Improving the care of patients with regard to chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis: the effect of feedback to clinicians on adherence to antiemetic prescribing guidelines

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical practice guideline-inconsistent chemotherapy-induced vomiting prophylaxis in pediatric cancer patients in community settings: A Children's Oncology Group study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients receiving clinical practice guideline (CPG)-inconsistent care related to chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) prophylaxis, and to describe the association between CPG-inconsistent care and site size. The association between delivery of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes (CIV control, admission prolongation, and unplanned healthcare visits) was also described.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at Children's Oncology Group (COG) National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites. Eligible patients received highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) as inpatients from January 2014 through December 2015, and were previously enrolled in a COG study. The COG generated a patient list from which patients were randomly selected for chart review by participating sites. A central panel adjudicated CIV prophylaxis received as CPG-consistent or -inconsistent.

RESULTS

Twenty-four sites participated. Over half of patients received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis (HEC: 59/112, 52.6%; MEC: 119/215, 55.3%). The most common reasons for CPG-inconsistency were shortened duration of antiemetic administration or omission of dexamethasone. Site size was not found to be associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery (HEC: adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.23; MEC: adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24). Additionally, there was no statistically significant association between receipt of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving MEC or HEC often received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis. Site size was not associated with receipt of CPG-inconsistent care. Future studies should evaluate strategies to improve CIV control among pediatric oncology patients including those aimed at improving CPG adherence.

Healthcare professional perspectives following implementation of an infection management care pathway for pediatric patients with cancer: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

The Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario (POGO) supported an effort to implement infection management care pathways based on clinical practice guidelines, to improve the consistency of infection management in pediatric cancer patients. The objective of this qualitative study was to describe the perspective of healthcare professionals (HCPs) following implementation.

METHODS

Four tertiary pediatric oncology centers in Ontario, Canada, implemented the pathways. We randomly identified three HCPs per group (clinical pharmacists; nurse case managers, educators or practitioners and physician assistants; pediatric oncology fellows; or pediatric oncology staff physicians) per site and invited them to participate in a qualitative interview. One-on-one interviews were conducted remotely, followed by thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

RESULTS

A total of 66 invitations were extended and 42 HCPs participated. Identified themes were: (1) implementation approach, (2) access and navigation, (3) engagement, (4) concerns, (5) workplace benefits, (6) reception, and (7) provincial harmonization. HCPs preferred in-person implementation strategies over e-mail communication. They identified teaching/educational utility and benefits to non-oncology departments and non-tertiary centers participating in shared care of patients. Other positive aspects related to evidence-based practice, safety, supporting oncology HCPs, and benefits to patients and families. Concerns included need to ensure users applied clinical judgement and loss of autonomy. Provincial harmonization of practice was viewed positively, although potential logistical and institutional cultural barriers were raised.

CONCLUSIONS

Following infection management care pathway implementation, HCPs described educational utility and benefits to non-oncology departments, oncology HCPs, patients, and families. Our findings may facilitate future infection management care pathway provincial harmonization.

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.

Potential drug-drug interactions in patients with non-small cell lung cancer at a university hospital in Turkey

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the drug profile of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to identify potential drug-drug interactions (PDDIs) during hospitalization. In particular, PDDIs in categories X and D were determined.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the oncology services of a university hospital between 2018 and 2021. PDDIs were evaluated using Lexicomp Drug Interactions® software included in UpToDate®.

RESULTS

A total of 199 patients were included in the study. Polypharmacy was present in 92.5% of the patients and the median (min-max) number of drugs used was 8 (2-16). 32% of the patients had D and X PDDIs. A total of 16 PDDIs at risk grade X were found in 15 (7.5%) patients. A total of 81 PDDIs of risk grade D were found in 54 (27.1%) patients and a total of 276 PDDIs of risk grade C were identified in 97 (48.7%) patients. Anticancer drugs (p = 0.008), opioids (p = 0.046), steroids (p = 0.003), 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (p = 0.012), aprepitant (p = 0.025) and antihistamines (p < 0.001) were statistically more frequent among patients with PDDIs than among those without.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study indicated that polypharmacy and PDDIs are common in hospitalized patients with NSCLC cancer. The monitoring of medications is critical for maximizing therapeutic effects and minimizing side effects related to PDDIs. As a part of multidisciplinary team, clinical pharmacists can contribute significantly to preventing, detecting and managing PDDIs.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The impact of a prescription review and prescriber feedback system on prescribing practices in primary care clinics: a cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured prescription review and prescriber feedback program in reducing prescribing errors in government primary care clinics within an administrative region in Malaysia.

