Rudolph M Navari1, Kathryn J Ruddy2, Thomas W LeBlanc3, Ryan Nipp4, Rebecca Clark-Snow5, Lee Schwartzberg6, Gary Binder7, William L Bailey7, Ravi Potluri8, Luke M Schmerold8, Eros Papademetriou8, Eric J Roeland4. 1. World Health Organization, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 4. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Oncology Supportive Care Consultant, Overland Park, Kansas, USA. 6. Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center and West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tennessee, USA. 7. Helsinn Therapeutics (U.S.), Iselin, New Jersey, USA. 8. SmartAnalyst, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. RESULTS: Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. RESULTS: Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. CONCLUSIONS:Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.
Authors: Rudolph M Navari; Rui Qin; Kathryn J Ruddy; Heshan Liu; Steven F Powell; Madhuri Bajaj; Leah Dietrich; David Biggs; Jacqueline M Lafky; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Roila; A Molassiotis; J Herrstedt; M Aapro; R J Gralla; E Bruera; R A Clark-Snow; L L Dupuis; L H Einhorn; P Feyer; P J Hesketh; K Jordan; I Olver; B L Rapoport; J Roscoe; C H Ruhlmann; D Walsh; D Warr; M van der Wetering Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M Aapro; A Molassiotis; M Dicato; I Peláez; Á Rodríguez-Lescure; D Pastorelli; L Ma; T Burke; A Gu; P Gascon; F Roila Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Alexander Molassiotis; Matti Aapro; Mario Dicato; Pere Gascon; Sylvia A Novoa; Nicolas Isambert; Thomas A Burke; Anna Gu; Fausto Roila Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Lee Schwartzberg; Stephen Szabo; James Gilmore; Sally Haislip; James Jackson; Gagan Jain; Sanjeev Balu; Deborah Buchner Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Paul J Hesketh; Mark G Kris; Ethan Basch; Kari Bohlke; Sally Y Barbour; Rebecca Anne Clark-Snow; Michael A Danso; Kristopher Dennis; L Lee Dupuis; Stacie B Dusetzina; Cathy Eng; Petra C Feyer; Karin Jordan; Kimberly Noonan; Dee Sparacio; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rudolph M Navari; Kathryn J Ruddy; Thomas W LeBlanc; Rebecca Clark-Snow; Rita J Wickham; Gary Binder; Tammy Coberly; Ravi Potluri; Luke M Schmerold; Eric J Roeland Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2019-12-04
Authors: Nazia Rashid; Han A Koh; Hilda C Baca; Kathy J Lin; Susan E Malecha; Anthony Masaquel Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2016-10-04
Authors: G Dranitsaris; A Molassiotis; M Clemons; E Roeland; L Schwartzberg; P Dielenseger; K Jordan; A Young; M Aapro Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jonas Nilsson; Vittoria Piovesana; Marco Turini; Claudio Lezzi; Jennifer Eriksson; Matti Aapro Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 3.359