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

Herbal medicine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: A prospective randomized controlled trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Chinese herbal medicine is increasingly used as complementary therapy to manage nausea and vomiting in different cultures. One such herbal recipe is the Hezhong granules, which contain classical antiemetic formulations, and are commonly used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Modern pharmacological studies have shown that the key components of Hezhong granules, including Pinellia ternata (Thunb.), Evodia rutaecarpa (Juss.), and Zingiber officinale exhibit significant antiemetic and antitumor properties. Despite this promising evidence, controlling CINV remains a significant challenge in cancer treatment. Moreover, there is a lack of scientifically designed clinical trials to validate the efficacy and safety of classical antiemetic formulas for CINV interventions.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To investigate the efficacy and safety of Hezhong granules in preventing CINV in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

This study was conducted between October 2020 and February 2022 in 12 hospital wards in Southwest China. In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, we enrolled patients with advanced CRC who received fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the Hezhong granule group (receiving a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and Hezhong granules) or the placebo group (receiving a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and placebo) during the first and second courses of chemotherapy. A 5-day diary was provided to all patients. Acute and delayed CINV were defined as CINV occurring within 24 h or between 24 and 120 h after the start of treatment. The primary endpoints were complete response rate (CRR, defined as the proportion of patients without nausea/vomiting) and objective response rate (ORR, defined as the proportion of patients without nausea/vomiting plus mild nausea/vomiting) for both acute and delayed CINV. Secondary endpoints were the daily rates of CINV events and Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). To identify the predictors of CINV, we conducted multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis. This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial, number ChiCTR2100041643.

RESULTS

A total of 120 participants were randomly assigned, of whom 112 (56/56) completed two cycles and were included in the full analysis. In the acute phase, there were minor improvements in the Hezhong granule group, but there were no significant differences in the CRRs for nausea and vomiting (mean difference:10.7 %, P = 0.318, 0.324), while the ORRs increased by approximately 17.5 % (mean difference:16.1 %, P = 0.051; 17.9 %, P = 0.037, respectively). In the delayed phase, significant improvements of approximately 20 % were observed in both the CRRs (mean difference:19.6 %, P = 0.053; 21.4 %, P = 0.035) and ORRs (mean difference:17.9 %, P = 0.037, 0.043) for nausea and vomiting. Additionally, the daily rate of CINV events showed a mean difference of 19 % (P < 0.05). According to FLIE scores, approximately 70 % of patients who received Hezhong granules reported an improvement in their quality of life, with CINV symptoms having"no impact on daily life (NIDL)". No serious adverse events were attributed to herbal medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Hezhong granules proved to be both effective and well-tolerated in preventing CINV in patients with advanced CRC, with notable benefits in preventing delayed CINV. These promising results set the stage for subsequent phase III clinical trials and experimental research on Hezhong Granules.

Bibliometric and visual analysis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2004-2023)

Background

Patients undergoing chemotherapy often encounter troubling and common side effects, notably Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This side effect not only impairs the patient's quality of life but could also result in the interruption or discontinuation of the chemotherapy treatment. Consequently, research into CINV has consistently remained a focal point in the realm of clinical medicine. In this research domain, bibliometric analysis has not been conducted. The purpose of this study is to deliver a thorough summary of the knowledge framework and key areas of interest in the field of Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, using bibliometric methods. This approach aims to furnish novel concepts and pathways for investigators working in this area.

Methods

Publications focusing on Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, spanning from 2004 to 2023, were identified using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the R package "bibliometrix" were employed for this bibliometric analysis.

Results

This research covers 734 publications from 61 countries, with the United States and China being the primary contributors. There has been a significant rise in the volume of papers published in the most recent decade compared to the one before it, spanning over the past twenty years. However, the annual publication rate in the last ten years has not shown a significant upward trend. The University of Toronto, Merck & Co., Sun Yat-sen University, and Helsinn Healthcare SA emerged as the principal research institutions in this field. Supportive Care in Cancer stands out as the most frequently published and cited journal in this domain. These works are contributed by 3,917 authors, with Rudolph M Navari, Matti Aapro, Shimokawa Mototsugu, and Lee Schwartzberg being among those who have published the most. Paul J. Hesketh is notably the most co-cited author. The primary focus of this research field lies in exploring the mechanisms of CINV and the therapeutic strategies for managing it. Key emerging research hotspots are represented by terms such as "Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting," "nausea," "vomiting," "chemotherapy," and "antiemetics."

Conclusion

This represents the inaugural bibliometric study to thoroughly outline the research trends and advancements in the field of CINV. It highlights the latest research frontiers and trending directions, offering valuable insights for scholars engaged in studying CINV.

