Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHardy, J
dc.contributor.authorSkerman, H
dc.contributor.authorGlare, P
dc.contributor.authorPhilip, J
dc.contributor.authorHudson, P
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, G
dc.contributor.authorMartin, P
dc.contributor.authorSpruyt, O
dc.contributor.authorCurrow, D
dc.contributor.authorYates, P
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-17T03:45:18Z
dc.date.available2020-12-17T03:45:18Z
dc.date.issued2018-05-02
dc.identifierpii: 10.1186/s12885-018-4404-8
dc.identifier.citationHardy, J., Skerman, H., Glare, P., Philip, J., Hudson, P., Mitchell, G., Martin, P., Spruyt, O., Currow, D. & Yates, P. (2018). 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. BMC CANCER, 18 (1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4404-8.
dc.identifier.issn1471-2407
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/255016
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTRN12610000481077 .
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherBIOMED CENTRAL LTD
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.titleA 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
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12885-018-4404-8
melbourne.affiliation.departmentNursing
melbourne.affiliation.departmentMedicine (St Vincent's)
melbourne.affiliation.facultyMedicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
melbourne.source.titleBMC Cancer
melbourne.source.volume18
melbourne.source.issue1
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
melbourne.elementsid1327313
melbourne.contributor.authorSpruyt, Odette
melbourne.contributor.authorPhilip, Jennifer
melbourne.contributor.authorHudson, Peter
dc.identifier.eissn1471-2407
melbourne.accessrightsOpen Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record