METHODS

This was a three group, pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. In phase 1, we randomised 51 clinics to a full intervention group (prescription review and league tables plus authorised feedback letter), a partial intervention group (prescription review and league tables), and a control group (prescription review only). Prescribers in these clinics were the target of our intervention. Prescription reviews were performed by pharmacists; 20 handwritten prescriptions per prescriber were consecutively screened on a random day each month, and errors identified were recorded in a standardised data collection form. Prescribing performance feedback was conducted at the completion of each prescription review cycle. League tables benchmark prescribing errors across clinics and individual prescribers, while the authorised feedback letter detailed prescribing performance based on a rating scale. In phase 2, all clinics received the full intervention. Pharmacists were trained on data collection, and all data were audited by researchers as an implementation fidelity strategy. The primary outcome, percentage of prescriptions with at least one error, was displayed in p-charts to enable group comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 32,200 prescriptions were reviewed. In the full intervention group, error reduction occurred gradually and was sustained throughout the 8-month study period. The process mean error rate of 40.7% (95% CI 27.4, 29.5%) in phase 1 reduced to 28.4% (95% CI 27.4, 29.5%) in phase 2. In the partial intervention group, error reduction was not well sustained and showed a seasonal pattern with larger process variability. The phase 1 error rate averaging 57.9% (95% CI 56.5, 59.3%) reduced to 44.8% (95% CI 43.3, 46.4%) in phase 2. There was no evidence of improvement in the control group, with phase 1 and phase 2 error rates averaging 41.1% (95% CI 39.6, 42.6%) and 39.3% (95% CI 37.8, 40.9%) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of prescribing errors in primary care settings is high, and routine prescriber feedback comprising league tables and a feedback letter can effectively reduce prescribing errors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Medical Research Register: NMRR-12-108-11,289 (5th March 2012).

Control Charts in Healthcare Quality Improvement

Objectives: Use of Shewhart control charts in quality improvement (QI) initiatives is increasing. These charts are typically used in one or more phases of the Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) cycle to monitor summaries of process and outcome data, abstracted from clinical information systems, over time. We summarize methodological criteria of Shewhart control charts and investigate adherence of published QI studies to these criteria.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase and CINAHL for studies using Shewhart control charts in QI processes in direct patient care. We extracted methodological criteria for Shewhart control charts, and for the use of these charts in PDSA cycles, from textbooks and methodological literature.

Results: We included 34 studies, presenting 64 control charts of which 40 control charts plotted two phases of the PDSA cycle. The criterion to use 10–35 data points in a control chart was least adhered to (48.4% non-adherence). Other criteria were: transformation of the data in case of a skewed distribution (43.7% non adherence), when comparing data from two phases of the PDSA cycle the Plan phase (the first phase) needs to be stable (40.0% non-adherence), using a maximum of four different rules to detect special cause variation (14.1% non-adherence), and setting control limits at three standard deviations from the mean (all control charts adhered).

Conclusion: There is room for improvement with regard to the methodological construction of Shewhart control charts used in QI processes. Higher adherence to all methodological criteria will decrease the risk of incorrect conclusions about the process being monitored.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis: Practice Within the Children's Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has endorsed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in children with cancer. This project aims to describe current acute CINV prophylaxis practice at COG sites and the gap between this practice and CPG recommendations.

PROCEDURE

Two surveys were developed. The first survey, sent to 94 cancer control and supportive care responsible individuals (CCL RIs) at 94 COG institutions, asked if the institution had a standardized approach to practice and focused on antiemetic agent choice. The second survey, sent to 54 pharmacists at COG sites where the CCL RI indicated that there was a standardized approach to CINV prophylaxis practice, focused on antiemetic dosing. Survey results were described and analyzed for consistency with the CPG recommendations.

RESULTS

Among the 69 respondents to the first survey, 54 (78%) stated that their institutions have a standardized approach to CINV prophylaxis practice. However, antiemetic choice varied widely among respondents. Results from the 36 respondents to the second survey also demonstrated significant antiemetic dosing practice variability. Frequent sources of deviation from CPG recommendations were as follows: antiemetic choice when corticosteroids are contraindicated, dexamethasone dosing, aprepitant use in children less than 12 years, and aprepitant use in the presence of a known or suspected drug interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great diversity in the CINV prophylaxis provided to children with cancer at COG sites. Concerted strategies are required to improve awareness of the current CINV prophylaxis CPG and to facilitate CPG-consistent CINV prophylaxis.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting incidence and prevalence

Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is recognized as having been an important problem during the initial introduction of chemotherapy into the antineoplastic armamentarium, the assumption that this problem has already been solved can restrict optimal management and further advances. Underestimation of nausea and vomiting may have many causes. If these toxicities are assumed to be necessary properties of chemotherapy, then their incidence may be taken for granted. If nausea and vomiting appear after discharge from the clinic several days after chemotherapy, these toxicities may not be reported because of poor recall or because of efforts by patients to avoid unnecessary complaints. Physician education may be compromised if physicians see nausea and vomiting as population problems but not problems for their own patients. Failure to recognize nausea and vomiting as two distinct entities that may appear independently of each other can also limit understanding of the prevalence of these problems and efforts at effective management. Continued attention to the impact of nausea and vomiting on the patient experience will be necessary to insure optimal maintenance of quality of life.

A Review of NEPA, a Novel Fixed Antiemetic Combination with the Potential for Enhancing Guideline Adherence and Improving Control of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Combination antiemetic regimens targeting multiple molecular pathways associated with emesis have become the standard of care for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) related to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapies. Antiemetic consensus guidelines from several professional societies are widely available and updated regularly as new data emerges. Unfortunately, despite substantial research supporting the notion that guideline conformity improves CINV control, adherence to antiemetic guidelines is unsatisfactory. While studies are needed to identify specific barriers to guideline use and explore measures to enhance adherence, a novel approach has been taken to improve clinician adherence and patient compliance, with the development of a new combination antiemetic. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of a new highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and the pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron. This convenient antiemetic combination offers guideline-consistent prophylaxis by targeting two critical pathways associated with CINV in a single oral dose administered only once per cycle. This paper will review and discuss the NEPA data in the context of how this first combination antiemetic may overcome some of the barriers interfering with adherence to antiemetic guidelines, enhance patient compliance, and offer a possible advance in the prevention of CINV for patients.

Recent developments in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a comprehensive review

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been revolutionized over the past 25 years. Guideline-based treatment means that vomiting can be prevented in the majority, but not in all patients. Therefore, antiemetic research continues with the goal of optimizing CINV control for all patients. This comprehensive review summarizes the research efforts in this field over the past few years. Emerging from this research are two new antiemetic agents, netupitant/palonosetron, the first antiemetic combination agent and rolapitant, a new NK1RA. In addition, studies have evaluated the benefits of olanzapine and ginger, explored optimal combinations of agents for delayed CINV prevention, confirmed that dexamethasone-sparing regimens are effective, and demonstrated the value of NK1RAs in high-dose chemotherapy settings as well as with certain moderately emetogenic chemotherapies such as carboplatin. Research has also validated the correlation between antiemetic guideline adherence and improved CINV control. Finally, regulatory authorities have utilized extreme caution in retiring some 5-HT3RAs or decreasing their maximum dose.

Improving Adherence to Evidence-Based Guidelines for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common side effects experienced by patients receiving chemotherapy. Antiemetic medications can be used to effectively prevent and treat CINV. Choice and dose of antiemetics are often based on provider preference rather than evidenced-based information. CINV antiemetic prescribing guidelines provide an evidence-based approach and standardization for the management of this common side effect. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to improve adherence to CINV antiemetic guidelines. Despite distribution of CINV guidelines, there was inconsistent compliance with their use. When providers reported unfamiliarity with the guidelines, they were reintroduced and direct provider feedback was given to improve adherence. This quality improvement project demonstrates the need for continued reinforcement to sustain change that results in the best care for children experiencing CINV.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a large hospital

Purpose:

The aim of the study was to determine the antiemetic prescription adherence both to the protocol of our hospital and to international recommendations, as well as to analyze the relationship between this adherence and the incidence of nausea and vomiting (NV) and between the adherence and patients' individual risk.

Methods:

This is a four-month observational study which included antiemetic prescriptions for adult cancer patients. Prescriptions were considered adherent or not to hospital protocol and also to international guidelines. Patients were given a form to record the NV they suffered and this was to be returned at their next appointment.

Results:

A total of 102 prescriptions were analyzed. Taking into account the hospital protocol, 59% and 54% were correct (acute and delayed phase, respectively). Of those considered outside the protocol, 24% and 13% did follow international guidelines. In the delayed phase, complete response was achieved in 76% and 72% of the patients, with compliant and non-compliant prescriptions, respectively (82% and 90% in the acute phase). Adherence to the hospital protocol was higher in patients under 50 years old ( p = 0.015) and in those without previous experience of NV ( p = 0.010). Adherence to international guidelines was higher in female patients ( p = 0.023).