Pediatric oncology provider perspectives and patient/family perceptions of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management: Experiences at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in children undergoing cancer treatment, and significantly impacts quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to guide CINV management, though many patients do not receive guideline-concordant care. Few studies have examined provider perspectives on CINV management or preferred improvement approaches, or pediatric patient perception of CINV control.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of pediatric oncology providers was conducted at a large freestanding children's hospital. Providers completed an anonymous online survey about CINV control in patients admitted for scheduled chemotherapy, and their knowledge and utilization of CINV CPGs. A survey of English and Spanish-speaking pediatric oncology patients admitted for scheduled chemotherapy was conducted to assess CINV management, with key demographics used to understand association with perceptions and adherence to antiemetic guidelines.

RESULTS

For providers, 75% of respondents felt CINV management could be moderately or extremely improved, significantly more so by chemotherapy prescribers and pediatric medical residents than nurses. Over half of respondents did not have awareness of CINV CPGs, particularly pediatric medical residents. For patients, nausea was reported to be extremely well controlled in 44% of cases, and vomiting extremely well controlled in 50% of cases. There were no significant differences in patient-reported CINV across demographics, when considering emetogenicity of chemotherapy received, or concordance to guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing education in this area may help to improve provider comfort, and ultimately, the patient experience. Future studies will expand upon this novel patient perception, and develop and evaluate CINV management interventions.

Use of Fosaprepitant for Management of Suspected Antimicrobial-Associated Nausea: A Case Report

Intractable nausea can occur in numerous settings. We report on a 49-year-old woman with a past medical history of cystic fibrosis (CF) with chronic hypoxia, chronic nausea, complex infection history and frequent hospitalizations who was admitted to an academic medical center with a CF exacerbation. Her chronic nausea worsened with the use of antimicrobials, and she was unable to tolerate dopamine or serotonin antagonist antiemetics. Nausea persisted despite the use of benzodiazepines and antihistamines. She was given a one-time dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg intravenously (IV) with marked improvement of her nausea. During subsequent exacerbations, she again developed severe nausea which continued to respond well to a one-time dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg IV. Fosaprepitant is a substance P/neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist that is FDA-approved for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and has been used to prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting. Its use in other contexts has not been well established. This case suggests a role for fosaprepitant in the management of nausea outside the context of chemotherapy or general anesthesia.

Palonosetron in pediatric patients: A single-center, retrospective evaluation of policy and clinical practice guideline discordance

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommending palonosetron for the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were adapted for use at our institution. Palonosetron was restricted for use in patients experiencing breakthrough CINV and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or undergoing stem cell transplant conditioning and in patients with refractory CINV receiving HEC. Given the significant cost of palonosetron, we aimed to determine the proportion of chemotherapy blocks where palonosetron use was discordant with the institutional policy or source CPG.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the health records of patients who received palonosetron between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020 was undertaken. Details of palonosetron use, antiemetic regimen and the date and time of each vomit during the acute and delayed phases were collected for each chemotherapy block where palonosetron was given. Discordance with the institutional policy and the source CPG was determined by assessing the indication for palonosetron and the dose. In the subset of chemotherapy blocks where information regarding vomiting episodes was available, the extent of acute phase chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control was reported.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-eight chemotherapy blocks, representing 122 patients (mean age 9 years), receiving 595 palonosetron doses were included. Palonosetron use was discordant with institutional policy during most (72%; 314/438) of the chemotherapy blocks analyzed. However, palonosetron use was concordant with the source CPG during most chemotherapy blocks (74%; 326/438). Complete CIV control during the acute phase was observed in 66% (195/295) of chemotherapy blocks where palonosetron was given, irrespective of concomitant antiemetics administered.

CONCLUSION

The majority of palonosetron use at our institution was discordant with institutional policy, but concordant with the source CPG. Our institutional policy has since been updated to be more aligned with the source CPG.

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in solid cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Korea

BACKGROUND

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is known to induce nausea and vomiting (CINV) in approximately 90% of cancer patients undergoing this regimen unless proper prophylactic antiemetics are administered. This study aimed to analyze the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen during the first cycle of chemotherapy and assess the compliance rate with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.

METHODS

This retrospective study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2020 provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The claims data encompassed 10 to 13% of inpatients admitted at least once each year. Patients with solid cancers treated with two HEC regimens, namely anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) and cisplatin-based regimens, were selected as the study population. We evaluated the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone and compliance with the NCCN guidelines. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to estimate the influence of variables on guideline adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 3119 patients were included in the analysis. The overall compliance rate with the NCCN guidelines for prophylactic antiemetics was 74.3%, with higher rates observed in the AC group (87.9%) and lower rates in the cisplatin group (60.4%). The AC group had a 6.37 times higher likelihood of receiving guideline-adherent antiemetics than the cisplatin group. Further analysis revealed that, compared to 2016, the probability of complying with the guidelines in 2019 and 2020 was 0.72 times and 0.76 times lower, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that a considerable proportion of HEC-treated patients received guideline-adherent antiemetic therapies. However, given the variations in adherence rates between different chemotherapy regimens (AC vs. cisplatin), efforts to improve adherence and optimize antiemetic treatment remain essential for providing the best possible care for patients experiencing CINV.

