The impact of 5-hydroxytryptamine-receptor antagonists on chemotherapy treatment adherence, treatment delay, and nausea and vomiting
Authors Palli S, Grabner M, Quimbo R, Rugo H
Received 18 July 2014
Accepted for publication 7 September 2014
Published 16 June 2015 Volume 2015:7 Pages 175—188
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Kenan Onel
Swetha Rao Palli,1 Michael Grabner,1 Ralph A Quimbo,1 Hope S Rugo2
1HealthCore, Wilmington, DE, 2University of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
Purpose: To determine the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) and chemotherapy treatment delay and adherence among patients receiving palonosetron versus other 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) antiemetics.
Materials and methods: This retrospective claims analysis included adults with primary malignancies who initiated treatment consisting of single-day intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately EC (MEC) regimens. Treatment delay was defined as a gap in treatment at least twice the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-specified cycle length, specific to each chemotherapy regimen. Treatment adherence was determined by the percentage of patients who received the regimen-specific recommended number of chemotherapy cycles within the recommended time frame.
Results: We identified 1,832 palonosetron and 2,387 other 5-HT3 RA (“other”) patients who initiated HEC therapy, and 1,350 palonosetron users and 1,379 patients on other antiemetics who initiated MEC therapy. Fewer patients receiving palonosetron experienced CINV versus other (HEC, 27.5% versus 32.2%, P=0.0011; MEC, 36.1% versus 41.7%, P=0.0026), and fewer treatment delays occurred among patients receiving palonosetron versus other (HEC, 3.2% versus 6.0%, P<0.0001; MEC, 17.0% versus 26.8%, P<0.0001). Compared with the other cohort, patients receiving palonosetron were significantly more adherent to the index chemotherapy regimen with respect to the recommended time frame (HEC, 74.7% versus 69.7%, P=0.0004; MEC, 43.1% versus 37.3%, P=0.0019) and dosage (HEC, 27.3% versus 25.8%, P=0.0004; MEC, 15.0% versus 12.6%, P=0.0019).
Conclusion: Palonosetron more effectively reduced occurrence of CINV in patients receiving HEC or MEC compared with other agents in this real-world setting. Additionally, patients receiving palonosetron had better adherence and fewer treatment delays than patients receiving other 5-HT3 RAs.
Keywords: palonosetron, adherence, CINV, delay of therapy, observational, health services research
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]