HPE Managing CINV pocket guide 2019 | Page 35

updated in 2019 6 and report that netupitant and rolapitant are effective antiemetics in the prevention of delayed nausea and palonosetron and granisetron extended-release injection formulation as preferred 5-HT 3 RAs for delayed nausea prevention in the MEC setting. For breakthrough emesis prevention, switch to a different NK 1 RA with a different PK/PD profile is recommended. Although no clinical trial data are available, anectdotal evidence suggests this might be useful. Nausea, by contrast, is more difficult to control. Among patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy and treated effectively with anti-emetics, nausea is often seen more frequently than vomiting. Generally, nausea is more likely to be seen in younger patients than older patients, and younger women being treated for breast cancer are more prone to nausea than other groups of patients. Delayed nausea happens more often than acute nausea and is more severe and tends to be treatment resistant. Therefore prevention of nausea is a high priority in clinical research. 5,7 Poorly controlled CINV can also lead to interruptions in treatment or discontinuation of therapy as a result of poor compliance. 12 CINV can result in fatigue, anorexia, insomnia, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, weakness and weight loss. 13 Health-related QoL CINV has a significant negative impact on health-related QoL, even when antiemetic therapy is used after HEC or MEC. 14 Bloechl-Daum et al studied the effect of CINV on the QoL in 298 patients with cancer – 67 of whom were treated with HEC and 231 with MEC. Overall, on day 6 after chemotherapy, 61% of patients reported that CINV had no or minimal impact on daily life (NIDL), with significantly fewer HEC patients reporting NIDL than those receiving MEC (47.2% versus 64.5% respectively; p=0.0272). Nausea seemed to have a greater impact on daily life than vomiting as indicated by the mean Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE; a validated nausea- and vomiting-specific patient-reported outcome measure): the nausea domain score for all patients was 50.0 (44.7 for HEC and 51.4 for MEC; p=0.0024), compared with a mean FLIE vomiting domain score of 55.3 (50.3 for HEC and 56.5 for MEC; p=0.0097). The authors noted that this was also reflected by the NIDL data, with 53.1% of patients reporting NIDL for nausea compared with 73.4% with NIDL for vomiting. CINV associated with HEC has a significantly lower mean FLIE score compared with MEC (95.5 vs 107.8, hospitalpharmacyeurope.com | 2019 | 35