Adherence to antiemetic guidelines and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a large hospital
J Oncol Pharm Practice 2015, Vol. 21(3) 163–169 ! The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1078155214524809 opp.sagepub.com
Fatima Caracuel, Nuria Mun˜oz, Ursula Ban˜os and Gabriel Ramirez
Abstract Purpose: The aim of the study was to determine the antiemetic prescription adherence both to the protocol of our hospital and to international recommendations, as well as to analyze the relationship between this adherence and the incidence of nausea and vomiting (NV) and between the adherence and patients’ individual risk. Methods: This is a four-month observational study which included antiemetic prescriptions for adult cancer patients. Prescriptions were considered adherent or not to hospital protocol and also to international guidelines. Patients were given a form to record the NV they suffered and this was to be returned at their next appointment. Results: A total of 102 prescriptions were analyzed. Taking into account the hospital protocol, 59% and 54% were correct (acute and delayed phase, respectively). Of those considered outside the protocol, 24% and 13% did follow international guidelines. In the delayed phase, complete response was achieved in 76% and 72% of the patients, with compliant and non-compliant prescriptions, respectively (82% and 90% in the acute phase). Adherence to the hospital protocol was higher in patients under 50 years old (p ¼ 0.015) and in those without previous experience of NV (p ¼ 0.010). Adherence to international guidelines was higher in female patients (p ¼ 0.023). Conclusion: Our study confirms low adherence with both local and international recommendations for antiemetic prescriptions. However, we could not prove that adherence involves a CINV reduction. Adherence did not seem to be influenced by the doctor’s perception of the patient’s risk of emesis.
Keywords Antiemetics, CINV, guidelines, adherence, protocols, prescription
Introduction Despite the application of the latest antiemetic recommendations, chemotherapy patients are still suﬀering from nausea and vomiting (NV).1,2 Consequences include a decrease in patients’ quality of life, causing even change of the chemotherapy (CT) regime, as well as a decrease in the eﬀectiveness of oral treatment. The problem acquires greater importance if it is not perceived in the same way by patients and health professionals. A study noted that the concordance between the concerns of patients and the perception by doctors and nurses was around 0.6.3 Patients’ risk of emesis is determined by the emetogenic potential of antineoplastic agents they receive and also their individual characteristics. Although the
former tends to be taken into account when choosing the antiemetic regimen, it is usual not to assess the overall risk to the patient.4 Recently, several clinical guidelines with recommendations for the use of antiemetics were published by the Multinational Association of Support Care Cancer (MASCC), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).5–7 However, despite these guidelines, some studies show that there is wide variation Hospital Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain Corresponding author: Fatima Caracuel, Hospital Virgen Macarena, Avda dr Fedriani, Seville 41009, Spain. Email: [email protected]
164 in the prescription of antiemesis.8–10 There are even times when prescription is not clear, so nurses are the ones who must decide the regime. A study showed 47.8% of the prescription sheets did not properly fully indicate antiemesis details (drug, dose, and pattern).11 Published studies analyze the compliance of prescriptions to international or local recommendations, but none take both into account. Most of them do not diﬀerentiate the acute and the delayed phase nor if patients complied with the prescribed treatment, essential to achieve the objective. Therefore, we are faced with a situation where we have eﬀective drugs for the prevention of CT-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but total control is not yet fully achieved. There is no uniformity in prescriptions, sometimes because of the absence of prescription, and other times because of an excess in prescription, exposing patients to drugs that they do not need, as well as unnecessarily increasing health spending. The aim of the study was to determine the antiemetic prescription adherence both to the protocol of our hospital and to international recommendations, as well as to analyze the relationship between this adherence and the incidence of NV and between the adherence and the patients’ individual risk to emesis.
Methods This is a four-month observational study at the Oncology Day Unit of a large tertiary hospital. This is an adult infusion unit for outpatients.
Population studied We included prescriptions for adult patients with a new cycle of CT (regardless of the line of treatment). Patients with very low emetic risk of CT and those whose treatment included a corticoid were excluded.
Antiemetic protocol Public hospitals in Spain provide all the medication necessary for the control of NV, including acute and delayed phases. Acute phase is deﬁned as occurring in the ﬁrst 24 h after CT (day 1). Delayed emesis refers to that which appears 24 h after ending treatment and may last several days.6 In our hospital’s antiemesis protocol, antineoplastic agents are grouped according to the scheme drawn up by Hesketh (ﬁve emetogenicity levels):12 very low, low, moderate, high and very high (dose of cisplatin 70 mg/m2). Then there are three types of medication: type 1 (aprepitant days 1–3 + granisetron day 1 + dexamethasone days 1–4, recommended for a
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice 21(3) dose of cisplatin 70 mg/m2 or refractory to type 2), type 2 (for moderate or high risk: methylprednisolone day 1 + granisetron days 1–3 + dexamethasone days 2–4), and type 3 (metoclopramide IV day 1 + dexamethasone day 1 + metoclopramide orally the following days prn, for low risk). On day 1, the administration was done by nurses and the other days at home. In cases in which the CT lasts several consecutive days, and in conformity with ASCO recommendations, acute phase was deemed on each day of the CT administration and delayed phase as from 2 days thereafter.6 For schemes with associations of two or more cytostatics, we considered the agent with the highest degree of risk of emesis.6 The antiemetic regime for patients receiving combination chemoradiotherapy is dictated by the emetogenicity of CT, unless the emetic risk of radiation therapy is higher. There are some diﬀerences between the local guideline and the international recommendations published on the date of the study (ASCO 2006, MASCC 2006, NCCN 2007).5–7 The main diﬀerence is that guides include aprepitant and for combination anthracyclinecyclophosphamide (AC and EC).
