RESUMO
Patients with cancer are a high-priority population for COVID-19 vaccination, as per guideline recommendations. The present cross-sectional study was performed to assess the perception of patients with cancer from Romania regarding COVID-19 vaccines. The study included 932 patients with solid and hematologic malignancies. This was a multicenter study including 12 oncology centers located in Western and Northwestern Romania. Between December 2021 and January 2022, patients with cancer completed an individual paper questionnaire regarding acceptance of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, type of vaccine, side effects and source of information. During the first year of the vaccination campaign in Romania, 58.05% (541/932) of the investigated patients received COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccination rate was highest in the 61-70 year age group (61.22%). The most frequently used vaccine was Pfizer-BioNTech (72%). There was a statistically significant association between the rate of vaccination and the area of residence and level of education (P<0.001), with rural residence and a lower level of education being predictive factors for COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. Patients living in rural areas used non-medical sources (e.g. mass media, social platforms) as their main source of information (53.40%, 204/382), whereas patients living in urban areas (64.90%, 357/550) used predominantly medical sources (e.g. recommendations from oncologists and general practitioners). The main source of information among non-vaccinated patients was mass media (e.g. television, radio); 72.38% vs. 29.67% among vaccinated patients. For the latter, the primary source of information was the recommendations made by oncologists (59.70%) and general practitioners (56.76%). The most commonly reported side effect was injection site pain (20-33% for the first dose and 5-27% for the second dose). In conclusion, the present study confirmed that patients with cancer may be reluctant to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, mainly due to the fear of its potential side effects. Although there is scientific evidence to support the efficacy and safety of vaccines, the primary source of information for patients may affect vaccine uptake, thus affecting the efforts to stop the pandemic. Furthermore, the present study revealed that non-vaccinated patients preferred mass media as their main source of information, whereas vaccinated patients relied on the recommendations made by oncologists or general practitioners.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based antiemetic guidelines offer predominantly consistent recommendations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis. However, studies suggest that adherence to these recommendations is suboptimal. We explored inconsistencies between clinical practice and guideline-recommended treatment with a registry evaluating the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study. The primary objective was to assess the overall (Days 1-5) complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue use) rates in patients who received GCCP or guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) using diaries for 5 days following chemotherapy. Cycle 1 results are presented in patients who received either (1) anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), non-AC HEC or carboplatin, with GCCP for all these groups consisting of prophylaxis with an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy or (2) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), with GCCP consisting of a 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy as per MASCC/ESMO 2016 guidelines, in place at the time of the study. RESULTS: 1,089 patients were part of the cycle 1 efficacy evaluation. Overall GCCP was 23%. CR rates were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in patients receiving GCCP (62.2%) versus GICP (52.6%) in the overall population, as well as in the subsets of patients receiving AC/non-AC HEC (60.2% versus 47.8%), MEC (73.8% versus 57.8%) and in those non-naïve to the chemotherapy received (65.9% versus 53.8%). No impact on daily living due to CINV (FLIE assessment) was observed in 43.4% patients receiving GCCP versus 28.5% GICP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Consistent with prior studies, GCCP was very low; a significant benefit of almost 10% improved prevention of CINV was observed with GCCP. As per MASCC/ESMO guidelines, such an absolute difference should be practice changing. Comprehensive multifaceted strategies are needed to achieve better adherence to antiemetic guidelines.
