Search

Background: Evidence-based antiemetic guidelines offer predominantly consistent recommendations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis. However, studies suggest that adherence to these recommendations is suboptimal. We explored inconsistencies between clinical practice and guideline-recommended treatment with a registry evaluating the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes., Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study. The primary objective was to assess the overall (Days 1-5) complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue use) rates in patients who received GCCP or guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) using diaries for 5 days following chemotherapy. Cycle 1 results are presented in patients who received either (1) anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), non-AC HEC or carboplatin, with GCCP for all these groups consisting of prophylaxis with an NK 1 receptor antagonist (RA), 5-HT 3 RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy or (2) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), with GCCP consisting of a 5-HT 3 RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy as per MASCC/ESMO 2016 guidelines, in place at the time of the study., Results: 1,089 patients were part of the cycle 1 efficacy evaluation. Overall GCCP was 23%. CR rates were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in patients receiving GCCP (62.2%) versus GICP (52.6%) in the overall population, as well as in the subsets of patients receiving AC/non-AC HEC (60.2% versus 47.8%), MEC (73.8% versus 57.8%) and in those non-naïve to the chemotherapy received (65.9% versus 53.8%). No impact on daily living due to CINV (FLIE assessment) was observed in 43.4% patients receiving GCCP versus 28.5% GICP (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Consistent with prior studies, GCCP was very low; a significant benefit of almost 10% improved prevention of CINV was observed with GCCP. As per MASCC/ESMO guidelines, such an absolute difference should be practice changing. Comprehensive multifaceted strategies are needed to achieve better adherence to antiemetic guidelines., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M. Aapro: Consultant for: Helsinn, Mundipharma, Tesaro; Speakers Bureau of: Helsinn, Mundipharma, Tesaro. Z. Caprariu: Grant/research support from: Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Merck KGaA, MSD, and Pfizer; Speakers Bureau of: Roche, Eli Lilly, KRKA, G.L. Pharma - Romania. R.O. Curca: Grant/Research Support from: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Helsinn; Speakers Bureau of: Abbvie, Accord, Amgen, Angelini, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Johnson&Johnson, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi, Roche. L.Gales: Grant/Research Support from: Abbvie, Accord, Amgen, Angelini, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Johnson&Johnson, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi, Roche, Helsinn, Tesaro; Consultant for: Abbvie, Accord, Amgen, Angelini, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Johnson&Johnson, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi, Roche, Helsinn, Tesaro; Speakers Bureau of: Abbvie, Accord, Amgen, Angelini, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Johnson&Johnson, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi, Roche, Helsinn, Tesaro. R. Kellnerová: Employee: Angelini Pharma Česká republika s.r.o. M. Malejčíková: Consultant for: Angelini Pharma Slovenská republika s.r.o., Amgen, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Teva. M. Marinca: Consultant for Angelini Pharma, Roche; Speaker's bureau for Angelini Pharma, Roche; Grant/Research funding from Roche. E. Petru: Honoraria Received for Lectures: MSD, Angelini Pharma. M. Rubach: Consultant for: Angelini Pharma Poland. G.G. Steger: Consultant for: Amgen, TEVA, Novartis, Roche. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Ixazomib is approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who received at least one previous therapy. Registration study "TOURMALINE MM-1" was published in 2016. Nevertheless, clinical trials are significantly different from real-world use. From June 2016 to December 2018, IRd was available for Slovak patients with relapsed/refractory MM through a Named Patient Program. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixazomib. We analyzed in this cohort study outcomes of 106 MM patients treated with IRd at 2 academic centers. The median age at diagnosis was 63 years (44-78). The median number of prior lines was 2 (1-7). The majority had high international staging system (ISS) score: 18, 29, and 59 were in the ISS I, ISS II, and ISS III groups, respectively. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 29 (0-49) months. The overall response rate was 74.5% (complete remission, 7.5%; partial remission, 67%). The median overall survival was not reached. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 43 months (95% CI 35.6-50.4). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to generate survival curves, and we compared the influence of different factors on PFS. The most common hematological adverse events of any grade were neutropenia (90.4%), anemia (55.6%), and thrombocytopenia (43.4%). Our real-world data support the use of IRd as a highly effective and well-tolerated oral treatment protocol for relapsed myeloma., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)