Characterizing and assessing antiemetic underuse in patients initiating highly emetogenic chemotherapy

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Serious Gaming for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Older Adults With Cancer: Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Older adults are at high risk for toxicity due to cancer treatment and increased risk for adverse events related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Unfortunately, older adults report multiple treatment-related symptoms but use few strategies to self-manage these symptoms due to erroneous beliefs related to the effectiveness of commonly taught self-management strategies. We developed a novel serious game, Managing at Home (MAH), to help older adults learn how to effectively self-manage CINV at home.

OBJECTIVE

This study has 2 aims. Aim 1 is to examine changes in CINV severity, self-management behaviors, functioning, quality of life, cognitive representation, and health care use within the intervention group from baseline (T1) to completion of the study (T6). Aim 2 is to determine the efficacy of the MAH intervention by comparing differences in primary outcomes (CINV severity and health care use) and secondary outcomes (self-management behaviors, functioning, and quality of life) between the intervention and control groups at each follow-up visit (T2-T6) and completion of the study (T6).

METHODS

This is a longitudinal randomized clinical trial. We will collect data from 500 older adults receiving cancer-related chemotherapy at baseline (T1) and at each treatment cycle until cycle 6 (T6). Participants will be enrolled if they are 60 years or older of age, are newly diagnosed with cancer, being treated with any chemotherapy agent with moderate or high emetic potential, are on a 2-, 3-, or 4-week treatment cycle, are proficient in English, and have a telephone. Previous diagnosis or treatment for cancer, end-stage disease with less than 6 months to live, and uncorrected visual or hearing impairment are exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

This study was funded in September 2022 and received institutional review board approval in October 2022. As of July 2023, the enrollment of participants is ongoing and currently has 130 enrolled participants. Data collection and analysis will be complete in 2027.

CONCLUSIONS

This study addresses self-management of CINV in older adults using an innovative serious game. The MAH intervention uses simulation and gaming technology to engage older adults in active learning in order to reframe erroneous perceptions about symptom self-management. If shown to be effective, it can easily be adapted to include other cancer-related symptoms or other chronic illnesses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05838638; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05838638.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/64673.

Effectiveness of a phone-based nurse monitoring assessment and intervention for chemotherapy-related toxicity: A randomized multicenter trial

Purpose

Anticancer treatment-related toxicities can impact morbidity and mortality, hamper the administration of treatment, worsen the quality of life and increase the burden on the healthcare system. Therefore, their prompt identification is crucial. NICSO (Italian Network for Supportive Care in Cancer) conducted a nationwide randomized trial to evaluate the role of a planned, weekly phone-based nurse monitoring intervention to prevent and treat chemotherapy, targeted therapy- and immunotherapy-related toxicities. Here, we report the results from the chemotherapy arm.

Methods

This was a nationwide, randomized, open-label trial conducted among 29 Italian centers (NCT04726020) involving adult patients with breast, colon, or lung cancer and a life expectancy ≥6 months receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received either a weekly nurse monitoring phone call and an educational leaflet reporting practical advice about prevention and treatment of toxicities (experimental group) or the educational leaflet only (control group).

Results

The addition of a nurse monitoring intervention may help reduce time spent with severe toxicities (grade ≥3), particularly those less frequently reported in clinical practice, such as fatigue. When considering grade 1–2 AEs, times with mild/moderate diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue and pain were shorter in the experimental arm. Time spent without AEs was significantly longer in the experimental arms for all the toxicities. The requirement for special medical attention was comparable between groups.

Conclusion

This study suggests the need for implementing a better system of toxicity assessment and management for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy to promote effective preventive and/or therapeutic intervention against these events.

Impact of the Oncology Care Model on Use of Supportive Care Medications During Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an episode-based alternative payment model for cancer care that seeks to reduce Medicare spending while maintaining care quality. We evaluated the impact of OCM on appropriate use of supportive care medications during cancer treatment.

METHODS

We evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims (2013-2019). We assessed denosumab use for beneficiaries with bone metastases from breast, lung, or prostate cancer; prophylactic WBC growth factor use for beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer; and prophylactic use of neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for any cancer type. Analyses used a difference-in-difference approach.

RESULTS

After its launch in 2016, OCM led to a relative reduction in the use of denosumab for beneficiaries with bone metastases receiving bone-modifying medications (eg, 5.0 percentage point relative reduction in breast cancer episodes [90% CI, -7.1 to -2.8]). There was no OCM impact on use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during chemotherapy with high or low risk for febrile neutropenia. Among beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy with intermediate febrile neutropenia risk, OCM led to a 7.6 percentage point reduction in the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer episodes (90% CI, -12.6 to -2.7); there was no OCM impact in lung or colorectal cancer episodes. Among beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists (eg, 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high emetic risk chemotherapy [90% CI, -9.0 to -3.1]).

CONCLUSION

OCM led to the reduced use of some high-cost supportive care medications, suggesting more value-conscious care.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms

PURPOSE

The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms.

METHODS

We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here.

RESULTS

For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD.