Conclusion:

Our study confirms low adherence with both local and international recommendations for antiemetic prescriptions. However, we could not prove that adherence involves a CINV reduction. Adherence did not seem to be influenced by the doctor's perception of the patient's risk of emesis.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Trends in hepatitis B virus screening at the onset of chemotherapy in a large US cancer center

Background

National organizations recommend screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) before chemotherapy but differ regarding which patients should be screened. We aimed to determine contemporary screening rates at a cancer center and the possible influence on these rates of publication of national recommendations.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of HBV screening in cancer patients registered during the period from January 2004 through April 2011. Screening was defined as HBsAg and anti-HBc tests ordered around the time of initial chemotherapy. We compared screening rates for 3 periods: January 1, 2004, through December 18, 2008 (Food and Drug Administration and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2007 recommendations); December 19, 2008, through September 30, 2010 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2009, Institute of Medicine, and American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations); and October 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of screening.

Results

Of 141,877 new patients, 18,688 received chemotherapy, and 3020 (16.2%) were screened. HBV screening rates increased over the 3 time periods (14.8%, 18.2%, 19.9%; P < 0.0001), but <19% of patients with HBV risk factors were screened. Among patients with hematologic malignancies, over 66% were screened, and odds of screening nearly doubled after publication of the recommendations (P < 0.0001). Less than 4% of patients with solid tumors were screened, although odds of screening increased 70% after publication of the recommendations (P = 0.003). Other predictors of screening included younger age, planned rituximab therapy, and known risk factors for HBV infection.

Conclusions

Most patients with solid tumors or HBV risk factors remained unscreened, although screening rates increased after publication of national recommendations. Efforts are needed to increase awareness of the importance of HBV screening before chemotherapy to identify patients who should start antiviral prophylaxis.

International antiemetic guidelines on chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): content and implementation in daily routine practice

Over the past decades major improvements in the management of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were obtained. With the correct use of antiemetic drugs, CINV can be prevented in almost 70%, and even up to, 80% of patients. Treatment guidelines enable physicians to integrate the latest clinical research into their daily practice. The large volume of rapidly evolving clinical data has been summarised and incorporated into treatment recommendations by well-known and reliable institutions. These organisations include the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). However, despite the availability of these guidelines, there is an emerging evidence that adherence to, and implementation of, treatment recommendations is less than optimal. This review will especially focus on the content of the current antiemetic guidelines and will address the important question of how these guidelines are implemented in routine practice.

Antiemetic prescribing practices using a computerized physician order entry system

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmaceutical care for patients with breast and ovarian cancer

Purpose

Individualized patient care may help reduce the incidence of adverse drug events in systemic cancer therapy. This study was conducted to explore the feasibility and potential of additional pharmaceutical care for breast and ovarian cancer patients.

Methods

The study was designed as a prospective, multicentered cohort study with a control group. Ninety-eight breast or ovarian cancer patients were recruited from outpatient oncology clinics and primary care oncologists: initially into the control group receiving standard care and after implementation of pharmaceutical care into the intervention group consisting of additional patient counseling on the management of treatment-associated adverse events and optimization of supportive medication. Primary outcome was the complete response to the antiemetic prophylaxis. Secondary endpoints were the severity of nausea, frequency of emesis, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction with information on cancer treatment education.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included in the control group and 50 in the intervention group. Of the patients, 35.4% in the control group and 76.0% in the intervention group (p < 0.001) had a complete response to the antiemetic prophylaxis. The severity of acute and delayed nausea was not reduced. The global health scale and two symptom scales (nausea and vomiting, appetite loss) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were positively affected by pharmaceutical care. Patient satisfaction with information was significantly higher in the intervention group.

Conclusions

Patients with breast and ovarian cancer seem to benefit from pharmaceutical care, as suggested by improved patient-reported outcomes such as emetic episodes, quality of life, and patient satisfaction after implementation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1385-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Patient-centered management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Oncology providers frequently underestimate the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and patients often are reluctant to report symptoms. Inadequate patient-provider communication is a significant barrier to optimal management of this debilitating toxicity.

METHODS

The author reviews relevant published data and methods to optimize the clinical care of patients receiving chemotherapy with moderate-to-high emetogenic potential.

RESULTS

Patient reticence plus physician expectations that patients will report symptoms accurately lead to lapses in communication and suboptimal clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication strategies should serve to encourage patients to share the responsibility for establishing goals of therapy and understanding the risks and benefits of their selected antiemetic regimen, thereby becoming active participants in their own cancer care.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Impact of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

1st generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), and palonosetron, a 2nd generation 5-HT3 RA, are indicated for the prevention of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately (MEC) and highly emetogenic CT agents (HEC). This study explores the impact of step therapy policies requiring use of an older 5-HT3 RA before palonosetron on risk of CINV associated with hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.