Outcome Adherence to recommendations was measured. Prescriptions were considered compliant or not to Hospital Protocol (HP). Prescriptions that were not adjusted to the HP were evaluated as compliant or not to the International Guidelines (IG). Inappropriate prescription was deﬁned as any diﬀerence in the medicines, doses, route, or dosage interval prescribed. In cases in which the patient had suﬀered vomiting in a previous cycle, the next highest regimen of antiemesis was to be chosen. Complete response to antiemetics was deﬁned as no vomiting and no rescue treatment (after antineoplastic therapy and during the ﬁve following days). Absence or presence of nausea was also registered. It was considered that the patient was compliant to their antiemetic treatment when they took at least 80% (more than one pill) of the medication prescribed to take at home. Regarding the patients’ individual characteristics, we considered those that increase the risk of emesis: sex (female), age ( 50 years old old Women Men Low Moderate High Very high Yes Percentage of adherent 77 prescriptions (N¼102)
Alcohol consumption (%) p ¼ 0.395
Previous experience of NV (%) p ¼ 0.010
Personal attitude (%) p ¼ 0.280
Negative Optimistic Yes
Percentage of adherent 58 prescriptions (N ¼ 102)
Nervousness (%) p ¼ 0.887
Constipation (%) p ¼ 0.366
HP: hospital protocol; CT: chemotherapy; NV: nausea and vomiting.
Only two studies diﬀerentiated adherence to recommendations between acute and delayed phase and took into account the patients’ compliance taking the medication. Compliance here was 68% and 85%.19,21 Our patients, whose compliance with treatment was lower (61%), had slightly less protection than these studies. Since adherence to protocols is higher in both patients with favorable and unfavorable prognosis (age and previous experience of NV) and, moreover, diﬀerences exist in few variables, adherence did not seem to be inﬂuenced by the doctor’s perception of the patient’s risk of emesis. We did not ﬁnd studies about the relationship between the individual patients’ risk and the adherence to protocols. Although it is known that patients’ characteristics also inﬂuence the incidence of NV, international practice guidelines
do not account for individual variation among patients.6 This study includes a complete analysis of the prescription of antiemetic treatment. Also studying adherence to international recommendations has allowed us to categorize a prescription as correct, even if it did not meet the HP. Our study also analyzes the relationship between the adherence to protocols and the absence of CINV and between the individual patients’ characteristics and adherence, and has broken down the adherence according to the phase of emesis and the patients’ compliance with the prescribed treatment. However, this study has some limitations. Hospitalized patients have not been included, so the conclusions cannot be extrapolated to that situation in which patients have a better response to antiemetic prophylaxis than those
168 who receive treatment at the Day Unit.22 The patient population was heterogeneous, but in accordance with the real population at the Day Unit. The fact that part of the form should be ﬁlled out by patients outside the hospital caused its loss in some cases. In conclusion, our study conﬁrms low adherence with both local and international recommendations for antiemetic prescription. However, we could not prove that the adherence involves an improvement to complete response. Adherence did not seem to be inﬂuenced by the doctor’s perception of the patient’s risk of emesis. Studies are often focused on the implementation of clinical practice guidelines, although it is known that antiemesis management is complex and includes interventions that also include dietary and psychological aspects, and not only medication. However, the implementation of prescription guides facilitates decision-making to physicians. Although there are some diﬀerences between the most important IG, all of them are based on evidence from recent clinical trials. Thus, the low adherence to them is a worrying fact that makes patients not receive the most appropriate medication to their CT. The reasons may be related to the guide itself, to the way in which it is implemented or to the physician’s perceived drug eﬃcacy and drug side-eﬀect proﬁles.9 Some papers propose possible ways of intervention to decrease the variability in the prescription of antiemetic prophylaxis including: dissemination of updated clinical practice guidelines, interdisciplinary committees, educational outreach visits by opinion leaders, standardized antiemetic protocols included in order forms (or a computerised decision-support system), pharmacist validation and, the most eﬀective one, providing feedback to clinicians on the CINV patient’s response.8–10,23–25 Acknowledgements The authors thank Beatriz Puche Valdayo and Chris Mott for their reading and advice to prepare this manuscript, Juan Polo for his help with statistical analysis and nursing and medical staﬀ for their collaboration and care of the patients.