A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

Oral compound probiotic supplements can improve the quality of life for patients with lung cancer during chemotherapy: A randomized placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy is an important approach for lung cancer patients. The study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of the compound probiotic supplements in improving the quality of life for lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled chemotherapy-naive patients with lung cancer who were scheduled to receive platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. All eligible patients were randomly administered (1:1) compound probiotic supplements (group BP-1) or placebo (group C) for two chemotherapy cycles. The EORTC QLQ C30 questionnaire scores were evaluated before the first, second, and third cycles of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the difference in the EROTC QLQ C30 questionnaire score between the two groups after two cycles of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were recruited from March 2021 to January 2022. After undergoing two cycles of chemotherapy, group BP-1 were significantly better in various dimensions of the overall quality of life, role function, nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, and diarrhea relative to group C (76.90 ± 18.31 vs. 58.89 ± 17.17; 93.33 ± 11.58 vs. 85.93 ± 15.06; 0.00 ± 0.00 vs. 27.04 ± 29.15; 6.67 ± 13.53 vs. 22.22 ± 18.80; 0.95 ± 5.63 vs. 28.15 ± 22.42; 2.86 ± 9.47 vs. 15.56 ± 16.82; p < 0.05, respectively). The incidence of nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, and diarrhea in group BP-1 was significantly lower than in group C (0% vs. 71.43%, 16.67% vs. 57.14%, 2.38% vs. 63.27%, and 7.14% vs. 42.86%, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compound probiotic supplements can improve the quality of life and relieve chemotherapy-related gastrointestinal side effects for lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1800019269).

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Children's Oncology Group's 2023 blueprint for research: Cancer control and supportive care

The objective of the Cancer Control and Supportive Care (CCL) Committee in the Children's Oncology Group (COG) is to reduce the overall morbidity and mortality of therapy-related toxicities in children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer. We have targeted five major domains that cause clinically important toxicity: (i) infections and inflammation; (ii) malnutrition and metabolic dysfunction; (iii) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; (iv) neuro- and oto-toxicty; and (v) patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life. Subcommittees for each domain prioritize randomized controlled trials and biology aims to determine which strategies best mitigate the toxicities. The findings of these trials are impactful, informing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and directly leading to changes in the standard of care for oncology practice. With the development of new therapies, there will be new toxicities, and the COG CCL Committee is dedicated to developing interventions to minimize acute and delayed toxicities, lessen morbidity and mortality, and improve quality of life in pediatric and young adult patients with cancer.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Huo Xiang Zheng Qi Oral Liquid Combined with 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists and Dexamethasone Can Prevent Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting for Patients Receiving Multiday Cisplatin-Based Regimen: A Multicenter Trial

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing side effects associated with deterioration in the quality of life. This study aimed to assess the clinical value of Huoxiang Zhengqi (HXZQ) oral liquid, a Chinese patent medicine, in combination with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and dexamethasone, in preventing CINV in patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods: In this multicenter, exploratory randomized clinical trial, the authors compared the efficacy of HXZQ oral liquid against a control group receiving a placebo, in combination with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving a multiday cisplatin-based regimen between January 2021 and September 2021. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate. The secondary endpoints included days with no CINV, the incidence of CINV, and life function. Results: Sixty patients were randomized into two groups and included in the study. The CR rate was significantly improved by HXZQ oral liquid in acute CINV (63.33% vs. 33.33%, p = 0.020) and CINV beyond the risk phase (96.67% vs. 46.67%, p = 0.000). The number of days with no CINV was significantly more in the HXZQ group compared with the control group in the overall phase (18.10 ± 3.64 vs. 12.13 ± 7.63, p = 0.002). Significantly higher Functional Living Index-Emesis total and domain scores were observed in the HXZQ group. Conclusions: HXZQ oral liquid combined with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone is a feasible and safe approach to prevent CINV in patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy who cannot use neurokinin 1 RAs. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2000040123.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and the subsequent vomiting (CINV) are adverse effects of cancer treatment associated with considerable burden for the patient. CINV has a significant negative impact on quality of life. The consequent loss of fluids and electrolytes can lead to impaired renal function or weight loss, which may lead to hospitalization. If CINV later results in anticipatory vomiting, this complicates both CINV prophylaxis and further chemotherapy, which can endanger the continuation of cancer treatment. The introduction of high-dose dexamethasone as well as 5‑HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists has led to a significant improvement of CINV prophylaxis since the 1990s. Recommendations on CINV prophylaxis are in available in guidelines. Adherence to these guidelines results in better outcomes.

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.