METHODS

Patients who received cyclophosphamide post breast cancer (BC) surgery or who were diagnosed with lung cancer on carboplatin (LC-carboplatin) or cisplatin (LC-cisplatin) were selected from PharMetrics' (IMS LifeLink) claims dataset (2005-2008). Patients were followed for 6 months from initial CT administration for CINV events identified through ICD-9-CM codes. Patients were grouped into those initiated with older, generic 5-HT3 RAs (ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron) and those initiated and maintained on palonosetron throughout study follow-up. CINV events and CINV days were analyzed using multivariate regressions controlling for demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Eligible patients numbered 3,606 in BC, 4,497 in LC-carboplatin and 1,154 in LC-cisplatin cohorts, with 52%, 40%, and 34% in the palonosetron group, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two 5-HT3 RA groups in age or Charlson Comorbidity Index among the two MEC cohorts (BC and LC-carboplatin). Among the LC-cisplatin cohort, palonosetron users were older with more males than the older 5-HT3 RA group (age: 60.1 vs. 61.3; males, 66.9% vs. 56.9%). Compared to the older 5-HT3 RAs, the palonosetron groups incurred 22%-51% fewer 5-HT3 RA pharmacy claims, had fewer patients with CINV events (3.5% vs. 5.5% in BC, 9.5% vs. 12.8% in LC-carboplatin, 16.4% vs. 21.7% in LC-cisplatin), and had lower risk for CINV events (odds ratios 0.62, 0.71, or 0.71, respectively; p<0.05). The BC and LC-carboplatin palonosetron groups experienced 50% and 30% fewer CINV days than the generic 5-HT3 RA group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with breast or lung cancer initiated and maintained on palonosetron were at significantly lower risk for potentially costly CINV versus those on older 5-HT3 RAs. Further studies on impact of step therapy policy are warranted in order to minimize the clinical and economic burden of CINV.

Comparative clinical effectiveness of various 5-HT3 RA antiemetic regimens on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with hospital and emergency department visits in real world practice

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events for various 5-HT(3) RAs in patients who received moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) by evaluating hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.

METHODS

PharMetrics claims database was used to identify patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) who were initiated on cyclophosphamide-based adjuvant chemotherapy or with lung cancer (LC) initiated on carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based chemotherapy between 2005 and 2008. Patients were stratified in two groups: those initiated and maintained on palonosetron versus those treated with any other 5-HT(3) RA regimens in the 6-month post first chemotherapy. Risk for CINV events, identified by ICD-9-CM for nausea, vomiting, and/or dehydration, were estimated using logistic regressions, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, and total chemotherapy doses or days.

RESULTS

Of the 4,868 cyclophosphamide-treated BC, 5,414 carboplatin-treated LC, and 1,692 cisplatin-treated LC identified, there were 1,864 BC (38.5%), 1,806 carboplatin-treated LC (33.4%), and 390 cisplatin-treated LC (23.0%) in the palonosetron-only group. Palonosetron-only group had significantly lower probability of CINV events associated with ED/hospital admissions in all three cohorts (3.5% vs. 6.3% in BC, 9.5% vs. 13.8% in carboplatin-treated LC, and 16.4% vs. 22.6% in cisplatin-treated LC, all at p < 0.05). Logistic regressions found palonosetron-only group had significantly lower risk of CINV events (odds ratios = 0.550, 0.653, and 0.689 in BC, carboplatin-treated LC and cisplatin-treated LC, respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with lung or breast cancer receiving MEC or HEC had significantly lower risk of CINV events associated with hospital/ED admissions if initiated and maintained on palonosetron relative to patients receiving 5-HT(3) RA regimens.

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

BACKGROUND

We assessed adherence to the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO)/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer recommendations for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) at our institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The charts of 299 patients starting a new chemotherapy between November 2008 and April 2009 were reviewed. Baseline characteristics and prophylaxis of CINV during the first cycle were recorded, and adherence to ESMO recommendations was determined. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to test for predictors of adherence.

