Search

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common side effects, classified according to timing and severity. Conventional agents such as dexamethasone are effective but have various side effects. For moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapies have been developed to minimize these side effects. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)., Methods: We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy with neurokinin-1 antagonists (NK 1 RA) for HEC using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases. A qualitative analysis of the combined data was performed and risk differences with confidence intervals were calculated., Results: Two reviewers independently assessed the 425 records and 12 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility. Two studies were included in the qualitative and meta-analyses. These studies included anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) regimens and cisplatin-based regimens, with palonosetron as the serotonin receptor antagonist. In the two studies, no difference was found in the prevention of vomiting (delayed complete response). However, non-inferiority was not demonstrated in the subgroup that received cisplatin-containing regimens. Delayed complete control showed different results for nausea prevention; however, there was no significant difference in the meta-analysis. Only one report has shown non-inferiority for delayed total control. Although the strength of evidence for individual outcomes varied, there was no difference in the duration of dexamethasone administration., Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy with NK 1 RA and palonosetron can be used to prevent CINV in HEC, limited to AC combination therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly affects patient quality of life and the overall effectiveness of chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT 3 RAs) and corticosteroids provides clinically meaningful benefits in preventing CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web to identify clinical studies evaluating NK1RAs combined with 5-HT 3 RAs and dexamethasone for managing CINV in MEC. The endpoints were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), total control (TC), adverse events, and costs. The data were analyzed using a random effects model., Results: From 142 articles identified, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 4,405 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Approximately 60% of the patients received carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. The meta-analysis showed that triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1RA was significantly more effective for achieving CR than doublet prophylaxis in each phase. Regarding CC, the triplet antiemetic prophylaxis was significantly more effective than the doublet in the overall (risk difference [RD]: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.17) and delayed (RD: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13) phases. For TC, no significant differences were observed in any phase. Adding NK1RA did not cause adverse events., Conclusions: Adding NK1RA to CBDCA-based chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits. However, the clinical benefits of NK1RA-containing regimens for overall MEC have not yet been established and require RCTs that exclusively evaluate MEC regimens other than CBDCA-based chemotherapy., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 was extensively revised to reflect the latest advances in antineoplastic agents, antiemetics, and antineoplastic regimens. This update provides new evidence on the efficacy of antiemetic regimens., Methods: Guided by the Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual of 2017, a rigorous approach was used to update the guidelines; a thorough literature search was conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020., Results: Comprehensive process resulted in the creation of 13 background questions (BQs), 12 clinical questions (CQs), and three future research questions (FQs). Moreover, the emetic risk classification was also updated., Conclusions: The primary goal of the present guidelines is to provide comprehensive information and facilitate informed decision-making, regarding antiemetic therapy, for both patients and healthcare providers., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) decrease patients' quality of life and negatively impact treatment outcomes. Although standard prophylactic antiemetic therapy for acute CINV recommended by guidelines is effective, poor guideline implementation is a worldwide problem. In Japan, prophylactic antiemetic therapy is relatively well implemented for chemotherapy associated with high emetogenic risk, while implementation gaps are observed for that with low emetogenic risk.Although most reports on factors influencing appropriate antiemetic prescription focus on physicians' attitudes and behaviours, a more comprehensive exploration is needed since chemotherapy is expected to involve pharmacists, nurses and eventually hospital directors. The purpose of this qualitative study is to comprehensively explore the factors that influence the implementation of appropriate prophylactic antiemetic procedures at cancer care hospitals in Japan., Methods and Analysis: This study is a hospital-based qualitative study using semistructured individual interviews. The target population will be hospital directors, and chiefs (including proxies) of departments of oncology and/or chemotherapy, pharmacy and nursing, working in the hospitals, selected by purposive sampling. We will obtain information on antiemetics in chemotherapy regimens, antiemetic routine use and awareness of guidelines using prequestionnaires. Interviews will then be conducted online using an interview guide. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will be used to collect and analyse the interview data. We will also create new codes inductively, as required. In addition, we will refer to the aggregate results of the Quality Indicator survey to determine the implementation of recommended antiemetic prescriptions for each hospital and discuss the relationship with influencing factors., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the National Cancer Centre Ethics Approval Committee (approval number: 2020-305). The study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publications and presentations to academics, policy-makers, and clinicians at scientific conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