Exploratory analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone-sparing regimen for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis on food intake (LUNG-NEPA study)

We demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin. This pre-planned exploratory analysis assessed the effect of the DEX-sparing regimen on a patient's food intake. Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either no further DEX (DEX1), or oral DEX (4 mg BID) on days 2-4 (DEX4). Patient-reported endpoint maintenance of usual daily food intake was assessed during the 5-days post-chemotherapy. The relationship between usual daily food intake and CINV control, pre-chemotherapy self-rated food intake and BMI-adjusted weight loss (WL) were evaluated. One-hundred fifty-two patients (76/group) were assessable. The proportion of patients reporting maintenance of usual daily food intake was similar in both groups: 69.7% (95% CI, 58.6-78.9) for DEX1 vs. 72.4% (95% CI, 61.4-81.2) for DEX4. Only CINV control was significantly associated with maintenance of usual daily food intake (P ≤ 0.001) during the overall phase. The DEX-sparing regimen does not adversely affect patient-reported daily food intake post-chemotherapy. The current analysis adds further insights into antiemetic efficacy of DEX sparing beyond day 1 in the challenging setting of cisplatin.Trial registration: The parent study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04201769).

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Interventions for the prevention of acute phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult and pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To identify effective and safe interventions to prevent acute phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult and pediatric patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials evaluating interventions to prevent acute CINV. Outcomes assessed were complete chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control, complete chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) control, complete CINV control, and discontinuation of antiemetics due to adverse effects.

RESULTS

The search identified 65,172 citations; 744 were evaluated at full-text, and 295 (25 pediatric) met eligibility criteria. In patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), complete CIV (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.44) and CIN (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.62) control improved when olanzapine was added. The addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) to a corticosteroid plus a serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) also improved complete CIV (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.08-1.14) and CIN (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.08) control. Compared to granisetron/ondansetron, palonosetron provided improved complete CIV control when the 5HT3RA was given alone or when combined with dexamethasone. In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), dexamethasone plus a 5HT3RA improved complete CIV control compared to a 5HT3RA alone (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21-1.39). Only a single meta-analysis evaluating the safety outcome was possible.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients receiving HEC, various antiemetic regimens improved CIV and CIN control. For patients receiving MEC, administration of a 5HT3RA plus dexamethasone improved CIV control. Analysis of antiemetic safety was constrained by lack of data.

Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study

Background

The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

Methods

Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis.

Results

In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL.

Conclusion

Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

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.

Quality of Life Effects of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prevention: Real-World Evidence in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Anthracycline-Cyclophosphamide-Based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

In a prospective non-interventional study involving 2,173 patients, we showed that use of the oral fixed combination of netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy (Ctx)-induced nausea and vomiting has beneficial effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with various types of cancers receiving highly or moderately emetogenic Ctx. Here, we report on the effects on QoL, effectiveness, and tolerability of NEPA in patients with breast cancer exposed to anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based Ctx.

METHODS

This is a post hoc subanalysis of a prospective non-interventional study in 1,197 patients with breast cancer receiving up to 3 cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide and NEPA. NEPA administration was per the summary of product characteristics.

RESULTS

In cycle 1 of Ctx, a large proportion of patients (84%) reported "no impact on daily life" (NIDL) due to vomiting; 53% of patients reported NIDL due to nausea. The complete response rate was 86/88/81% in the acute/delayed/overall phase in cycle 1, and NEPA was well tolerated throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

The real-world beneficial effects of NEPA prophylaxis on QoL were confirmed for patients with breast cancer receiving AC. NEPA was effective with a good safety profile in this patient population in clinical practice.

A retrospective study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: incidence and prescribing practice

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting (CINV) is a common and significant problem in oncology patients and rated as one of cancer chemotherapy's most distressing side effects. The objectives of this study are to describe the incidence of CINV in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-treated patients and the prescribing pattern of CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional single-center study randomly collected data on demographics, CINV episodes, and prescribing patterns for adult oncology patients receiving intravenous highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) between January and December 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 419 randomly selected records of HEC/MEC recipients with 2388 total chemotherapy cycles were included. The mean age was 53.6 ± 12.6 years old. The majority was female (66%), Malay (54.4%), diagnosed with cancer stage IV (47.7%), and with no comorbidities (47%). All patients were prescribed with IV granisetron and dexamethasone before chemotherapy for acute prevention, whereas dexamethasone and metoclopramide were prescribed for delayed prevention. Aprepitant was not routinely prescribed for the prevention of CINV. CINV incidence was 57% in the studied population and 20% in the total cycle. This study found a significant association between CINV incidence with performance status and cisplatin-based chemotherapy (OR = 3.071, CI = 1.515-6.223, p = 0.002; OR = 4.587, CI = 1.739-12.099, p = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CINV incidence was rather high per patient but relatively low per cycle. Most patients were prescribed with dual regimen antiemetic prophylaxis.

IMPACT

This study provides evidence that there was suboptimal use of recommended agents for CINV, and there is a clear need for further improvements in CINV management.

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.