RESULTS

Prophylaxis of acute CINV was not adherent in 39% of the patients: 39 of 54 patients with low emetogenic chemotherapy had a serotonin antagonist, and 24 of 100 with moderately emetogenic therapy had a neurokinin antagonist. Nevertheless, 71% of the patients treated with highly emetogenic therapy received the guideline-specified prescription. Prophylaxis of delayed CINV was not adherent in 89% of the patients: 101 of 125 patients with highly or moderately emetogenic single-day chemotherapy received a serotonin antagonist. Male gender (odds ratio (OR) 0.484, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.291-0.806; P = 0.005) and hematologic neoplasia (OR 2.151, 95% CI 1.19-3.887; P = 0.011) were independent predictors of non-adherence. Age (OR 0.981, 95% CI 0.964-0.998; P = 0.029) and inpatient treatment (OR 0.457, 95% CI 0.25-0.836; P = 0.011) indicated a lower risk of non-adherence.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to older studies reporting frequent omissions of corticosteroids, the current study demonstrated significant overuse of serotonin antagonists for prophylaxis of delayed CINV.

Charting the possible impact of national guidelines on the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To identify temporal trends in the prescription of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Using data from the Swedish RA register (n = 2,584), we analysed the proportion of RA patients prescribed DMARDs at their first consultation between 1997 and 2001. Statistical process control (SPC) was used to chart and analyse major changes in prescription behaviour, while more traditional time series analysis methods (i.e. regression) were used to corroborate the nature of any trend.

RESULTS

The SPC method identified an upward shift in the prescription of DMARDs in July 1998 and a change in the process by October 1998. Time series analysis confirmed an increasing trend in DMARD prescription over the period as a whole and the trend was statistically significant (p<or=0.0001). Further analysis showed that the trend was driven by a single shift in the data in July 1998 (p<or=0.0095), and once this shift was accounted for, no remaining trends within the periods (i.e. before and after the jump) could be detected (p = 0.5934 and 0.7497, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The formulation and promulgation of Swedish guidelines in 1998 may have influenced the prescription of DMARDs for this patient group. Prospectively analysing data derived from clinical registers in real time using SPC shows promise as a means to evaluate interventions designed to have an impact on a national level.

Tracheostomy protocol: experience with development and potential utility

OBJECTIVES

To examine the feasibility and potential utility of a tracheostomy protocol based on a standardized approach to ventilator weaning.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational data collection.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Surgical intensive care unit patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Tracheostomy practice in 200 patients was analyzed in relation to spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) weaning. Decision for, and performance of, tracheostomy occurred (median [interquartile range]) 5.0 (3.75-8.0) and 7.0 (5.0-10.0) days following initiation of mechanical ventilation, respectively. Duration of mechanical ventilation was greater in tracheostomy compared with nontracheostomy patients (15.0 [11.0-19.0] vs. 6.0 [4.0-8.0], p < .001). For patients requiring ventilatory support for > or = 20 days, 100% of patients were maintained via tracheostomy. A protocol based on weaning performance, which included technical considerations, was developed. Individuals who failed preliminary weaning assessment or SBT for 3 successive days following 5 days (nonreintubated patients) or 3 days (reintubated patients) of ventilatory support met tracheostomy criteria. The protocol was implemented on a pilot basis in 125 individuals. Of the 55 (44.0%) patients undergoing tracheostomy, 25 (45.5%) did so consistent with criteria. Eighteen patients (32.7%) underwent tracheostomy before the time interval of data collection targeting weaning protocol performance, and 12 patients (21.8%) passed SBT on one or more occasions, were not extubated, and proceeded to tracheostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized approach in which the decision for tracheostomy is based on objective measures of weaning performance may be a means of using this procedure more consistently and effectively.

Application of statistical process control in healthcare improvement: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature regarding how statistical process control--with control charts as a core tool--has been applied to healthcare quality improvement, and to examine the benefits, limitations, barriers and facilitating factors related to such application.

DATA SOURCES

Original articles found in relevant databases, including Web of Science and Medline, covering the period 1966 to June 2004.

STUDY SELECTION

From 311 articles, 57 empirical studies, published between 1990 and 2004, met the inclusion criteria.

METHODS

A standardised data abstraction form was used for extracting data relevant to the review questions, and the data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Statistical process control was applied in a wide range of settings and specialties, at diverse levels of organisation and directly by patients, using 97 different variables. The review revealed 12 categories of benefits, 6 categories of limitations, 10 categories of barriers, and 23 factors that facilitate its application and all are fully referenced in this report. Statistical process control helped different actors manage change and improve healthcare processes. It also enabled patients with, for example asthma or diabetes mellitus, to manage their own health, and thus has therapeutic qualities. Its power hinges on correct and smart application, which is not necessarily a trivial task. This review catalogs 11 approaches to such smart application, including risk adjustment and data stratification.

CONCLUSION

Statistical process control is a versatile tool which can help diverse stakeholders to manage change in healthcare and improve patients' health.