CONCLUSION

We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

Unplanned emergency department visits and hospital admissions of older adults under treatment for cancer in the ambulatory/community setting

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify the incidence and risk/protective factors for (1) unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions (HA) and (2) nausea/vomiting/dehydration (NVD) at time of treatment in older adults under treatment for cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a exploratory retrospective cohort study of adults (60 and older) with cancer. Adults were included if they had a new cancer diagnosis and were being treated with chemotherapy. Study outcomes included the number of ED visits and HA (cycles 1-4) and NVD at the time of receiving chemotherapy (cycles 2-4). Repeated measures, Poisson regression was used to obtain risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for independent predictors of outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 402 study participants, 20% experienced an ED visit, and 18% experienced a HA. Common reasons for ED visits were pain (23.5%) and NVD (20.4%). Common reasons for HA were infection (34.4%) and NVD (22.2%). Multivariate analysis showed risk factors for ED visits included chemotherapy cycle 1, having esophageal cancer, being treated with ≥ 3 chemotherapy agents, and increasing levels of functional impairment. Risk factors for HA included chemotherapy cycle 1, increasing levels of functional impairment, intravenous fluids between treatment, and being prescribed antiemetics for home use. Predictors of NVD at time of chemotherapy treatment included Hispanic ethnicity, insurance status, cancer type, chemotherapy emetic potent, treatment frequency, intravenous fluids between cycles, and number of home antiemetics.

CONCLUSION

Unplanned ED visits and HA occur in older adults under treatment for cancer due to numerous treatment-related side effects. Helping older adults identify and manage side effects early may reduce the number of unplanned admissions.

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.

Antiemetic medication efficacy during EPOCH and R-EPOCH treatment

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to determine the adequacy of current institutional standard practice for CINV prophylaxis for EPOCH and R-EPOCH at The Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective analysis was performed including all patients receiving EPOCH or R-EPOCH chemotherapy for Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas from 1/1/2012 to 6/30/2017. The primary endpoint was rate of CINV events, which included usage of more than 50 percent of available doses of breakthrough antiemetics while inpatient, hospitalization due to CINV or related complications, or adjustments made to the CINV prophylactic or breakthrough regimen during current or subsequent cycles. Secondary endpoints included determining prescriber adherence to institutional standard CINV prophylaxis, characterization of adjustments to the antiemetic regimen following the incidence of CINV, and identification of high-risk patients that may benefit from additional CINV prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Of 111 patients, 54 (48.6%) experienced CINV events with any cycle of EPOCH or R-EPOCH chemotherapy. Of those patients, 17 (31.5%) received institutional standard CINV prophylaxis at baseline, 8 (14.8%) received additional scheduled antiemetics, and 26 (48.1%) were prescribed additional breakthrough antiemetics with their first cycle of EPOCH or R-EPOCH. Younger age, diagnosis of anxiety, and previous susceptibility to nausea were significantly associated with CINV events.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrates the inadequacy of current institutional standard for CINV prophylaxis for patients receiving EPOCH and R-EPOCH, highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. With nearly half of included patients experiencing CINV events, and most initially receiving more than our standard prophylaxis, changes to our standard antiemetics used with this chemotherapy regimen are needed.

What the HEC? Clinician Adherence to Evidence-Based Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Background: Clinician adherence to antiemetic guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remains poorly characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate individual clinician adherence to HEC antiemetic guidelines. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving HEC was conducted using the IBM Watson Explorys Electronic Health Record Database (2012–2018). HEC antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as prescription of triple prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA], serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone) at initiation of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC). Clinicians who prescribed ≥5 HEC courses were included and individual guideline adherence was assessed, noting the number of prescribing clinicians with >90% adherence. Results: A total of 217 clinicians were identified who prescribed 2,543 cisplatin and 1,490 AC courses. Patients (N=4,033) were primarily women (63.3%) and chemotherapy-naïve (92%) with a mean age of 58.6 years. Breast (36%) and thoracic (19%) cancers were the most common tumor types. Guideline adherence rates of >90% were achieved by 35% and 58% of clinicians using cisplatin or AC, respectively. Omission of an NK1 RA was the most common practice of nonadherence. Variation in prophylaxis guideline adherence was considerable for cisplatin (mean, 71%; SD, 29%; coefficient of variation [CV], 0.40) and AC (mean, 84%; SD, 26%; CV, 0.31). Conclusions: Findings showed substantial gaps in clinician adherence to HEC CINV guidelines, including a high variability across clinicians. Clinicians should review their individual clinical practices and ensure adherence to evidence-based CINV guidelines to optimize patient care.

Drug repurposing for cancer therapy, easier said than done

Drug repurposing for cancer therapy is currently a hot topic of research. Theoretically, in contrast to the known hurdles of developing new molecular entities, the approach of repurposing has several advantages. Mostly, it is said that it is faster, safer, easier, and cheaper. In the real world, however, there are only three repurposed drugs so far, that are listed in widely recognized cancer guidelines, but a large number of them are being studied. Among the many barriers to repurposing cancer drugs, economical-driven are the most important that difficult the clinical development of them. In this review, we provide an overview of the current status of drug repurposing for cancer therapy and the barriers that need to be overcome to realize the benefit of this approach. It means to have repositioned drugs for cancer therapy accepted as standard therapy for cancer indications at low cost.