Importance: The use of antiemetic drugs for patients receiving chemotherapy with low or minimal emetic risk has been recognized as a growing concern for health care costs and patients' welfare. Relatively few studies have examined antiemetic prophylaxis or treatment of emesis associated with chemotherapy with lower emetic risk., Objective: To describe the pattern in Japan of overprescribing prophylactic antiemetic drugs to patients who have received intravenous chemotherapy with minimal or low emetic risk., Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a health insurance claims database linked with the hospital-based cancer registry of 122 designated cancer care hospitals covered the period from September 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012. Data were included from patients who (1) were diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, stomach, cervical, or prostate cancer; (2) were 20 years or older at the time of the diagnosis; and (3) received intravenous chemotherapy with minimal or low emetic risk. The data from patients with advanced stage cancer (stage IV) were excluded. Data were analyzed from March 20, 2014, to June 30, 2016., Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of chemotherapy administration involving patients prescribed prophylactic antiemetic drugs, namely, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, serotonin receptor antagonist, and/or dexamethasone, was calculated. The costs of potentially unnecessary antiemetic drugs were estimated using the National Health Insurance drug price list for 2011., Results: A total of 8545 patients (5886 women [68.9%] and 2659 men [31.1%]; mean [SD] age, 61.9 [12.8] years) undergoing 73 577 administrations of chemotherapy with minimal emetic risk (2464 patients; 22 619 administrations) or low emetic risk (6081 patients; 50 958 administrations) were identified. Of these, patients who received 24 373 administrations of chemotherapy with a low emetic risk (47.8%) and 633 administrations of chemotherapy with a minimal emetic risk (2.8%) were prescribed serotonin receptor antagonists and dexamethasone. Outpatients in the low emetic risk group underwent more frequent administration of chemotherapy that included prescription of both drugs (53.1% of the chemotherapy; 95% CI, 51.6%-54.7%) compared with inpatients (33.7% of the chemotherapy; 95% CI, 31.7%-35.9%). Consequently, approximately ¥170 million (US $1.6 million) was unnecessarily spent on prophylactic antiemetic drugs for these patients., Conclusions and Relevance: A substantial number of patients receiving chemotherapy with minimal and low emetic risk were prescribed potentially unnecessary prophylactic antiemetic drugs. The judicious use of these drugs could spare the burden of extra costs and the potential risk for adverse effects for patients.

Purpose: This study aimed at identifying prescription trends for the recommended antiemetic therapies before and after the publication of the first guidelines for antiemetic therapy in Japan., Methods: Claims data of 20 Japanese health insurance societies were analyzed. Claims for patients 18 years old or older who received chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk were extracted. The rate of patients who were prescribed the recommended antiemetic drugs was calculated., Results: From 2005 to 2011, prescriptions for prophylactic antiemetics increased. These prescriptions included the three-drug combination (an NK1 antagonist, a 5-HT3 antagonist, and a corticosteroid) and the two-drug combination (a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid). For chemotherapy patients with high emetic risk, these prescriptions increased from 81.1 to 95.5%. For those with moderate emetic risk, these prescriptions increased from 78.5 to 89.9%. After approval of an NK1 antagonist at the end of 2009, the prescription rate for the three-drug combination increased from 37.0% in 2010 to 60.1% in 2011 in the high emetic risk group., Conclusion: A gradual increasing trend was identified in the rate of prescribing antiemetic drugs from 2005 to 2011. This trend was observed in insurance claims data from a wide variety of health-care providers. However, only 60.1% patients of the high emetic risk group received the recommended three-drug combination in 2011. Further research will be useful to evaluate patients' experiences with their chemotherapy and the effectiveness of the prophylactic antiemetic therapy for cancer treatment and patients' quality of life.