Longitudinal patterns of weight gain after breast cancer diagnosis: observations beyond the first year

Many, but not all patients experience weight gain 1 year after a breast cancer diagnosis; clearly defined, clinically relevant groups at risk of weight gain have yet to be described. We set out to determine the factors associated with weight gain over time in patients with invasive breast cancer during a period of predominantly anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy and to identify groups with differing weight gain risks. Breast cancer patients (stage I-IIIB) were identified in a retrospective chart review. Evaluated parameters included weight at diagnosis and 1, 2, and 3 years later, height, body mass index (BMI), age, menopausal and change in menopausal status, as well as therapy and pathologic stage. Regression models identified significant independent predictors of weight change. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was employed to divide the dataset into relevant and significant groups. In 185 identified patients, regression models and RPA demonstrated that weight gain at 1 year was associated with younger age, adjuvant chemotherapy, and lower BMI. Weight gain at 2 years (n = 176) was greater than at year 1, and in addition to weight gain at year 1, was associated with younger age and adjuvant chemotherapy in regression analysis; RPA found that anthracycline therapy, age, and BMI were important. Weights at 3 years were similar to those seen at 2 years. Early-stage breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy continue to gain weight 2 years after diagnosis, and this weight gain appears to be persistent at year 3. Observation beyond 1 year is needed to adequately evaluate weight gain in early-stage breast cancer patients, particularly for those receiving contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem for cancer patients. Aprepitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved for use with 5-HT3 antagonists and corticosteroids to prevent CINV associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of standard aprepitant use has not been established.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies for CINV: conventional treatment with a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid, conventional treatment plus aprepitant, and conventional treatment with aprepitant added after the onset of CINV. Data from published clinical trials provided probabilities and utilities for the model. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Federal Supply Scale provided costs for medical resources and medications utilized. Resource use data were based on a randomized clinical trial and routine clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each aprepitant strategy was calculated in US$ per healthy day equivalent (HDE) and converted to dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in model parameters.

RESULTS

Adding aprepitant after CINV occurred cost $264 per HDE ($96,333/QALY). The three-drug strategy cost $267/HDE with a 95% confidence range of $248-$305/HDE ($97,429/QALY; $90,396-$111,239/QALY). In univariate analyses, the most influential factors on the ICER were: the cost of aprepitant, the likelihood of delayed CINV without aprepitant, the likelihood of acute CINV with/without aprepitant, and the increase in HDE from avoiding CINV.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant provides modest incremental benefits compared with conventional management of CINV. Routine aprepitant use appears most cost-effective when the likelihood of delayed CINV or the cost of rescue medications is high.

Phase I/II Trial of Docetaxel and Carboplatin as a First-Line Therapy in Patients with Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

A phase I/II study was conducted to determine the maximum-tolerated dose, the safety and tolerability, and the clinical efficacy of carboplatin and docetaxel in combination in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with measurable, previously untreated, good performance status, and stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were eligible. Increasing doses of docetaxel were given in combination with a fixed dose of carboplatin except at level 5. Cycles were repeated every four weeks. Seventy-seven patients were registered. In phase I, 27 patients were entered at five different dose levels. A docetaxel dose of 60 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the concentration time curve 6 was recommended for phase II, and an additional 50 patients were entered at this level for a total of 56 patients. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was the most common adverse event and occurred in 70% of the patients. Two patients had febrile neutropenia. Fifty-six patients were assessable for response; 21 partial responses were observed for an overall response rate of 37.5%. The median time to tumor progression was 4.0 months (range, 1.0-21.0 months), and the median survival was 12.9 months (range, 0.4-51.3 months). The one-year survival rate was 46.4%. The combination of docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the concentration time curve 6 is feasible and effective in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

The Pathophysiology of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a major debilitating side effect of oncology treatment despite recent advances in pharmaceutical management. Nurses who provide care to patients experiencing nausea and vomiting are often only marginally aware of the pathophysiological processes involved in the treatment. A better understanding of the science behind current interventions to reduce nausea and vomiting may help nurses use those interventions more effectively. This article reviews current knowledge about the pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. By understanding the pathophysiology behind this patient experience, gastroenterology nurses can develop a better understanding of the common symptoms of nausea and vomiting in general. When a nurse understands the complexity of factors causing nausea and vomiting, he or she will be better able to provide appropriate interventions to reduce these symptoms.

Antiemetic guidelines: are they being used?

