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

Outcomes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting guideline adherence in pediatric and adult patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This study describes chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control rates in pediatric and adult patients who did or did not receive guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of studies published in 2000 or later that evaluated CINV control in patients receiving guideline-consistent vs. guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis and reported at least one CINV-related patient outcome. Studies were excluded if the guideline evaluated was not publicly available or not developed by a professional organization. Over-prophylaxis was defined as antiemetic use recommended for a higher level of chemotherapy emetogenicity than a patient was receiving.

RESULTS

We identified 7060 citations and retrieved 141 publications for full-text evaluation. Of these, 21 publications (14 prospective and seven retrospective studies) evaluating guidelines developed by six organizations were included. The terms used to describe CINV endpoints and definition of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis varied among studies. Included studies either did not address over-prophylaxis in their definition of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (48%; 10/21) or defined it as guideline-inconsistent (38%; 8/21) or guideline-consistent (3/21; 14%). Eleven included studies (52%; 11/21) reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one CINV endpoint in patients receiving guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis. Ten reported a statistically significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence supports the use of guideline-consistent prophylaxis to optimize CINV control. Institutions caring for patients with cancer should systematically adapt CINV CPGs for local implementation and routinely evaluate CINV outcomes.

Retrospective analysis of real-world prescribing data for managing cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in China

BACKGROUND

The current utilization of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) and the impact of updated guidelines on prescription patterns of antiemetic drugs among Chinese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remain undetermined. This study aims to analyze the present situation of Chinese cancer patients using antiemetic drugs and assess the appropriateness of antiemetic regimens.

METHODS

Prescription data were collected between January 2015 and December 2020 from cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy at 76 hospitals in six major cities in China. Trends in the use of antiemetic drugs, prescribing patterns and adherence to antiemetic guidelines were assessed.

RESULTS

Among the 108,611 patients included in this study, 6 classes and 17 antiemetic drugs were identified as monotherapy or combination therapy in 93,872 patients (86.4%), whereas 14,739 patients (13.6%) were administered no antiemetic treatment. 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) and glucocorticoids were the two most frequently used classes of antiemetics, followed by metoclopramide. NK1RAs were underused across the six cities, only 9332 (8.6%) and 1655 (1.5%) cisplatin-based treatments were prescribed aprepitant and fosaprepitant, respectively. Prescriptions of olanzapine and lorazepam were very low throughout the study period. In prescribing patterns of antiemetic drugs, dual combination regimens were the most common (40.0%), followed by triple combination therapy and monotherapy (25.8% and 15.1%, respectively). Overall, the adherence to antiemetic guidelines for patients undergoing cisplatin-based regimens was only 8.1% due to inadequate prescription of antiemetic drugs. Finally, our study also revealed that 5-HT3RAs and glucocorticoids were overprescribed in 8.8% and 1.6% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study reveals suboptimal utilization of recommended antiemetic drugs for managing cisplatin-based HEC-induced nausea and vomiting in China. Improving the management of CINV is crucial, and these findings provide valuable insights into optimizing antiemetic drug practices.

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 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.

Mirtazapine, a dopamine receptor inhibitor, as a secondary prophylactic for delayed nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy: an open label, randomized, multicenter phase III trial

Background We examined the efficacy of mirtazapine in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and methods Patients who had experienced delayed emesis and would be subsequently scheduled for at least three more cycles of the same chemotherapy were randomly assigned to either a mirtazapine (15 mg daily on days 2-4) or a control group. In addition, both groups received a standard triplet regimen comprising aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone (7.5 mg on days 2-4). The chemotherapy regimens were either an epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide regimen or cisplatin-containing regimens. The primary end point was a complete response (no emesis and no rescue treatment) to the delayed phase (25-120 h post-chemotherapy) during Cycle 1. The impact on quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Results Of 95 enrolled patients, 46 were assigned to the mirtazapine group and 49 to the control group. The complete response rate in the delayed phase during Cycle 1 was significantly higher with mirtazapine than in the control group (78.3% versus 49.0%, P = 0.003). The main adverse effects of mirtazapine were mild to moderate somnolence and weight gain. Mean total FLIE scores were similar between the two arms. Conclusions This is the first randomized prospective study to show that adding mirtazapine has a substantial and statistically significant benefit with good tolerance in patients with breast cancer who have experienced delayed emesis following the same prior HEC. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02336750).

