Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines: results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan

Kazuo Tamura, Keisuke Aiba, Toshiaki Saeki, Yoichi Nakanishi, Toshiharu Kamura, Hideo Baba, Kazuhiro Yoshida, Nobuyuki Yamamoto, Yuko Kitagawa, Yoshihiko Maehara, Mototsugu Shimokawa, Koichi Hirata, Masaki Kitajima

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Many cancer patients suffer from the common side effect of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Guidelines recommend a combination of two prophylactic antiemetics for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and three for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and certain MEC regimens. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1,910 patients in Japan scheduled for MEC or HEC. Use of antiemetic prophylaxis in relation to type of chemotherapy, incidences of and risk factors for nausea, vomiting, and acute versus delayed CINV, and estimated incidence of CINV by staff were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression. The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy. Results: A total of 240 (20.1 %) HEC and 476 MEC patients (66.6 %) received 2 antiemetics, compared with 883 (73.9 %) and 200 (28.0 %), respectively, who received 3 antiemetics. Approximately 74 % of HEC and 95 % of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute nausea and vomiting were well controlled, but high incidences of delayed nausea occurred in both HEC and MEC patients. Delayed vomiting (p < 0.0001) was significantly less frequent in patients receiving three compared with 2 antiemetics. Female sex was a major risk factor for CINV. Medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV. Among HEC regimens, the incidence of CINV and the degree of nausea on day 1 of anthracycline–cyclophosphamide combination therapy were higher than with a cisplatin-based regimen. Conclusions: Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed nausea in HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will assist in the development of personalized treatments for CINV. More intensive antiemetic therapy or a different modality of prophylaxis should be considered for the control of acute CINV in an anthracycline–cyclophosphamide regimen.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)855-865
Number of pages11
JournalInternational Journal of Clinical Oncology
Volume20
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 3 2015

Fingerprint

Antiemetics
Nausea
Vomiting
Registries
Japan
Guidelines
Drug Therapy
Incidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Hematology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines : results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan. / Tamura, Kazuo; Aiba, Keisuke; Saeki, Toshiaki; Nakanishi, Yoichi; Kamura, Toshiharu; Baba, Hideo; Yoshida, Kazuhiro; Yamamoto, Nobuyuki; Kitagawa, Yuko; Maehara, Yoshihiko; Shimokawa, Mototsugu; Hirata, Koichi; Kitajima, Masaki.

In: International Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 20, No. 5, 03.10.2015, p. 855-865.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tamura, K, Aiba, K, Saeki, T, Nakanishi, Y, Kamura, T, Baba, H, Yoshida, K, Yamamoto, N, Kitagawa, Y, Maehara, Y, Shimokawa, M, Hirata, K & Kitajima, M 2015, 'Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines: results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan', International Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 855-865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0786-7
Tamura, Kazuo ; Aiba, Keisuke ; Saeki, Toshiaki ; Nakanishi, Yoichi ; Kamura, Toshiharu ; Baba, Hideo ; Yoshida, Kazuhiro ; Yamamoto, Nobuyuki ; Kitagawa, Yuko ; Maehara, Yoshihiko ; Shimokawa, Mototsugu ; Hirata, Koichi ; Kitajima, Masaki. / Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines : results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan. In: International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015 ; Vol. 20, No. 5. pp. 855-865.
@article{7a6de8d693eb4c4ea166f4a7aff7ee55,
title = "Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines: results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan",
abstract = "Background: Many cancer patients suffer from the common side effect of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Guidelines recommend a combination of two prophylactic antiemetics for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and three for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and certain MEC regimens. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1,910 patients in Japan scheduled for MEC or HEC. Use of antiemetic prophylaxis in relation to type of chemotherapy, incidences of and risk factors for nausea, vomiting, and acute versus delayed CINV, and estimated incidence of CINV by staff were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression. The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy. Results: A total of 240 (20.1 {\%}) HEC and 476 MEC patients (66.6 {\%}) received 2 antiemetics, compared with 883 (73.9 {\%}) and 200 (28.0 {\%}), respectively, who received 3 antiemetics. Approximately 74 {\%} of HEC and 95 {\%} of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute nausea and vomiting were well controlled, but high incidences of delayed nausea occurred in both HEC and MEC patients. Delayed vomiting (p < 0.0001) was significantly less frequent in patients receiving three compared with 2 antiemetics. Female sex was a major risk factor for CINV. Medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV. Among HEC regimens, the incidence of CINV and the degree of nausea on day 1 of anthracycline–cyclophosphamide combination therapy were higher than with a cisplatin-based regimen. Conclusions: Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed nausea in HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will assist in the development of personalized treatments for CINV. More intensive antiemetic therapy or a different modality of prophylaxis should be considered for the control of acute CINV in an anthracycline–cyclophosphamide regimen.",
author = "Kazuo Tamura and Keisuke Aiba and Toshiaki Saeki and Yoichi Nakanishi and Toshiharu Kamura and Hideo Baba and Kazuhiro Yoshida and Nobuyuki Yamamoto and Yuko Kitagawa and Yoshihiko Maehara and Mototsugu Shimokawa and Koichi Hirata and Masaki Kitajima",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1007/s10147-015-0786-7",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "855--865",
journal = "International Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "1341-9625",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines