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.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

Palonosetron versus Granisetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting after Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study

The triplet antiemetic regimen is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, the superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in triplet antiemetic therapy remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) and granisetron (GRA) in triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV. This study included 267 patients who received MEC at our hospital between April 2017 and September 2020. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising PALO or GRA and dexamethasone on day 1 and aprepitant on days 1-3. We evaluated the rate of complete response (CR) (i.e., no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall phase (0-120 h) after first-cycle chemotherapy. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for non-CR. The rate of CR in the overall and delayed phases was significantly higher in the PALO group (91.9 and 91.9%, respectively) than in the GRA group (74.1 and 75.5%, respectively). In the acute phase, the incidence was not different between the GRA and PALO groups (96.5 and 99.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex and the use of GRA were risk factors for non-CR. Subgroup analysis revealed the superiority of PALO over GRA in female patients, but not in male patients. In conclusion, PALO was more effective than GRA in triplet antiemetic therapy in preventing CINV during MEC, especially for female patients.

Evaluation of Adherence to Antiemetic Treatment Guidelines in Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Teaching Hospitals in Tehran

The present study evaluated adherence to antiemetic guidelines for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in four tertiary university teaching hospitals in Tehran. This prospective observational study enrolled 382 adult patients on chemotherapy at oncology centers affiliated to medical universities located in Tehran. Patients were followed up during their chemotherapy cycles. Risk factors related to CINV were evaluated, and information on antiemetic prescribing patterns was gathered using direct interview and patient medical records. Guideline adherence was found to be low; however, 81.3% of the patients experienced chemotherapy without CINV. Low frequency of adherence to the guidelines in prescription patterns does not mean that prescription patterns were very different. Indeed, some drugs were added to base guideline recommendation regiments, since in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy categories, some novel antiemetics recommended by international guidelines are not yet included in Iranian pharmacopeia. It was shown that two drug classes were added as a common practice, namely, H1/H2 antagonists and dopamine receptor antagonist (metoclopramide). Statistically significant differences were found between antiemetic prescribing patterns of physicians and chemotherapy regimen category (aspect of emetogenic potential) (p < 0.001). The most commonly prescribed regimen in the minimal-emetic-risk category and the low-emetic-risk category was reported to be the combination of corticosteroids, 5HT3, and H1/H2 antagonists, 33% and 66.1% respectively. Moreover, corticosteroids +5HT3 and H1/H2 antagonists + NK1 antagonist were found to be the most frequently prescribed regimen in the moderate-emetic-risk category (39.7%) and high-emetic-risk category (41.8%). Antiemetic prescribing patterns were not completely compatible with the guidelines in moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy categories. Differences were detected in two states of over- and undertreatment. The present study confirmed low level of adherence of antiemetic prescribing patterns with international guidelines. However, it could not be proved that high levels of adherence with the guidelines result in reduction of CINV incidence. Complete success in CINV control cannot be achieved only by adherence to the established guidelines as novel antiemetics recommended by the guidelines have not been included in the Iranian pharmacopeia as yet. The authors do recommend implementation of strategies for increasing guideline-compliant prescriptions with the aim of improving patients' outcomes. We also suggest that policymakers in healthcare system point more critically to overprescribing as an issue of concern.

Facilitators and barriers to clinical practice guideline-consistent supportive care at pediatric oncology institutions: a Children's Oncology Group study

Background

Clinical practice guideline (CPG)-consistent care improves patient outcomes, but CPG implementation is poor. Little is known about CPG implementation in pediatric oncology. This study aimed to understand supportive care CPG implementation facilitators and barriers at pediatric oncology National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) institutions.

Methods

Healthcare professionals at 26 pediatric, Children's Oncology Group-member, NCORP institutions were invited to participate in face-to-face focus groups. Serial focus groups were held until saturation of ideas was reached. Supportive care CPG implementation facilitators and barriers were solicited using nominal group technique (NGT), and implementation of specific supportive care CPG recommendations was discussed. Notes from each focus group were analyzed using a directed content analysis. The top five themes arising from an analysis of NGT items were identified, first from each focus group and then across all focus groups.

Results

Saturation of ideas was reached after seven focus groups involving 35 participants from 18 institutions. The top five facilitators of CPG implementation identified across all focus groups were organizational factors including charging teams with CPG implementation, individual factors including willingness to standardize care, user needs and values including mentorship, system factors including implementation structure, and implementation strategies including a basis in science. The top five barriers of CPG implementation identified were organizational factors including tolerance for inconsistencies, individual factors including lack of trust, system factors including administrative hurdles, user needs and values including lack of inclusivity, and professional including knowledge gaps.

Conclusions

Healthcare professionals at pediatric NCORP institutions believe that organizational factors are the most important determinants of supportive care CPG implementation. They believe that CPG-consistent supportive care is most likely to be delivered in organizations that prioritize evidence-based care, provide structure and resources to implement CPGs, and eliminate implementation barriers.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02847130. Date of registration: July 28, 2016.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00200-2.

