Work loss and activity impairment due to extended nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving CINV prophylaxis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)'s impact on work loss remains poorly described. We evaluated associations between the duration of CINV episodes, CINV-related work loss (CINV-WL), and CINV-related activity impairment (CINV-AI) in patients with breast cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective CINV prophylaxis trial of netupitant/palonestron and dexamethasone for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer (NCT0340371). Over the observed CINV duration (0-5 days), we analyzed patient-reported CINV-WL and CINV-AI for the first two chemotherapy cycles. We categorized patients as having either extended (≥ 3 days) or short (1-2 days) CINV duration and quantified its impact on work using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). RESULTS: Overall, we captured data for 792 cycles in 402 women, including 136 (33.8%) employed patients with 35.3% reporting CINV. Of those with CINV, patients reported CINV-WL in 26 cycles and CINV-AI in 142 cycles. Of those with CINV, 55.3% of extended CINV cycles experienced CINV-WL compared to 16.7% of short CINV cycles (p < 0.001). The relative risk of CINV-WL between extended and short CINV was 3.32 (p < 0.01) for employed patients. The mean difference in CINV-AI scores (higher = worse) between extended and short duration CINV was 5.0 vs. 3.0 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Extended (≥ 3 days) CINV was associated with more than triple the risk of CINV-WL and higher CINV-AI compared with short CINV.

Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. RESULTS: NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Antiemetic use and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting related hospitalization costs after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Aim: Despite numerous available antiemetics, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still affects many patients, and CINV related hospitalizations and costs often result. Materials & methods: PrecisionQ analyzed its database to evaluate CINV related hospitalizations and costs following antiemetics use including netupitant/fosnetupitant with palonosetron (NEPA), aprepitant/fosaprepitant with ondansetron (APON) or aprepitant/fosaprepitant with palonosetron (APPA) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Results: Database analysis identified 15,583 patient records (807 NEPA, 2023 APON, 12,753 APPA) and mean CINV related hospitalization costs were lower across all patients receiving NEPA (US$301) compared with patients receiving APON ($1006, p < 0.0001) or APPA ($321, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: NEPA is associated with lower CINV related hospitalization costs compared with APON and APPA among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy patients often experience nausea and vomiting that not only has a negative impact on the patient's quality of life but can also result in unplanned hospitalizations with high associated costs. Numerous medications and specific guidelines are available to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer. Specifically, the combination of two classes of medications (serotonin inhibitors + neurokinin type 1 inhibitors) has been shown to provide the greatest benefit. However, hospitalizations due to nausea and vomiting still occur, and providers require further information to determine the best options for their patients. In this study, the combination of netupitant/fosnetupitant with palonosetron resulted in lower hospitalization costs compared with aprepitant/fosaprepitant with ondansetron or aprepitant/fosaprepitant with palonosetron in chemotherapy patients.

The PROVe Study: US Real-World Experience with Chlormethine/Mechlorethamine Gel in Combination with Other Therapies for Patients with Mycosis Fungoides Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Chlormethine/mechlorethamine gel is a skin-directed therapy for patients with mycosis fungoides cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Currently, real-world data on chlormethine gel are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to analyze the effect of chlormethine gel in combination with other therapies on efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life in a real-world setting. METHODS: This prospective, observational study enrolled adult patients actively using chlormethine gel. Patients were monitored for up to 2 years during standard-of-care clinic visits. No specific visit schedules or clinical assessments, with the exception of patient-completed questionnaires, were mandated because of the expected variability in practice patterns. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with stage IA-IB disease receiving chlormethine + topical corticosteroids + other with ≥ 50% decrease in body surface area from baseline to 12 months. Response was assessed at each visit using by-time analysis, which investigates the trend to treatment response and allows assessment of response over time. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the Skindex-29 questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 298 patients were monitored. At 12 months post-treatment initiation, 44.4% (chlormethine + topical corticosteroids + other) and 45.1% (patients receiving chlormethine + other treatment) of efficacy-evaluable patients were responders. By-time analysis demonstrated that peak response occurred (chlormethine + other; 66.7%) at 18 months. There was a significant correlation between responder status and lower post-baseline Skindex-29 scores. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study confirmed that chlormethine gel is an important therapeutic option for patients with mycosis fungoides and contributes to reducing the severity of skin lesions and improving health-related quality of life.

