Title |
A randomized open-label study of guideline-driven antiemetic therapy versus single agent antiemetic therapy in patients with advanced cancer and nausea not related to anticancer treatment
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Cancer, May 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12885-018-4404-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Janet Hardy, Helen Skerman, Paul Glare, Jennifer Philip, Peter Hudson, Geoffrey Mitchell, Peter Martin, Odette Spruyt, David Currow, Patsy Yates |
Abstract |
Nausea/vomiting (N/V) not related to anti-cancer treatment is common in patients with advanced cancer. The standard approach to management is to define a dominant cause, and treat with an antiemetic selected through pathophysiologic knowledge of emetic pathways. High rates of N/V control have been reported using both etiology-based guideline-driven antiemetic regimens and an empiric approach using single agents in uncontrolled studies. These different approaches had never been formally compared. This randomized, prospective, open label, dose-escalating study used readily available antiemetics in accordance with etiology-based guidelines or single agent therapy with haloperidol. Participants had a baseline average nausea score of ≥3/10. Response was defined as a ≥ 2/10 point reduction on a numerical rating scale of average nausea score with a final score < 3/10 at 72 h. Nausea scores and distress from nausea improved over time in the majority of the 185 patients randomized. For those who completed each treatment day, a greater response rate was seen in the guideline arm than the single agent arm at 24 h (49% vs 32%; p = 0.02), but not at 48 or 72 h. Response rates at 72 h in the intention to treat analysis were 49 and 53% respectively, with no significant difference between arms (0·04; 95% CI: -0·11, 0·19; p = 0·59). Over 80% of all participants reported an improved global impression of change. There were few adverse events worse than baseline in either arm. An etiology-based, guideline-directed approach to antiemetic therapy may offer more rapid benefit, but is no better than single agent treatment with haloperidol at 72 h. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTRN12610000481077 . |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 19 | 51% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 11% |
New Zealand | 3 | 8% |
India | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 10 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 19 | 51% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 27% |
Scientists | 7 | 19% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
Researcher | 6 | 10% |
Other | 6 | 10% |
Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 5% |
Other | 9 | 15% |
Unknown | 24 | 40% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 28% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 17% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
Other | 2 | 3% |
Unknown | 26 | 43% |