Factors Associated with Chemotherapy Induced Nausea in Cancer Patients: A Case-Control Study

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) is one of the most common and uncomfortable symptoms in cancer patients, and different factors can be associated with it. Objectives: This study aimed to determine different factors associated with CIN in cancer patients. Methods: A total of 144 cancer patients were selected by convenience sampling. The patients at acute phase of chemotherapy were assigned to case group (n = 58) if they had nausea or to control group (n = 86) if they did not have nausea. The patients' data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire including items on potential factors for CIN through interviews with the patients and according to their medical records. Logistic regression models were used to conduct data analysis, and the correlations in question were expressed as odds ratio (OR) at 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The results showed that the chance of nausea increased by 6.4, 2.4, 1.2, and 1.5 times in case of expected nausea, pain, carbohydrate intake, and smelling a specific odor, respectively. The increasing nausea-inducing effect of drugs led to increased chance of post-chemotherapy nausea (OR = 2.366). Conclusions: Having pain, expecting nausea, carbohydrate intake, smelling a certain odor, and high emetogenic potential of chemotherapy are effective in the development of CIN.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

Real-world emetic risk of chemotherapy and the corresponding antiemetic therapy in Japan: A study based on a nationwide database

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major concern of patients with cancer, leading to suboptimal treatment.

AIM

This study assessed the emetic risk associated with intravenous and oral chemotherapy and the prophylactic antiemetic drugs by cancer type in a real-world setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used the health services utilisation data for patients with cancer diagnosed in 2016. Patients aged at least 20 years at the time of diagnosis and who started their first course of chemotherapy were included. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was determined according to the cancer type and was classified based on clinical practice guidelines. The prescription of antiemetic drugs was assessed. Overall, 172 133 patients were evaluated, of whom 121 103 (70.4%) received intravenous chemotherapy. High-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) was prescribed in 46 458 (27.0%) patients. HEC was prescribed most for patients with oesophageal cancer (80.3%), followed by malignant lymphoma (60.2%) and breast cancer (53.8%). Moderate-emetic-risk chemotherapy (MEC) was prescribed in 60 528 (35.2%) patients and was mostly prescribed for small cell lung cancer (59.9%). Meanwhile, more than 50% of the chemotherapy prescribed for patients with gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer was low-emetic-risk chemotherapy. HEC was accompanied by three-drug antiemetic prophylaxis in more than 90% of patients with small cell lung, non-small cell lung, breast, and oesophageal cancer, whereas only 13.5% of patients with malignant lymphoma were administered CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine sulphate, and prednisolone) with prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

The risk of CINV differs with cancer type. HEC was less prescribed compared with MEC. Most patients received the recommended anti-emetic prophylaxis.

Dexamethasone-Sparing Regimens with Oral Netupitant and Palonosetron for the Prevention of Emesis Caused by High-Dose Cisplatin: A Randomized Noninferiority Study

Background

To reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin‐based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low‐dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed‐dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline‐consistent use of 4‐day DEX.

Patients and Methods

In this open‐label, multicenter study, chemotherapy‐naïve patients undergoing high‐dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m²), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (a) no further DEX (DEX1), (b) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or (c) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) during the 5‐day overall phase. The noninferiority margin was set at −15% difference (DEX1 or DEX3 minus DEX4). Secondary efficacy endpoints included complete protection (CP: CR and none or mild nausea).

Results

Two‐hundred twenty‐eight patients, 76 in each arm, were assessable. Noninferiority was met for both DEX‐sparing regimens and the reference arm, with overall phase CR rates of 76.3% in each of the DEX1 and DEX3 arms and 75.0% in the DEX4 arm (95% confidence interval, −12.3% to 15% for each comparison). During the overall phase, CP rates were similar between groups.

Conclusion

A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single‐dose DEX offers comparable chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting prevention throughout 5 days post‐chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high–emetic‐risk setting of cisplatin‐based chemotherapy.

Implications for Practice

Dexamethasone (DEX) has traditionally played an integral role in the management of chemotherapy‐induced emesis. Although generally considered safe, even short‐term DEX use is associated with various side effects, and some evidence suggests that concurrent steroids may reduce the efficacy of immunotherapies. This study demonstrates comparable antiemetic control during the 5 days post‐chemotherapy with a simplified regimen of netupitant/palonosetron plus single‐dose DEX versus the standard 4‐day DEX reference treatment in high‐dose cisplatin. This represents a clinically relevant achievement as it not only simplifies antiemetic prophylaxis but also offers an opportunity to appropriately use in patients where caution with corticosteroid use is advised.

This study was designed to test whether two different dexamethasone‐sparing regimens, when administered with NEPA, might provide the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose while maintaining the same degree of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting control in patients undergoing cisplatin‐based chemotherapy.

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.

[Establishment of naive Bayes classifier-based risk prediction model for chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting]

OBJECTIVE

To establish a risk prediction model of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting based on naive Bayes classifier.

