Assessing the impact of antiemetic guideline compliance on prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Results of the nausea/emesis registry in oncology (NERO)
Abstract
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 NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy or (2) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), with GCCP consisting of a 5-HT3RA 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.