Prophylactic Antiemetics for Haematological Malignancies: Prospective Nationwide Survey Subset Analysis in Japan

Certified nurse specialists in cancer nursing and prophylactic antiemetic prescription for chemotherapy patients

PURPOSE

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a common chemotherapy side effect, should be attempted by oncology nurses. Certified nurses could be certified nurse specialists in cancer nursing (CNSCNs), who have high-level graduate education, or certified nurses in cancer chemotherapy nursing (CNCCNs), who have short-term training. The relationship between these certifications and compliance with the CINV prevention guidelines has not been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the association between certified nurse staffing and prescription of prophylactic antiemetic drugs for chemotherapy patients with high emetic risk.

METHODS

We used health service utilisation data for cancer patients diagnosed in 2016 from 474 hospitals nationwide in Japan and a list of certified nurses published by the Japanese Nurse Association. Patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy were included. A multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate the prescription of prophylactic antiemetic drugs associated with CNSCN and/or CNCCN staffing.

RESULTS

Data of 46,306 patients were analysed. Overall, 68.4% and 94.0% of the patients received chemotherapy at hospitals with CNSCNs and CNCCNs, respectively. Small cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and oesophageal cancer were positively associated with the prescription of recommended antiemetic drugs. CNSCNs was significantly associated with the prescription of prophylactic antiemetic drugs, while CNCCNs was positively but non-significantly associated with antiemetic prescriptions.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to demonstrate that CNSCN placement was significantly associated with prescribing antiemetic drugs recommended by clinical guidelines. Patients are likely to receive appropriate supportive care with the proper placement of CNSCNs.

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.

Evaluating the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating antiemetic prophylaxis have primarily focused on the solid tumor setting and single-day regimens. This study evaluates antiemetic prophylaxis and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with lymphoma receiving a multiday doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide containing regimen.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single center, cohort study evaluating patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted R-EPOCH in the hospital. Data was collected from the electronic medical record from April 2016 to September 2019. Complete response over 120 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included complete response during the acute and delayed phases as well as complete control.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients who received dose adjusted R-EPOCH were identified. Most patients (n = 39, 53%) were male with a the median age was 63 years (range: 21-81). Most patients received ondansetron 16 mg once daily (n = 48, 66%) on days 1-5 as antiemetic prophylaxis with a minority receiving either dexamethasone (n = 8) or an NK1 antagonist (n = 13) in addition to ondansetron. Complete response rate was 32% and the complete response in the acute and delayed phase was also 32%.

CONCLUSION

Control of CINV in patients with lymphoma hospitalized to receive dose-adjusted R-EPOCH was suboptimal, with only 32% of patients achieving complete response. Nearly three-quarters of patients received only a 5HT3 receptor antagonist as scheduled antiemetic therapy without an NK1 receptor antagonist. This data supports the importance of improving awareness of regarding multiday CINV guidelines and ensuring timely update and implementation of these evidence-based guidelines.

Granisetron plus aprepitant versus granisetron in preventing nausea and vomiting during CHOP or R-CHOP regimen in malignant lymphoma: a retrospective study

Background

Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (CHOP) regimen includes a high dose of prednisolone (100 mg/body), which exhibits an anticancer and antiemetic effect. However, its optimal use for antiemetic therapy has not been established yet. We assessed the efficacy of granisetron plus aprepitant versus granisetron for CHOP or rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen-induced nausea and vomiting in malignant lymphoma.

Methods

This retrospective and observational clinical study included patients who received CHOP or R-CHOP regimen as initiating chemotherapy between July 2010 and March 2016 (N = 39). Patients were assigned to an aprepitant [aprepitant (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on days 2–3) plus granisetron (3 mg); n = 15] or control regimen group [granisetron (3 mg); n = 24]. Complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy during overall phase (0–120 h), was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included the time to first vomiting and using rescue medication and complete protection (CP) defined as no vomiting and no retching and/or no nausea and no rescue therapy. The patient records were investigated, and data were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

CR rate CP rates did not significantly differ between the groups during the observation period (80.0% versus 83.3%, p = 1.000; and 80.0% versus 79.2%, p = 1.000, respectively). Additionally, the time to first vomiting and using rescue medication in did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.909).

Conclusions

This study suggests that granisetron alone could be one treatment option in the management of CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving CHOP or R-CHOP regimen.