Avoidable Acute Care Use Associated with Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy or Oxaliplatin.

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.

The influence of smoking status on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of clopidogrel and prasugrel: the PARADOX study.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of smoking on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PD) of clopidogrel and prasugrel therapy. BACKGROUND: Major randomized trial data demonstrated that nonsmokers experience less or no benefit from clopidogrel treatment compared with smokers (i.e., the "smokers' paradox"). METHODS: PARADOX was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, crossover study of objectively assessed nonsmokers (n = 56) and smokers (n = 54) with stable coronary artery disease receiving aspirin therapy. Patients were randomized to receive clopidogrel (75 mg daily) or prasugrel (10 mg daily) for 10 days and crossed over after a 14-day washout. PD was assessed by using VerifyNow P2Y12 and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assays. Clopidogrel and prasugrel metabolite levels, cytochrome P450 1A2 activity, CYP2C19 genotype, and safety parameters were determined. RESULTS: During clopidogrel therapy, device-reported inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) trended lower in nonsmokers than smokers (least squares mean treatment difference ± SE: 7.7 ± 4.1%; p = 0.062). Device-reported IPA was significantly lower in clopidogrel-treated smokers than prasugrel-treated smokers (least squares mean treatment difference: 31.8 ± 3.4%; p < 0.0001). During clopidogrel therapy, calculated IPA was lower and P2Y12 reaction units and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation and platelet reactivity index were higher in nonsmokers than in smokers (p = 0.043, p = 0.005, and p = 0.042, respectively). Greater antiplatelet effects were present after prasugrel treatment regardless of smoking status (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: PARADOX demonstrated lower clopidogrel active metabolite exposure and PD effects of clopidogrel in nonsmokers relative to smokers. Prasugrel was associated with greater active metabolite exposure and PD effects than clopidogrel regardless of smoking status. The poorer antiplatelet response in clopidogrel-treated nonsmokers may provide an explanation for the smokers' paradox. (The Influence of Smoking Status on Prasugrel and Clopidogrel Treated Subjects Taking Aspirin and Having Stable Coronary Artery Disease; NCT01260584).

Thienopyridine efficacy and cigarette smoking status.

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor blocker is an established regimen to reduce the risk of ischemic event occurrence in patients with high-risk cardiovascular (CV) disease. Cigarette smoking is an important cardiovascular risk factor. However, several investigators have reported what may be termed a "new" "smoker's paradox", whereby clopidogrel-treated nonsmokers appear to have either less or no CV-event reduction when compared to the substantial CV-event reduction in clopidogrel-treated smokers based on several large-scale trials. This "smoker's paradox" observed in multiple clinical outcome studies is also supported by emerging "real-world" data that also suggest clopidogrel nonsmokers do not fare as well as smokers treated with clopidogrel. In support of the new "smoker's paradox", pharmacodynamic studies have also shown that smoking status influences clopidogrel responsiveness in healthy volunteers, acute coronary syndrome patients, and patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Finally, there is a substantial, albeit not entirely consistent, body of pharmacodynamic and clinical outcome data supporting a reduced antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel in non-smokers as compared to smokers. The clinical relevance of this interaction has never been demonstrated in a prospective trial. The focus of this review is to critically evaluate the reported interaction between cigarette smoking status and thienopyridine efficacy.