OBJECTIVE

We collected the basic information, treatment protocols and follow-up data from 300 patients receiving chemotherapy in the Oncology Department of Second Xiangya Hospital from July to September, 2020. Correlation analysis was carried out between the potential factors related to nausea and vomiting in the treatment plan and the individual characteristics of the patients. For the two characteristics with a correlation coefficient greater than 0.8, their contribution to the area under curve (AUC) was calculated, and the characteristic with a smaller contribution was removed. The naive Bayes classifier in the machine learning library scikit-learn was used as the prediction model of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and 10-fold stratified-shuffled-split cross-validation was used to obtain the final result of the model. The machine learning model was trained using 70% of the samples, and 30% of the samples were used as the test set to assess the performance of the model.

OBJECTIVE

The sensitivity of the model for predicting the risk of nausea and vomiting due to acute chemotherapy was 0.83±0.04 (95%CI: 0.80-0.86) with a specificity of 0.45±0.03 (95%CI: 0.42-0.47) and an AUC of 0.72±0.04 (95% CI: 0.69-0.75). The sensitivity of the model for predicting the risk of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was 0.84±0.01 (95%CI: 0.83-0.86) with a specificity of 0.48±0.03 (95%CI: 0.45-0.52) and an AUC of 0.74±0.02 (95%CI: 0.72-0.77).

OBJECTIVE

The naive Bayes classifier model has a good performance in predicting the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese cancer patients.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) among Malaysian cancer patients for the management of chemotherapy related side effects (CRSE)

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy-related side effects (CRSE) are among the most distressing events cancer patients face. Some patients seek complementary and alternative medicines (CAM), increasing the risk of undesirable drug- CAM interactions. This study aims to identify the prevalence and type of CAM used for CRSE among cancer patients and patient's disclosure of CAM use to their prescribers.

METHODS

This was a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study. Data was collected from cancer patients attending to three departments: surgical, medical and gynaecology at a local hospital in Malaysia. Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.

RESULTS

A total of 273 patients were recruited. Prevalence of CAM used for CRSE management was 166 (60.8%). Of the CAM users, 144 (86.7%) were female, 102 (61.4%) were employed and 123 (74.1%) were married. Breast cancer patients were found to be the highest users of CAM (n=76; 45.8%). The top three CAM used by patients in managing CRSE were dietary supplements (n=166; 100%); herbal products (n=154; 92.8%) and traditional Malay therapy (n=147; 88.6%). About 83% (n=137) patients disclosed CAM use to their prescribers. Among these, 58 (42.3%) reported that their doctors encouraged the use, whereas 89 (65.0%) patients claimed their doctors disagreed the use of CAM.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribers still have doubt in combining chemotherapy with CAM, hence patients use CAM discreetly. Increasing the awareness and understanding of CAM use are mandatory to distinguish its possible synergistic or adverse reactions with cancer patients.

Assessing the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' quality of life: An Arabic version of the Functional Living Index-Emesis

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a serious complication of cancer treatment that compromises patients' quality of life and treatment adherence, which necessitates regular assessment. Therefore, there is a need to assess patient-reported nausea and vomiting using a validated scale among Arabic speaking cancer patient population. The objective of this study was to translate and validate the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument in Arabic, a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the influence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' quality of life.

METHODS

Linguistic validation of an Arabic-language version was performed. The instrument was administered to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in a tertiary hospital's cancer center in Saudi Arabia.

RESULTS

One-hundred cancer patients who received chemotherapy were enrolled. The participants' mean age was 53.3 ± 14.9 years, and 50% were female. Half of the participants had a history of nausea and vomiting with previous chemotherapy. The Cronbach coefficient alpha for the FLIE was 0.9606 and 0.9736 for nausea and vomiting domains, respectively, which indicated an excellent reliability for the Arabic FLIE. The mean FLIE score was 110.9 ± 23.5, indicating no or minimal impact on daily life (NIDL).

CONCLUSIONS

The Arabic FLIE is a valid and reliable tool among the Arabic-speaking cancer population. Thus, the Arabic version of the FLIE will be a useful tool to assess the quality of life among Arabic speaking patients receiving chemotherapy. Additionally, the translated instrument will be a useful tool for future research studies to explore new antiemetic treatments among cancer patients.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with carboplatin plus pemetrexed or carboplatin plus paclitaxel in patients with lung cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Patients with lung cancer who are treated with carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens often experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, knowledge on the effect of regimen and cofactors on the risk of CINV is limited. This study aimed to analyze and compare the incidence of CINV between lung cancer patients undergoing carboplatin plus pemetrexed (CBDCA+PEM) and those undergoing carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CBDCA+PTX) chemotherapy.

Methods

Pooled data of 240 patients from two prospective observational studies were compared using propensity score matching. Separate multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy.