Stability of azasetron-dexamethasone mixture for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting administration

Combination antiemetic therapy has become common practice for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by anticancer drugs. In this study, we investigated the stability of azasetron hydrochloride 0.1 mg/mL plus dexamethasone sodium phosphate 0.05, 0.1, or 0.2 mg/mL in 0.9% sodium chloride injection and stored in polyolefin bags and glass bottles over a period of 14 days at 4°C and 48 hours at 25°C. The stability studies were evaluated by visual inspection, pH measurement, and a high-pressure liquid chromatography assay of drug concentrations. During the study period, the concentration of each drug in the various solutions remained above 97% of the initial concentration at both 4°C and 25°C when protected from room light. Under the condition of 25°C with exposure to room light, the concentrations of both drugs were significantly lowered over 48 hours. The pH value decreased, and the color changed from colorless to pink. Our study demonstrates that the azasetron-dexamethasone mixture at a clinically relevant concentration seems to be stable for 48 hours at 25°C and for 14 days at 4°C when packaged in polyolefin bags or glass bottles and protected from room light. The room light is the main influential factor on stability. Clinicians should be aware that combinations of azasetron hydrochloride and dexamethasone sodium phosphate in solution with light exposure should be avoided.

Applicability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Guidelines for Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Southeast Asia: A Consensus Statement

A meeting of regional experts was convened in Manila, Philippines, to develop a resource-stratified chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) management guideline. In patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy in general clinical settings, triple therapy with a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT3]) antagonist (preferably palonosetron), dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for acute CINV prevention. In resource-restricted settings, triple therapy is still recommended, although a 5-HT3 antagonist other than palonosetron may be used. In both general and resource-restricted settings, dual therapy with dexamethasone (days 2 to 4) and aprepitant (days 2 to 3) is recommended to prevent delayed CINV. In patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dual therapy with a 5-HT3 antagonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is recommended for acute CINV prevention in general settings; any 5-HT3 antagonist can be combined with dexamethasone in resource-restricted environments. In general settings, for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, corticosteroid monotherapy on days 2 and 3 is recommended. If aprepitant is used on day 1, it should be continued on days 2 and 3. Prevention of delayed CINV with corticosteroids is preferred in resource-restricted settings. The expert panel also developed CINV management guidelines for anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide combination schedules, multiday cisplatin, and chemotherapy with low or minimal emetogenic potential, and its recommendations are detailed in this review. Overall, these regional guidelines provide definitive guidance for CINV management in general and resource-restricted settings. These consensus recommendations are anticipated to contribute to collaborative efforts to improve CINV management in Southeast Asia.

Efficacy of Thalidomide in Preventing Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial (CLOG1302 study)

Purpose

We examined the efficacy and safety of thalidomide (THD) for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Patients and Methods

In a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC that contained cisplatin or cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin/epirubincin ≥ 50 mg/m2 regimens were randomly assigned to a THD group (100 mg twice daily on days 1 to 5) or placebo group, both with palonosetron (0.25 mg on day 1) and dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1; 8 mg on days 2 to 4). Primary end point was complete response to vomiting—no emesis or use of rescue medication—in the delayed phase (25 to 120 h). Nausea and anorexia on days 1 to 5 were evaluated by the 4-point Likert scale (0, no symptoms; 3, severe). Quality of life was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3 questionnaire on days −1 and 6.

Results

Of 656 patients, 638 were evaluable: 317 in the THD group and 321 in the control group. Compared with placebo, delayed and overall (0 to 120 h) complete response rates to vomiting were significantly higher with THD: 76.9% versus 61.7% ( P < .001) and 66.1% versus 53.3% ( P = .001), respectively. Rates of no nausea were also higher in the THD group (delayed: 47.3% v 33.3%; P < .001; overall: 41% v 29.6%; P = .003), and mean scores of anorexia were lower overall (0.44 ± 0.717 v 0.64 ± 0.844; P = .003). Adverse effects were mild to moderate. The THD group had increased sedation, dizziness, constipation, and dry mouth, but experienced better quality of life after chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Thalidomide combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved HEC-induced delayed nausea and vomiting prevention in chemotherapy-naive patients.

Survey of Implementation of Antiemetic Prescription Standards in Indian Oncology Practices and Its Adherence to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Antiemetic Clinical Guideline

PURPOSE

Adherence to international antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines like those of ASCO can result in better control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; however, the extent of implementation of such guidelines in India is unknown. Therefore, this survey was planned.

