1 (3%) samples assayed for THC, 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (COOH-THC), and 11-hydroxy-Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (OH-THC), respectively. THC concentrations ranged between 0.100 and 0.128 ng/mL and were not associated with dose. Conclusion: Dronabinol prescribing appears exclusive to patients diagnosed with cancer, and its use has increased steadily in the past decade. In a small sample of children administered dronabinol, THC and metabolite concentrations were consistently low or undetectable.

Development and validation of an evidence-based auricular acupressure intervention for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Auricular therapy (AT) has been utilized as a promising complementary health approach to alleviating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in breast cancer patients. However, current evidence on AT for CINV management has been inconclusive, and relevant AT treatment protocols have varied considerably in the intervention dosage and acupoint formula without an evidence-informed intervention protocol tailored to CINV symptoms. This study aimed to develop an evidence-based AT intervention protocol for CINV management in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

This study adopted the Medical Research Council Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (the MRC framework) to guide the AT intervention development process. The process consists of four steps: identification of the evidence base, identification of theories and practice standards, identification of cancer symptom characteristics, and modelling and validation. The preliminary AT intervention was then evaluated through a content validity study to identify its theoretical and practical appropriateness. The content validity index (CVI) was used to determine the consensus level of the panel.

RESULTS

A preliminary AT intervention protocol, including a true AT intervention and a sham AT intervention, was developed based on research evidence identified from five systematic reviews, the homuncular reflex theory, the zang-fu organs and meridian theory, relevant AT practice standards, and the natural symptom progress of CINV. The true AT was designed as a daily manual acupressure for five consecutive days. While the sham AT was designed with the same intervention duration and acupoint formula as the true AT without manual acupressure. The content validity study demonstrated excellent consensus among the expert panel to support the AT intervention as a theoretically and practically feasible program with the item-level CVI ranging from 0.83 to 1.0 and the scale-level CVI reaching 1.0.

CONCLUSION

This study followed the MRC framework to develop an evidence-based AT intervention for CINV management which is well supported by systematic review research evidence, AT theories and practice standards, CINV symptom characteristics, and expert panel consensus. The AT intervention would be further evaluated in a pilot randomised controlled trial to confirm its utility, feasibility and acceptability in clinical settings.

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.

Opportunities for cannabis in supportive care in cancer

Cannabis has the potential to modulate some of the most common and debilitating symptoms of cancer and its treatments, including nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, and pain. However, the dearth of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of cannabis in treating these symptoms in patients with cancer poses a challenge to clinicians in discussing this option with their patients. A review was performed using keywords related to cannabis and important symptoms of cancer and its treatments. Literature was qualitatively reviewed from preclinical models to clinical trials in the fields of cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and others, to prudently inform the use of cannabis in supportive and palliative care in cancer. There is a reasonable amount of evidence to consider cannabis for nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, and pain as a supplement to first-line treatments. There is promising evidence to treat chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, gastrointestinal distress, and sleep disorders, but the literature is thus far too limited to recommend cannabis for these symptoms. Scant, yet more controversial, evidence exists in regard to cannabis for cancer- and treatment-related cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Adverse effects of cannabis are documented but tend to be mild. Cannabis has multifaceted potential bioactive benefits that appear to outweigh its risks in many situations. Further research is required to elucidate its mechanisms of action and efficacy and to optimize cannabis preparations and doses for specific populations affected by cancer.

Real-world effectiveness of palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens: preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Aim: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of guideline-recommended palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis used records of adults receiving first-line chemotherapy and a three-drug palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for HEC or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for MEC (carboplatin). Results: A total of 1587 records were evaluated. For HEC and MEC, respectively, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurred in 40 versus 44% of patient cycles (p = 0.01), and unscheduled iv. antiemetics in 41 versus 35% (p < 0.05). A total of 48% of HEC patients versus 42% of MEC patients had CINV-related clinic visits (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens may provide insufficient CINV control. Alternative regimens may improve patient quality of life and reduce healthcare resource utilization.

CINV: still troubling patients after all these years

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared side effects experienced by patients with cancer. The precise physiologic mechanisms responsible for acute and delayed CINV continue to be elucidated and have provided an opportunity to develop antiemetic therapies targeting these pathways. The emergence of receptor antagonists targeting serotonin and neurokinin-1 have revolutionized the prevention of CINV, significantly reducing the impact of this side effect and improving patient quality of life. However, several areas of unmet need remain, including adequate prevention of nausea, rather than just vomiting, in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer. Prevention of delayed CINV and anticipatory CINV, as well as management of breakthrough CINV, also continues to challenge patients and clinicians. Ongoing research continues to address these areas to improve antiemetic therapies and guidelines.

US oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths from chemoradiation mucositis and antimucositis therapy benefits

Approximate oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths associated with mucositis and identify health economic benefits of antimucositis therapies. Review the literature relevant to the clinical experience of mucositis by pathophysiology, incidence, duration, costs and deaths. Use US insurance actuarial and epidemiology on cancer to generalize an oncology-wide impact of toxic mucositis. Toxic mucositis causes oropharyngoesophageal ulcerations, chemo-induced nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Acutely, it lasts 102 days/six cycles of chemotherapy, 60 days in human stem-cell transplantation patients and 70-84 days in head and neck cancer patients at annual costs of US$13.23 billion/522,166 treated patients (US$20,892/erosive-type mucositis patient, US$25,337/physiologic mucositis patient) and 46,699 deaths. Using antimucositis therapies prior to 2013 provided fractional benefits at high costs. By completely preventing and rapidly reversing mucositis, high-potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate promises superior health economic benefits.

The impact of muscle relaxation techniques on the quality of life of cancer patients, as measured by the FACT-G questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer frequently suffer from emotional distress, characterized by psychological symptoms such as anxiety or depression. The presence of psychological symptoms combined with the complex nature of oncology processes can negatively impact patients' quality of life. We aimed to determine the impact of a relaxation protocol on improving quality of life in a sample of oncological patients treated in the Spanish National Public Health System.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter interventional study without a control group. In total, 272 patients with different oncologic pathologies and showing symptoms of anxiety were recruited from 10 Spanish public hospitals. The intervention comprised abbreviated progressive muscle relaxation training, according to Bernstein and Borkovec. This was followed by weekly telephone calls to each patient over a 1-month period. We collected sociodemographic variables related to the disease process, including information about mental health and the intervention. Patients' quality of life was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire. Bivariate and univariate analyses were performed, along with an analysis of multiple correspondences to identify subgroups of patients with similar variations on the FACT-G.

RESULTS

Patients showed statistically significant improvements on the FACT-G overall score (W = 16806; p<0.001), with an initial mean score of 55.33±10.42 and a final mean score of 64.49±7.70. We also found significant improvements for all subscales: emotional wellbeing (W = 13118; p<0.001), functional wellbeing (W = 16155.5; p<0.001), physical wellbeing (W = 8885.5; p<0.001), and social and family context (W = -1840; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancer who learned and practiced abbreviated progressive muscle relaxation experienced improvement in their perceived quality of life as measured by the FACT-G. Our findings support a previous assumption that complementary techniques (including relaxation techniques) are effective in improving the quality of life of patients with cancer.

Is the addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist beneficial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) excluding anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed and OVID) and Central databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT₃ RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy endpoints were complete response (CR), no emesis and no nausea rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials (3848 patients) were identified. Results were separately analyzed for (a) pure MEC regimens (excluding regimens containing carboplatin or oxaliplatin), (b) carboplatin-based regimens, and (c) oxaliplatin-based regimens. (a) Two trials (abstracts) enrolled 715 patients. The odds ratio for overall CR with the addition of an NK1-RA was 1.46 (95% 1.06-2.02; p = 0.02) with an absolute risk difference (RD) of 8%. (b) Nine trials (1790 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.96 (95% CI 1.57-2.45; p < 0.00001) in favor of the NK1RA containing regimen with an RD of 15%. (c) Three trials (1190 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.34 (95% CI 0.88-2.04; p = 0.17) not reaching statistical significance with a RD of 4%.

CONCLUSION

Clear clinically significant benefit was seen with the addition of NK1RAs in carboplatin-based chemotherapy. A global benefit of an NK1RA containing regimen for the whole MEC category cannot be attested yet and warrants more randomized trials exclusively testing pure MEC regimens without carboplatin.

A review of oral cannabinoids and medical marijuana for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a focus on pharmacokinetic variability and pharmacodynamics

Purpose

Oral cannabinoids (i.e., dronabinol, nabilone) containing the active component of marijuana, delta(Δ)9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are available for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer who have failed to adequately respond to conventional antiemetic therapy. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of oral cannabinoids for patients with CINV.

Methods

A PubMed search of the English-language literature available through 4 January 2017 was conducted to identify relevant articles for inclusion in the review.

