ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: To assess adherence of the prescribing physicians in a private cancer care center to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetic prophylaxis, in the first cycle of antineoplastic chemotherapy. Methods: A total of 139 chemotherapy regimens, of 105 patients, were evaluated retrospectively from 2011 to 2013. Results: We observed 78% of non-adherence to the guideline rate. The main disagreements with the directive were the prescription of higher doses of dexamethasone and excessive use of 5-HT3 antagonist for low risk emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. On univariate analysis, hematological malignancies (p=0.005), the use of two or more chemotherapy (p=0.05) and high emetogenic risk regimes (p=0.012) were factors statistically associated with greater adherence to guidelines. Treatment based on paclitaxel was the only significant risk factor for non-adherence (p=0.02). By multivariate analysis, the chemotherapy of high emetogenic risk most correlated with adherence to guideline (p=0.05). Conclusion: We concluded that the adherence to guidelines is greater if the chemotherapy regime has high emetogenic risk. Educational efforts should focus more intensely on the management of chemotherapy regimens with low and moderate emetogenic potential. Perhaps the development of a computer generated reminder may improve the adherence to guidelines. .
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a adesão dos médicos prescritores, de um centro privado especializado em oncologia, à diretriz de antiêmese profilática da American Society of Clinical Oncology, no primeiro ciclo de quimioterapia antineoplásica. Métodos: Foram avaliados retrospectivamente 139 esquemas de quimioterapia, de 105 pacientes, tratados no período de 2011 a 2013. Resultados: Foram observados 78% de taxa de não adesão à diretriz. As principais discordâncias com a diretriz foram prescrição de doses mais elevadas de dexametasona e uso excessivo de antagonista 5-HT3 para regimes de quimioterapia de risco emetogênico baixo. Pela análise univariada, malignidades hematológicas (p=0,005), uso de dois ou mais quimioterápicos (p=0,05) e regimes de alto risco emetogênico (p=0,012) foram fatores estatisticamente associados a maior adesão à diretriz. O tratamento baseado em paclitaxel foi o único fator estatisticamente significativo para a não adesão (p=0,02). Pela análise multivariada, a quimioterapia de alto risco emetogênico apresentou maior correlação com a adesão à diretriz (p=0,05). Conclusão: Houve maior aderência para a quimioterapia de alto risco emetogênico. Esforços educacionais devem se concentrar mais intensamente na gestão de regimes de quimioterapia com potencial emetogênico baixo e moderado. Talvez o desenvolvimento de lembretes gerados por sistemas informatizados possa melhorar a aderência à diretriz. .
Subject(s)
Animals , Humans , Mice , DNA Damage , Recombinational DNA Repair , Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases/chemistry , Amino Acid Motifs , Amino Acid Sequence , BRCA1 Protein/antagonists & inhibitors , Cell Line , Chromosome Breakage , Conserved Sequence , DNA Repair , DNA-Binding Proteins/antagonists & inhibitors , Deoxyribonucleases/metabolism , Histones/metabolism , Protein Structure, Tertiary , Ubiquitination , Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases/metabolismABSTRACT
Objective Evaluating if antiemetics are effective in the prevention or treatment at home, of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Methods In total, were included 42 women with breast cancer in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, using dexamethasone/ondansetron before each cycle. The frequency of nausea and vomiting was obtained by applying the instrument in the pre-chemotherapy period, and 24h, 48h, 72h and 96h after chemotherapy. The use of antiemetics was considered in accordance with adherence to medical prescription. Results All patients (n = 42, 100%) reported emesis at some point. Only five cases (11.9%) were anticipatory. In the first 24 hours (acute emesis), 38 (90.5%)ayed), emesis was reported by all despite the regular use (n = 20, 47.6%) or not (n = 22, 52.4%) of antiemetics (ondansetron, dexamethasone and metoclopramide/or dimenhydrinate). Conclusion Antiemetics were not effective in the prevention or treatment at home, of chemotherapy-induced emesis. .
Objetivo : Avaliar se antieméticos são eficazes na prevenção ou tratamento da emese induzida pela quimioterapia antineoplásica, em domicílio. Métodos : Foram incluídas 42 mulheres com câncer de mama, em quimioterapia moderadamente emetogênica, submetidas à dexametasona/ondansetrona antes de cada ciclo. A frequência de náuseas e vômitos foi obtida por instrumento aplicado nos tempos pré-quimioterapia e 24h, 48h, 72h e 96h pós-quimioterapia. O uso de antieméticos foi considerado conforme adesão à prescrição médica. Resultados : Todas as pacientes (n=42, 100%) relataram emese em algum momento. Apenas cinco casos (11,9%) foram antecipatórios. Nas primeiras 24h (emese aguda), 38 (90,5%) apresentaram náuseas associadas (n=20, 47,6%) ou não (n=18, 42,8%) a vômitos e, após este período (tardio), a emese foi referida por todas, apesar da utilização regular (n=20, 47,6%) ou não (n=22, 52,4%) de antieméticos (ondansetrona, dexametasona, metoclopramida e/ou dimenidrinato). Conclusão : Os antieméticos não foram eficazes na prevenção ou no tratamento da emese induzida pela quimioterapia, em domicílio. .
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of azasetron compared to ondansetron in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind and parallel-group trial involving 12 institutions in Korea between May 2005 and December 2005. A total of 265 patients with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included and randomly assigned to either the azasetron or ondansetron group. All patients received azasetron (10 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg intravenously) on day 1 and dexamethasone (4 mg orally every 12 hours) on days 2-4. The azasetron group received azasetron (10 mg orally) with placebo of ondansetron (orally every 12 hours), and the ondansetron group received ondansetron (8 mg orally every 12 hours) with placebo of azasetron (orally) on days 2-6. RESULTS: Over days 2-6, the effective ratio of complete response in the azasetron and ondansetron groups was 45% and 54.5%, respectively (95% confidence interval, -21.4 to 2.5%). Thus, the non-inferiority of azasetron compared with ondansetron in delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was not proven in the present study. All treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected drug-related adverse events were reported. The most common adverse events related to the treatment were constipation and hiccups, and there were no differences in the overall incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: In the present study, azasetron showed inferiority in the control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared with ondansetron whereas safety profiles were similar between the two groups.