METHODS

This study was an anonymized cross-sectional survey approved by the ethics committee. Survey items were generated from the clinical questions given in the ASCO guidelines. The survey was disseminated through personal contacts at an oncology conference and via e-mail to various community oncology centers across India. The B1, B2, and B3 domains included questions regarding the optimal antiemetic prophylaxis for high, moderate, and low-minimal emetogenic regimens.

RESULTS

Sixty-six (62.9%) of 105 responded and 65 centers (98.5%) were aware of the published guidelines. The partial, full, and no implementation scores were 92.5%, 4.5%, and 3.0%, respectively. Full implementation was better for the low-minimal emetogenic regimens (34.8%) than the highly emetogenic regimens (6.1%). The three most frequent reasons for hampered implementation of ASCO guidelines in routine chemotherapy practice cited by centers were a lack of sensitization (26 centers; 39.4%), lack of national guidelines (12 centers; 18.2%), and lack of administrative support (10 centers; 15.2%).

CONCLUSION

Awareness regarding ASCO antiemetic guidelines is satisfactory in Indian oncology practices; however, there is a need for sensitization of oncologists toward complete implementation of these guidelines in their clinical practice.

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.

Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Incidence, and Current Management

Even when chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be effectively controlled in the acute phase, it may still occur in the delayed phase. Identifying at-risk patients is complex and requires consideration of clinical, personal, demographic, and behavioral factors. Delayed CINV has a significant detrimental effect on patients' daily life and is responsible for significant healthcare resource utilization. Patients who do not experience acute CINV are not necessarily exempt from delayed CINV, and healthcare professionals have been shown to underestimate the incidence of delayed CINV. Failure to protect against CINV during the first cycle of chemotherapy is the most significant independent risk factor for delayed CINV during subsequent cycles. Addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic prophylactic regimens involving a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid helps to ameliorate delayed CINV, particularly vomiting. Netupitant and rolapitant are second-generation neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists that provide effective prophylaxis against delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting and also have an antinausea benefit. All of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with the exception of rolapitant inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), and a reduced dose of dexamethasone (a CYP3A4 substrate) should be administered with aprepitant or netupitant; by contrast, this is not necessary with rolapitant. Here we review specific challenges associated with delayed CINV, its pathophysiology, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes relative to acute CINV, and its management within the larger context of overall CINV.

Rolapitant for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting over initial and repeat courses of emetogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Although sustained antiemetic control across repeated chemotherapy cycles is important for cancer treatment continuation, few studies have investigated the efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis over multiple chemotherapy cycles. Areas covered: Here we discuss the use of antiemetic hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor and neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor antagonists for prevention of CINV, limiting our review to clinical trials in the context of multiple-cycle chemotherapy, with a focus on the NK-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists may be effective in controlling CINV over repeated chemotherapy cycles, but evidence comes primarily from noncomparative studies. NK-1 receptor antagonists provide increased protection against CINV but differences in endpoint selection and methods of analysis preclude meaningful comparisons between agents. Rolapitant shows sustained control of emesis and nausea over multiple cycles of chemotherapy, and compared to other NK-1 receptor antagonists, has a longer half-life and reduced potential for cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated drug-drug interactions. Expert commentary: Trial design should be a key consideration in future studies of CINV therapies, including analytical methods utilized, choice of endpoints, and methods for accounting for nonresponders and patient attrition over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Clinical Practices and Outcomes on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Management in South Korea: Comparison with Asia-Pacific Data of the Pan Australasian Chemotherapy Induced Emesis Burden of Illness Study

Purpose

This study reported patient outcomes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens and evaluated its adherence to acute-phase CINV prophylaxis in the Korean population subset of the Pan Australasian Chemotherapy Induced Emesis burden of illness (PrACTICE) study.

Materials and Methods

This subgroup analysis evaluated 158 Korean patients receiving HEC or MEC and compared the data (wherever possible) with that of 648 patients from the Asia-Pacific (AP) region. Study endpoints included evaluation of primary CINV prophylaxis and adherence to acute-phase CINV prophylaxis in cycle 1 (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] Quality Oncology Practice Initiative [QOPI]).

Results

In South Korea and the AP, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT₃-RA) prophylaxis for the acute phase was administered to 79/80 patients (98.8%) for HEC and 70/71 patients (98.6%) for MEC regimens (QOPI-1). Triple regimen (corticosteroid–5HT₃-RA–neurokinin 1-RA) was initiated in 46/80 patients (57.5%) for prophylaxis of acute CINV in cycle 1 of HEC (QOPI-3). Double regimen (corticosteroid–5HT₃-RA, with or within NK₁-RA) was initiated in 61/71 patients (83.1%) for control of acute CINV in cycle 1 of MEC a(QOPI-2).