Evidence-based guidelines are regarded as therapeutic standards for many medical interventions. However, implementation of such recommendations seems to be rather difficult. An international antiemetic guideline for the treatment of patients undergoing chemotherapy was issued by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer in 1997 and has been in use ever since. However, for many reasons, the guideline has not been followed completely, despite the fact that if antiemetics are used in accordance with guidelines, efficacy is similar to that achieved in randomised controlled trials. Structural difficulties, patients characteristics, and other barriers, such as the individual acceptance of guidelines and education of physicians and nurses, could be crucial factors for successful implementation. Thus, better adherence to antiemetic guidelines can only be achieved through a complex and long-term process, consisting of efficient education, training, and monitoring of all individuals involved.

Integrating aprepitant and palonosetron into clinical practice: a role for the new antiemetics

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most feared side effects of cancer treatment. With increasingly more complex chemotherapy treatments, CINV plays an important role in determining patients' quality of life, as well as when to halt potentially lifesaving therapy. Although significant progress has been made in the treatment of CINV, patients undergoing chemotherapy continue to report that this side effect is persistent and distressing. In 2003, two new agents were added to the armamentarium of antiemetic therapy. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved palonosetron, a longer-acting serotonin antagonist, and aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 antagonist and the first in a new class of antiemetics, for the treatment of CINV. Although the indications for both agents are similar, they have distinct differences. Decisions regarding placement of these agents into existing antiemetic protocols can be based on national guidelines, review of the literature, and clinical experience. This article will review current antiemetic therapy with an emphasis on the new additions to the treatment of CINV. Aprepitant and palonosetron represent significant changes in the treatment of CINV. Oncology nurses need to know current approaches to maximize effective antiemetic therapy.

Should 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists be administered beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy to prevent delayed emesis? Systematic re-evaluation of clinical evidence and drug cost implications

PURPOSE

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) are effective for preventing acute chemotherapy-induced emesis but the benefits of continuing administration of these agents beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy (delayed emesis) remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to provide estimates of clinical efficacy and drug acquisition cost associated with administering 5-HT(3) antagonists beyond 24 hours, as monotherapy or as added to dexamethasone.

METHODS

This analysis is based on the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative meta-analysis of the efficacy of 5-HT(3) antagonists. Results from the clinical trials covered in that meta-analysis were reanalyzed to provide estimates of absolute risk reductions (ARR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) for 5-HT(3) antagonists, as monotherapy or as adjunct treatment. Numbers of 5-HT(3) antagonist unit doses per successfully treated patient were also calculated.

RESULTS

Five studies (comprising 1,716 assessable patients) compared a 5-HT(3) antagonist with placebo; five studies (2,240 patients) compared a combination of a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone with dexamethasone monotherapy. ARR for monotherapy was only 8.2% (95% CI, 3.0% to 13.4%). On average, 74 5-HT(3) antagonist doses must be administered to 12 patients (NNT, 12.2; 95% CI, 7.5 to 33.4) not receiving dexamethasone to protect one patient from delayed emesis. In those patients receiving dexamethasone as standard antiemetic treatment in the delayed phase, the addition of a 5-HT(3) antagonist did not significantly improve control of delayed emesis as compared with dexamethasone monotherapy (ARR, 2.6%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 5.8%).

CONCLUSION

Neither clinical evidence nor considerations of cost effectiveness justify using 5-HT(3) antagonists beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy for prevention of delayed emesis.

Never Too Old? Age Should Not Be a Barrier to Enrollment in Cancer Clinical Trials

Throughout Europe and the U.S., over 60% of the total incidence of cancer occurs in the elderly (> or =65 years) population, a patient group that requires particular consideration when making treatment decisions due to a number of factors. Despite this, elderly patients are generally under-represented in clinical trials such that study data should be interpreted with caution because results in younger cancer patients may not always extrapolate to the typical elderly cancer patient. Reports suggest that elderly cancer patients represent around 22% of patients enrolled in phase II clinical studies. Barriers to the accrual of elderly patients to clinical trials include lack of appropriate trials, high burden of comorbidity, study-imposed restrictions, and attitudes of physicians. There is a belief that elderly patients may be unable to tolerate various cancer therapies, which may result in this patient population being excluded from prospective trials. However, clinical data demonstrate that age alone is not a sufficient reason to withhold treatment. Lack of clinical trial data and the associated lack of evidence-based guidelines for elderly patients mean physicians have little to guide them, with the result that patients may not receive the optimal therapy. As clinical trials are the primary method of evaluating the efficacy and safety of adjuvant and palliative cancer therapies, trials that specifically target the elderly cancer patient are required to adequately assess the risks and benefits of treatment in this vulnerable population. This review aims to assess the clinical reality and clinical trial age mismatch to evaluate implications for elderly cancer patients and to identify how this situation may be addressed. Possible reasons for the disparity, and the resulting clinical consequences, are also considered.