The association of cigarette smoking with enhanced platelet inhibition by clopidogrel.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of cigarette smoking on the platelet response to clopidogrel. BACKGROUND: Response variability to clopidogrel therapy has been demonstrated. Clopidogrel is metabolically activated by several hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes, including CYP1A2. Cigarette smoking induces CYP1A2 and may, therefore, enhance the conversion of clopidogrel to its active metabolite. METHODS: Among 259 consecutive patients undergoing elective coronary stenting; 120 were on chronic clopidogrel therapy and were not loaded; and 139 were clopidogrel naïve and were loaded with 600 mg. There were 104 current smokers (CS) and 155 nonsmokers (NS). The adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-stimulated platelet aggregation (PA) was assessed by conventional aggregometry. The ADP-stimulated total and active glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa expression were assessed with flow cytometry. Low PA was defined as the lowest quartile of 5 micromol/l ADP-induced post-treatment PA. RESULTS: Current smokers on chronic clopidogrel therapy displayed significantly lower PA and ADP-stimulated active GP IIb/IIIa expression compared with NS (p < or = 0.0008 for both). Similarly, CS treated with 600 mg of clopidogrel displayed greater platelet inhibition and lower active GP IIb/IIIa expression compared with NS (p < or = 0.05). In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, current smoking was an independent predictor of low PA (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel therapy in CS is associated with increased platelet inhibition and lower aggregation as compared with NS. The mechanism of the smoking effect deserves further study and may be an important cause of response variability to clopidogrel therapy.

Results of the glucose-lowering effect of WelChol study (GLOWS): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study evaluating the effect of colesevelam hydrochloride on glycemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)-lowering effect of colesevelam hydrochloride, a bile acid sequestrant, in subjects with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled by existing antihyperglycemic therapy. METHODS: After a 4-week placebo run-in period, subjects with type 2 diabetes and an HbA(1c) value of 7.0% to 10.0% were randomized to receive colesevelam 3.75 g/d or matching placebo for 12 weeks. Subjects' previous oral anti hyperglycemic medication (sulfonylurea and/or metformin) was continued throughout the study. Fasting blood samples were obtained at weeks -5, -1, 0, 1, 4, 8, and 12. The primary efficacy end point was the change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 12. Secondary end points included changes in fructosamine levels, fasting plasma glucose levels, postprandial glucose level, and meal glucose response (ie, difference between preprandial and postprandial levels), and percent changes in lipid parameters from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: The 65 randomized subjects (31 colesevelam, 34 placebo) had a mean age of 56.2 years and a mean body mass index of 32.4 kg/m(2); 55.4% were male and 53.8% were white. The difference in least squares (LS) mean (SE) change in HbA(1c) between the colesevelam group and the placebo group was -0.5% (0.18) (P = 0.007). In subjects with a baseline HbAIc > or = 8.0%, the difference in LS mean change in HbA(1c) was -1.0% (0.27) (P = 0.002). Relative to placebo, colesevelam treatment was associated with reductions in levels of fructosamine (-29.0 [10.9] pmol/L; P = 0.011) and postprandial glucose (-31.5 [13.6] mg/dL; P = 0.026). The mean percent change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was -9.6% in the colesevelam group, compared with 2.1% in the placebo group (treatment difference, -11.7% [4.2]; P = 0.007); the respective mean percent changes in total cholesterol were -4.0% and 3.4% (treatment difference, -7.3% [3.0]; P = 0.019). Colesevelam also was associated with significant decreases in the percent change in apolipoprotein B (P = 0.003) and low-density lipoprotein particle concentration (P = 0.037). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar in both groups, although treatment-related adverse events were more frequent in the colesevelam group than in the placebo group (29.0% vs 8.8%, respectively). The most frequent TEAEs in the colesevelam group were gastrointestinal disorders (22.6%), primarily constipation (19.4%), compared with an 8.8% incidence of gastrointestinal disorders (0% constipation) in the placebo group. There were no significant changes in body weight or the occurrence of hypoglycemia between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In these subjects with type 2 diabetes, 12 weeks of colesevelam treatment were associated with significant reductions in HbA(1c) and in fructosamine and postprandial glucose levels compared with placebo. The 2 groups had a similar adverse-event profile, with the exception of an increased incidence of constipation in the colesevelam group. These results suggest that colesevelam may improve both lipid control and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving oral antihyperglycemic medications.