Results

Oral cannabinoids have been shown to have similar or improved efficacy compared with conventional antiemetics for the resolution of nausea and/or vomiting in patients with cancer. However, oral THC has high PK variability, with variability in oral dronabinol peak plasma concentrations (C_max) estimated between 150 and 200%. A new oral dronabinol solution has decreased intraindividual variability (area under the curve) vs oral dronabinol capsules. Further, oral THC has a slower time to C_max compared with THC administered intravenously (IV) or by smoking, and a lower systemic availability than IV or smoked THC. The PD profile (e.g., “high”) of oral THC differs from that of IV or smoked THC in healthy individuals. Oral cannabinoids are associated with greater incidence of adverse effects compared with conventional antiemetic therapy or placebo (e.g., dizziness, hypotension, and dysphoria or depression).

Conclusions

A new formulation of oral cannabinoids (i.e., dronabinol oral solution) minimized the PK/PD variability currently observed with capsule formulations.

Antiemetic therapy for non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Although antiemetic management in cancer therapy has improved, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain common and troubling adverse events. Chemotherapeutic agents are classified based on their emetogenic effects, and appropriate antiemetics are recommended according to this categorization. Chemotherapy categorized as moderately emetogenic is associated with a wide spectrum of emetic risks. Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens have been recently reclassified as highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This review focuses on antiemetic pharmacotherapy in patients receiving non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Combination therapy with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor agonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is the standard therapy in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, although triple therapy with add-on neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist is used as an alternative treatment strategy. Among moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, carboplatin-containing chemotherapy has considerable emetic potential, particularly during the delayed phase. However, the additional of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to the standard antiemetic therapy prevents carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. For regimens including oxaliplatin, the benefit of adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist requires further clarification.

Differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. CINV typically manifests during two well-defined time periods (acute and delayed phases). The acute phase is the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and is largely managed with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists. The delayed phase, a 5-day at-risk period during which patients are not often in direct contact with their health care provider, remains a significant unmet medical need. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists have demonstrated protection against acute and delayed CINV in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy when used in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Furthermore, recent data indicate that this protection is maintained over multiple treatment cycles. Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved as oral formulation for the prevention of delayed CINV in adults. This review discusses the differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in preventing CINV compared with other NK-1 receptor antagonists.

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 improves quality of life of patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Addition of rolapitant to standard antiemetic therapy improved protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in phase 3 trials of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Here, we assessed the impact of CINV on the daily lives of patients receiving HEC or MEC using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

METHODS

In three double-blind phase 3 studies, patients receiving HEC or MEC were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo prior to chemotherapy plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone therapy. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included FLIE total score, nausea and vomiting domain scores, and the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (total score >108 [range 18-126]). We performed a prespecified analysis of the MEC/anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) study and a post hoc analysis of two pooled cisplatin-based HEC studies.

RESULTS

In the pooled HEC studies, rolapitant significantly improved the FLIE total score (114.5 vs 109.3, p < 0.001), nausea score (55.3 vs 53.5, p < 0.05), and vomiting score (59.2 vs 55.8, p < 0.001) versus control; similar results were observed in the MEC/AC study for FLIE total score (112.7 vs 108.6, p < 0.001), nausea score (54.1 vs 52.3, p < 0.05), and vomiting score (58.6 vs 56.3, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients reported no impact on daily life with rolapitant than with control in the MEC/AC study (73.2 vs 67.4, p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with control, rolapitant improved quality of life in patients receiving HEC or MEC.

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.

Comparison of the Control of Nausea and Vomiting among Several Moderately Emetic-Risk Chemotherapy Regimens

BACKGROUND

Different antiemetic medications with or without aprepitant are recommended for moderately emetic-risk chemotherapy (MEC) depending on the emetic potential of chemotherapy agents, although the criterion for the use of aprepitant is still unclear. The present study was designed to compare the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among several MEC regimens used in the outpatient chemotherapy setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single center prospective observational study was carried out in 326 patients who received 2,061 chemotherapy cycles from January 2013 to December 2014. Antiemetic medication consisting of two-drug combination of granisetron (day 1) and dexamethasone (days 1-3) was carried out in 87.6% of patients receiving the first chemotherapy cycle. The checklist for CINV was provided to all patients, and the control of CINV was evaluated on the next visit based on the checklist. Complete inhibition of nausea and vomiting during acute and delayed periods were compared among MEC regimens.

RESULTS

Two hundred and one patients received the first cycle of chemotherapy, in which the rates of complete inhibition of nausea and vomiting were 87.6% and 95.5%, respectively, during acute period, and 68.2% and 92.0%, respectively, during delayed period. There were no significant differences in the control of CINV among oxaliplatin, carboplatin and irinotecan, except for the cyclophosphamide-base regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-drug antiemetic medication of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone was sufficiently effective for prevention of CINV in most MEC regimens.