Antiemetic guidelines: Have we incorporated the changes concerning carboplatin and anthracyclines?

Objective: Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).

Methods: Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.

Results: 61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.

Conclusions: Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.