European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2022
Assessing the impact of antiemetic guideline compliance on prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Results of the nausea/emesis registry in oncology (NERO).
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aapro Matti, Caprariu Zoe, Chilingirov Petio, Chrápavá Marika, Curca Razvan-Ovidiu, Gales Laurentia, Grigorescu Alexandru C, Huszno Joanna, Karlínová Bára, Kellnerová Renata, Malejčíková Miroslava, Marinca Mihai, Petru Edgar, Płużanski Adam, Pokorná Petra, Pribulova Zuzana, Rubach Maryna, Steger Gunther G, Tesařová Petra, Valekova Lubica, Yordanov Nicolay, Walaszkowska-Czyz Anna
Аннотация
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.
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.