RESUMO
Background: Chemotherapy inducing nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the significant side effects of anti-cancer treatment, and its full prevention is a potential challenge. This study was done to specify the effect of olanzapine in this setting. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial study, olanzapine was compared with a placebo in combination with dexamethasone and granisetrone in patients with cancer. Patients in the intervention group received dexamethasone , granisetron and olanzapine. Patients in the control group received a placebo instead of olanzapine. Overall, acute nausea and vomiting prevention were the primary and secondary end points; complete response (no nausea,no vomiting) in the delayed period of chemotherapy was the third end point. Response to treatment was evaluated by the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire completion in the first, the third and the fifth of chemotherapy. Results: Percentage reduction in mean±SD nausea and vomiting in the overall phase (0-120 hours) of intervention group compared to the control group respectively were 29.94±2.06, 69.75±2.32 [(57.93% reduction (p<0.001)]. For the acute phase (0-24 hours) were 26.08±2.36, 51.85±2.24 [(47.21% reduction (p<0.001)], for the delayed phase (24-120 hours), were 31.26±2.57, 67.91±2.12 ,[(55.11% reduction;(p<0.001)] respectively. Conclusion: Olanzapine, along with dexamethasone and granisetron, significantly reduced vomiting and nausea in patients undergoing chemotherapy. No adverse event of olanzapine was observed in the patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim was to describe, evaluate and document the prevention of medication errors by clinical pharmacologist consultations in patients with cancer. METHODS: We assessed the effect of clinical pharmacologist consultation by the acceptance of interventions recommended due to dosage, frequency, duration of therapy errors and drug-drug interactions (DDIs). All medication errors detected by clinical pharmacologist were reported in the format of medical consultation. A documentation template was designed to collect the patient's data (sex, age, and diagnosis), prescriptions written, and drug-specific recommendations. For the descriptive analysis of medication errors, the unit of analysis was the number and percentage of errors. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients included in this study with a median age of 48.67±19.76 years of which 47.30% were females. 936 prescribing errors were detected and recommended for their correction. The specialist physicians accepted 897 of prescribed errors. DDIs that were detected in 66.22% of patients, were the most errors in this group of errors (47%). Improper dose (17.41%) wrong frequency (16.67%) and drug-food interaction (10.26%) were after that. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological consultation in the hematology-oncology ward revealed many medication errors. The trust of physicians in the views of the clinical pharmacologist led to a large part of these errors being accepted and resolved.