Conclusion

Active management of CINV is necessary in cycle 1 of HEC in South Korea, despite higher rates than the AP region. Adherence to the international guidelines for CINV prophylaxis requires attention in the acute phase in cycle 1 of the HEC regimen.

Gaps exist between patients' experience and clinicians' awareness of symptoms after chemotherapy: CINV and accompanying symptoms

INTRODUCTION

Correlating patients' chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) experience with clinicians' understanding of the symptom severity and the patients' and clinicians' symptom management goals would aid in advancing symptom management. Identifying rankings of symptom severity after chemotherapy would help prioritizing symptom management.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare patients' CINV experience and clinicians' awareness of symptoms and symptom management goals. The study also aimed to identify and compare rankings of the severity of symptoms after chemotherapy by patients and clinicians.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted. Cancer patients starting the first adjuvant highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) (n = 313), and oncology clinicians at two university hospitals (n = 73) in Korea participated in the study. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (MAT) items and 20-symptom list were used to generate a symptom diary and survey questions. Descriptive statistics with a 95 % confidence interval and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

In general, clinicians overestimated the patients' CINV experience. Patients' symptom experiences and clinicians' estimates only corresponded for delayed nausea after the second cycle MEC. For symptom management goals, patients aimed for absolute vomiting control and avoiding significant nausea. Patients' symptom management goals exceeded the clinicians' goals for CINV control except for the goal for delayed nausea control. Clinicians rated chemotherapy-induced nausea as the most problematic symptom followed by vomiting; however, fatigue and loss of appetite were the top rated symptoms by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps exist between patients' symptom experience and clinicians' symptom awareness. Clinicians overestimated the patients' CINV experience and set less stringent symptom control goals. Enhancing clinicians' understanding of patients' symptom experience and retargeting the CINV management goals are the next steps for advancing symptom management. Symptoms other than CINV require more attention to set symptom management priorities reflecting patient experience and clinical significance.

Patterns of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in China

BACKGROUND

Few studies have attempted to evaluate the use of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) at a national level in China or to assess how treatment regimens adhere to current guidelines.

METHODS

We searched the China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA) Database to identify patients with cancer who were ≥18 years old and received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively) between 2008 and 2012. Patients' characteristics as well as usage of specific antiemetic regimens were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 14,548 patients included in the study, 6,477 received HEC while 8,071 were treated with MEC. Approximately 89.9% used antiemetics prophylactically to prevent acute CINV and 71.5% for delayed CINV while 9.0% were prescribed antiemetics as rescue therapy. A significantly lower proportion of patients treated with HEC received prophylactic antiemetic therapy for delayed CINV as compared to those treated with MEC (59.4% vs. 81.3%; P<0.001). The HEC group had a slightly lower proportion of patients using a mixed regimen containing a 5-HT3 antagonist to prevent both acute and delayed CINV than the MEC group (P≤0.012); however, a higher proportion received a mixed regimen containing corticosteroids (P≤0.007). Although more than half of the patients in the HEC group took three antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed CINV, these rates were significantly lower than those of the MEC group (both P<0.001). Finally, analysis of the regimens used revealed that there is over-utilization of drugs within the same class of antiemetic.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that more attention is needed for treatment of delayed CINV, in terms of both overall use and the components of a typical treatment regimen.

Personalized Estimate of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Development and External Validation of a Nomogram in Cancer Patients Receiving Highly/Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is presented in over 30% of cancer patients receiving highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC). The currently recommended antiemetic therapy is merely based on the emetogenic level of chemotherapy, regardless of patient's individual risk factors. It is, therefore, critical to develop an approach for personalized management of CINV in the era of precision medicine.A number of variables were involved in the development of CINV. In the present study, we pooled the data from 2 multi-institutional investigations of CINV due to HEC/MEC treatment in Asian countries. Demographic and clinical variables of 881 patients were prospectively collected as defined previously, and 862 of them had full documentation of variables of interest. The data of 548 patients from Chinese institutions were used to identify variables associated with CINV using multivariate logistic regression model, and then construct a personalized prediction model of nomogram; while the remaining 314 patients out of China (Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) entered the external validation set. C-index was used to measure the discrimination ability of the model.The predictors in the final model included sex, age, alcohol consumption, history of vomiting pregnancy, history of motion sickness, body surface area, emetogenicity of chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimens. The C-index was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) for the training set and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58-0.72) for the validation set. The C-index was higher than that of any single predictor, including the emetogenic level of chemotherapy according to current antiemetic guidelines. Calibration curves showed good agreement between prediction and actual occurrence of CINV.This easy-to-use prediction model was based on chemotherapeutic regimens as well as patient's individual risk factors. The prediction accuracy of CINV occurrence in this nomogram was well validated by an independent data set. It could facilitate the assessment of individual risk, and thus improve the personalized management of CINV.