Funding This research received no speciﬁc grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-proﬁt sectors.
Conflict of interest None declared.
References 1. Ballatori E, Roila F, Ruggeri B, et al. The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life. Support Care Cancer 2007; 15: 179–185.
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice 21(3) 2. Bloechl-Daum B, Deuson RR, Mavros P, et al. Delayed nausea and vomiting continue to reduce patients’ quality of life after highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy despite antiemetic treatment. J Clin Oncol 2006; 20(24): 4472–4478. 3. Go´mara R. Enfermeras y me´dicos no deben asumir que su percepcio´n de necesidades de cuidados coincide con la de sus pacientes. Enferm Clin 2008; 18: 330. 4. Go´mez-Raposo C, Feliu´-Batle J and Gonza´lez-Baro´n M. Prevencio´n y control de las na´useas y los vo´mitos inducidos por quimioterapia. Med Clin (Bar) 2006; 126: 143–151. 5. Roila F, Hesketh PJ, Herrstedt J, et al. Prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis: Results of the 2004 Perugia International Antiemetic Consensus Conference. Ann Oncol 2006; 17: 20–28. 6. Kris MG, Hesketh PJ, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline for antiemetics in oncology: Update 2006. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 2932–2947. 7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Antiemesis, V.1. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/ PDF/antiemesis.pdf (2007, accessed 5 February 2013). 8. Aapro M, Molassiotis A, Dicato M, et al. The effect of guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): the Pan European Emesis Registry (PEER). Ann Oncol 2012; 23: 1986–1992. 9. Kaiser R. Antiemetics guidelines: are they being used? Lancet Oncol 2005; 6: 622–625. 10. Mertens W, Higby D, Brown D, et al. Improving the care of patients with regard to chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis: The effect of feedback to clinicians on adherence to antiemetics prescribing guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1373–1378. 11. Sa´ez-De la Fuente J, Granja-Berna´ V, Goyache-Gon˜i MP, et al. Variabilidad de las pautas antieme´ticas en un hospital oncolo´gico. Aten Farm 2007; 9: 144–153. 12. Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Grunberg SM, et al. Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 103–109. 13. Schnell FM. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: the importance of acute antiemetic control. Oncologist 2003; 8: 187–198. 14. Roscoe JA, Morrow GR, Hickok JT, et al. Biobehavioral factors in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2004; 2: 501–508. 15. Aguilo´ M, Alba G, Ballester M, et al. Na´useas y vo´mitos. Farmacoterapia en patologı´ a oncolo´gica II, 1ª ed. Barcelona: The Pharmaceutical Letter – DICAF, S. L.; 2008. Lib X; n 8. 16. Drug Utilization Review Team in Oncology (DURTO). Antiemetic prescription in Italian breast cancer patients submitted to adjuvant chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 2003; 11: 785–789. 17. Fabi A, Barduagni M, Lauro S, et al. Is delayed chemotherapy-induced emesis well managed in oncological clinical practice? And observational study. Support Care Cancer 2003; 11: 156–161.
Caracuel et al. 18. Instituto nazionale per lo studio e la cura dei tumori (Italy); Societa` italiana di cancerologia. Cancer patients submitted to innovative chemotherapeutic agents of intermediate emetogenic potential: antiemetic prescriptions and incidence of emesis. Tumori 2004; 90: 103–106. 19. Huertas-Ferna´ndez MJ, Martı´ nez-Bautista MJ, Sa´nchezMartı´ nez I, et al. Ana´lisis de la efectividad de un protocolo de antiemesis implantado en la Unidad de Oncologı´ a. Farm Hosp 2010; 34: 125–138. 20. Jordan K, Sippel C and Schmoll HJ. Guidelines for antiemetic treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Past, present and future recommendations. Oncologist 2007; 12: 1143–1150. 21. Thiriat N, Ekoume I, Poullain S, et al. Impact of antiemetic prescriptions updating in oncology. ESCP Annual Symposia. Barcelona. Int J Clin Pharm 2013; 35: 126.
169 22. Cajaraville G. Medicamentos u´tiles en la prevencio´n y tratamiento de la toxicidad de la quimioterapia. http:// www.sefh.es/bibliotecavirtual/Curso_actualizacion2/ LIB.3_CAP.2.pdf (accessed 26 October 2009). 23. Dranitsaris G, Leung P and Warr D. Implementing evidence based antiemetic guidelines in the oncology setting: results of a 4-month prospective intervention study. Support Care Cancer 2001; 9: 611–618. 24. Roila F. Transferring scientific evidence to oncological practice: a trial on the impact of three different implementation strategies on antiemetic prescriptions. Support Care Cancer 2004; 12: 446–453. 25. Zeitoun A, Dimassi H, Chami B, et al. Acute pain management and assessment: are guidelines being implemented in developing countries (Lebanon). J Eval Clin Pract 2013; 19: 833–839.