T2 - results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan

AU - Tamura, Kazuo

AU - Aiba, Keisuke

AU - Saeki, Toshiaki

AU - Nakanishi, Yoichi

AU - Kamura, Toshiharu

AU - Baba, Hideo

AU - Yoshida, Kazuhiro

AU - Yamamoto, Nobuyuki

AU - Kitagawa, Yuko

AU - Maehara, Yoshihiko

AU - Shimokawa, Mototsugu

AU - Hirata, Koichi

AU - Kitajima, Masaki

PY - 2015/10/3

Y1 - 2015/10/3

N2 - Background: Many cancer patients suffer from the common side effect of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Guidelines recommend a combination of two prophylactic antiemetics for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and three for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and certain MEC regimens. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1,910 patients in Japan scheduled for MEC or HEC. Use of antiemetic prophylaxis in relation to type of chemotherapy, incidences of and risk factors for nausea, vomiting, and acute versus delayed CINV, and estimated incidence of CINV by staff were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression. The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy. Results: A total of 240 (20.1 %) HEC and 476 MEC patients (66.6 %) received 2 antiemetics, compared with 883 (73.9 %) and 200 (28.0 %), respectively, who received 3 antiemetics. Approximately 74 % of HEC and 95 % of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute nausea and vomiting were well controlled, but high incidences of delayed nausea occurred in both HEC and MEC patients. Delayed vomiting (p < 0.0001) was significantly less frequent in patients receiving three compared with 2 antiemetics. Female sex was a major risk factor for CINV. Medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV. Among HEC regimens, the incidence of CINV and the degree of nausea on day 1 of anthracycline–cyclophosphamide combination therapy were higher than with a cisplatin-based regimen. Conclusions: Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed nausea in HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will assist in the development of personalized treatments for CINV. More intensive antiemetic therapy or a different modality of prophylaxis should be considered for the control of acute CINV in an anthracycline–cyclophosphamide regimen.

AB - Background: Many cancer patients suffer from the common side effect of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Guidelines recommend a combination of two prophylactic antiemetics for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and three for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and certain MEC regimens. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1,910 patients in Japan scheduled for MEC or HEC. Use of antiemetic prophylaxis in relation to type of chemotherapy, incidences of and risk factors for nausea, vomiting, and acute versus delayed CINV, and estimated incidence of CINV by staff were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression. The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy. Results: A total of 240 (20.1 %) HEC and 476 MEC patients (66.6 %) received 2 antiemetics, compared with 883 (73.9 %) and 200 (28.0 %), respectively, who received 3 antiemetics. Approximately 74 % of HEC and 95 % of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute nausea and vomiting were well controlled, but high incidences of delayed nausea occurred in both HEC and MEC patients. Delayed vomiting (p < 0.0001) was significantly less frequent in patients receiving three compared with 2 antiemetics. Female sex was a major risk factor for CINV. Medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV. Among HEC regimens, the incidence of CINV and the degree of nausea on day 1 of anthracycline–cyclophosphamide combination therapy were higher than with a cisplatin-based regimen. Conclusions: Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed nausea in HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will assist in the development of personalized treatments for CINV. More intensive antiemetic therapy or a different modality of prophylaxis should be considered for the control of acute CINV in an anthracycline–cyclophosphamide regimen.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942982325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942982325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10147-015-0786-7

DO - 10.1007/s10147-015-0786-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 25681876

AN - SCOPUS:84942982325

VL - 20

SP - 855

EP - 865

JO - International Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - International Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 1341-9625

IS - 5

ER -