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.

Impact of CINV in earlier cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles in Asia Pacific clinical practice

PURPOSE

We sought to describe the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in prior cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles.

METHODS

Eligible patients in this multinational prospective observational study were adults (≥18 years old) receiving their first single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CINV in prior cycles on CINV in subsequent cycles. Other independent variables included in the model were the cycle number, age, sex, and emetogenicity of regimen.

RESULTS

There were 598 evaluable patients in cycle 2 and 533 in cycle 3, half receiving HEC and half MEC. Patients who experienced complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) in earlier cycles, relative to those with no complete response, had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 5.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.14-8.50) for experiencing complete response in subsequent cycles. Prior CINV was a significant and consistent predictor of subsequent CINV for all CINV endpoints: for emesis, OR 12.7 (95% CI, 8.47-18.9), for clinically significant nausea, OR 7.9 (95% CI, 5.66-10.9), and for clinically significant nausea and/or vomiting, OR 7.2 (5.17-10.1). Modifications to chemotherapy were recorded for 26-29% of patients in cycles 2 and 3, with CINV as the major reason for the modification for 5-9% of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV in prior cycles was a strong and consistent predictor of CINV in subsequent cycles, while the incidence of chemotherapy regimen modification due to CINV was low in individual cycles.

Baseline patient characteristics, incidence of CINV, and physician perception of CINV incidence following moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Asia Pacific countries

PURPOSE

This paper describes the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries.

METHODS

Sequential adult patients naïve to chemotherapy and scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day HEC or MEC were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool on post-chemotherapy days 2 and 6 to record acute-phase (first 24 h) and delayed-phase (days 2-5) CINV.

RESULTS

There were 648 evaluable patients (318 HEC, 330 MEC) from Australia (n = 74), China (153), India (88), Singapore (57), South Korea (151), and Taiwan (125). Mean (SD) patient age was 56 (12) and 58% of patients were women; the most common primary cancers were breast (27%), lung (22%), and colon (20%). Overall in cycle 1, complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) was recorded by 69% (95% confidence interval (CI), 66-73) of all evaluable patients, with country percentages ranging from 55 to 78% (p < 0.001). After HEC, no emesis was recorded by 75% and no nausea by 38% of patients. After MEC, 80% had no emesis and 50% no nausea. Acute-phase CINV was better controlled than delayed-phase CINV, and the control of nausea was the lowest of any CINV measure in all phases. In a CINV perception survey, physicians tended to overestimate emesis rate and underestimate nausea rate.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV remains a substantial problem, and country-specific information about CINV can be useful in developing strategies to improve outcomes for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Rationale and design of the Pan Australasian chemotherapy-induced emesis burden of illness study

BACKGROUND

Preventing and managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain important goals. The objective of the Pan Australasian chemotherapy-induced emesis burden of illness (PrACTICE) study was to describe the incidence of CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in current clinical practice in Australia and five Asian countries (China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan).

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective, observational study of CINV was conducted at 31 sites in these six countries from August 2011 through September 2012 and enrolled male and female adult patients (≥18 years of age) naïve to HEC and MEC who were scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day chemotherapy. The primary effectiveness endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting or use of rescue therapy, during chemotherapy cycle 1 in the overall phase (0-120 h), acute phase (0-24 h), and delayed phase (>24-120 h). Study outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Primary outcomes, CINV incidence, and treatment patterns (chemotherapy, CINV prophylaxis, rescue medication prescription, and rescue medication use) were assessed by phase (overall, acute, delayed), by cycle (as appropriate), within and across countries, and by level of chemotherapy emetogenicity (HEC vs. MEC). The impact of CINV in cycle 1 on CINV in cycle 2 was analyzed for all patients with evaluable data for cycle 2. No site-specific analyses were performed. The remainder of this special series of papers reports on the results of this study.