Results

Delayed nausea was significantly more common in patients treated with CBDCA+PEM than in those treated with CBDCA+PTX (51.1% vs. 36.2%, P = 0.04), but the incidence of vomiting did not significantly differ between the two groups (23.4% vs. 14.9%, P = 0.14). The occurrence of CINV peaked on day 4 in the CBDCA+PTX group and on day 5 in the CBDCA+PEM group. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex, younger age, and CBDCA+PEM regimen were independent risk factors for delayed nausea, while female sex was an independent risk factor for delayed vomiting.

Conclusions

The CBDCA + PEM regimen has a higher risk of causing delayed nausea than the CBDCA + PTX regimen, and aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis should be offered to patients treated with CBDCA + PEM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-07802-y.

A phase 1 pharmacokinetic study of oral NEPA, the fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, in Chinese healthy volunteers

PURPOSE

Oral NEPA, the only fixed-combination antiemetic, is composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant (300 mg) and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (0.50 mg). This study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile of netupitant and its main metabolites M1 and M3, and palonosetron in Chinese subjects. Oral NEPA tolerability and safety were also analyzed.

METHODS

This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in healthy, adult Chinese volunteers. Eligible subjects received oral NEPA, and blood samples were collected on day 1 predose and at various time points up until day 10 postdose. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using noncompartmental methods. For safety assessments, adverse events (AEs) were monitored during the study.

RESULTS

In total 18 Chinese healthy volunteers received oral NEPA. Netupitant mean maximum plasma concentration (C_max) [± standard deviation] of 698 ± 217 ng/mL was reached at 3-6 h, with a mean total exposure (AUC_0-inf) of 22,000 ± 4410 h·ng/mL. For palonosetron, a mean C_max of 1.8 ± 0.252 ng/mL was reached at 2-6 h postadministration, with a mean AUC_0-inf of 81.0 ± 14.0 h·ng/mL. The most common treatment-related AEs in > 2 subjects were constipation (n = 9) and tiredness (n = 3). No severe AEs were observed, and no subject withdrew due to AEs.

CONCLUSION

Following single-dose administration of oral NEPA in Chinese subjects, the pharmacokinetic profiles of the NEPA components were mostly similar to those reported previously in Caucasians. NEPA was well tolerated with a safety profile in line with that observed in pivotal trials in Caucasians.

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

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation.

RESULTS

Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Breast Cancer Patients' Perceptions of Their Experience With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Its Impact on Quality of Life in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Background

Breast cancer accounts for 11.6% of all neoplasms worldwide and is the commonest cancer among Saudi females (29.7%). Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a very common side effect of chemotherapy that has a great impact on the quality of life (QoL) of patients. Literature is still scarce about this effect on the Saudi population. This study aims to explore breast cancer patients’ perception of their experience with CINV and its impact on QoL.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional retrospective study conducted on Saudi adult female breast cancer patients who underwent chemotherapy at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Data collected through patients’ records review, face-to-face and telephone structured interviews using a questionnaire composed of four parts: sociodemographic characteristics, nature of acute CINV (within 24 hours) and delayed CINV (after 24 hours), impact on QoL, and general information on their experience.

Results

Out of a total population of 173, 98 (56.65%) patients participated in the study. The main findings show that 78.6% experienced nausea, whereas 35.7% experienced vomiting. Most participants had a moderate-to-extreme impact on their QoL due to nausea (74.0%) and vomiting (62.9%). Overall, 57.5% rated anti-emetics as excellent for controlling CINV, whereas 22.9% rated them as moderate to good; 83.5% were completely compliant on anti-emetics and 71.1% reported that they received completely comprehensive education about CINV. Religious practices (74.4%), diet (57.7%), and relaxation techniques (44.9%) were found to be the most common non-pharmacological methods used to control CINV. No significant correlation was found between the effect of CINV on QoL and sociodemographic characteristics (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

CINV is very common among Saudi adult female breast cancer patients; despite being completely compliant and receiving comprehensive education and effective anti-emetics; CINV still had a high impact on different aspects of QoL. Health care professionals should consider CINV as an issue and should find effective strategies for alleviating patients’ suffering.

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.

Efficacy of intravenous NEPA, a fixed NK1/5-HT3 receptor antagonist combination, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during cisplatin- and anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy: A review of phase 3 studies

This paper presents an overview of the efficacy of intravenous (IV) NEPA (fixed combination of the NK₁RA, fosnetupitant, and 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron) relative to oral NEPA and also to historical data for other NK₁RA regimens. Data is compiled from 5 pivotal NEPA studies in adult chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors undergoing either cisplatin- or anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Additionally, data was reviewed from 10 pivotal Phase 3 studies utilizing other NK₁RA regimens approved for clinical use. The overall (0-120 h) complete response (no emesis, no rescue use), no emesis, and no significant nausea rates for IV NEPA were similar to that of oral NEPA and were consistently numerically higher than historical NK₁RA regimens. As a single-dose prophylactic antiemetic combination given with dexamethasone, IV NEPA is a highly effective and convenient guideline-compliant antiemetic agent which may offer a safety benefit over other IV NK₁RA regimens due to its lack of associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions.