METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study. Oncology practitioners were recruited from a major cancer center in Singapore and through two regional cancer meetings that took place in Singapore and Malaysia in 2013.
RESULTS: A total of 126 oncology practitioners from various Southeast Asian countries, mostly nurses (58.7 %) and physicians (37.3 %), were recruited. The majority of the respondents agreed that fatigue (78.4 %) and anxiety (69.1 %) were the most common physical and psychosocial problems experienced by BCS. Monitoring for physical and treatment-related adverse effects (80.7 %) and reviewing patients' noncancer medical history (65.3 %) were the most practiced aspects of follow-up care. Compared with the other practitioners, the physicians were more likely to communicate with other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR = 4.24, 95 % CI 1.54 to 11.72; p = 0.005). Most of the respondents also agreed that patient-specific barriers were the main impediments to follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into the various aspects of breast cancer survivorship care from the perspectives of oncology practitioners and shows that survivorship care is relatively inadequate in Asia. There is a need for new survivorship care models to meet the needs of Asian BCS and to complement the unique healthcare systems of Asia.
METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.
RESULTS: In each group, there were 12 males (60%) and average age was not significantly different (p = 0.682-0.987). Using Chinese subjects as a reference, in Chinese, Malay, Indian and Caucasian subjects, mean trigone thickness was 13.68, 14.02, 11.60 (p
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 2360 patients from APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) was analysed. Multivariate logistic regression model (PIRO score) was developed from a derivation cohort (n=1363) which was validated in another prospective multicentric cohort of acute on chronic liver failure patients (n=997).
RESULTS: Factors significant for P component were serum creatinine[(≥2 mg/dL)OR 4.52, 95% CI (3.67-5.30)], bilirubin [(<12 mg/dL,OR 1) vs (12-30 mg/dL,OR 1.45, 95% 1.1-2.63) vs (≥30 mg/dL,OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.2)], serum potassium [(<3 mmol/LOR-1) vs (3-4.9 mmol/L,OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.05-1.97) vs (≥5 mmol/L,OR 4.34, 95% CI 1.67-11.3)] and blood urea (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.5-5.5); for I component nephrotoxic medications (OR-9.86, 95% CI 3.2-30.8); for R component,Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome,(OR-2.14, 95% CI 1.4-3.3); for O component, Circulatory failure (OR-3.5, 95% CI 2.2-5.5). The PIRO score predicted acute kidney injury with C-index of 0.95 and 0.96 in the derivation and validation cohort. The increasing PIRO score was also associated with mortality (P
METHODS/AIMS: An international survey of oncology pharmacists and technicians was conducted via the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and collaborating global pharmacy organisations to determine the impact that the coronavirus of 2019 has had on pharmacy service delivery, pharmacy practitioners and oncology practice.
RESULTS: The survey received 862 responses from 40 different countries from September to October 2020. The majority of respondents were pharmacists (n = 841, 97.6%), with 24% involved in the direct care of patients with the coronavirus of 2019. Of the survey participants, 55% increased their time working remotely, with remote activities including dispensing, patient assessment/follow-up and attending multi-disciplinary rounds. Respondents reported a 72% increase in the use of technology to perform remote patient interaction activities and that participation in educational meetings and quality improvement projects was reduced by 68% and 44%, respectively. Workforce impacts included altered working hours (50%), cancelled leave (48%) and forced leave/furloughing (30%). During the pandemic, respondents reported reduced access to intensive care (19%) and anti-cancer (15%) medications. In addition, 39% of respondents reported reduced access to personal protective equipment, including N95 masks for chemotherapy compounding. Almost half of respondents (49%) reported that cancer treatments were delayed or intervals were altered for patients being treated with curative intent. A third of practitioners (30%) believed that patient outcomes would be adversely impacted by changes to pharmacy services. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported impacts on their mental health, with 12% utilising support services.
CONCLUSION: The coronavirus of 2019 pandemic has altered the way oncology pharmacy services are delivered. These results demonstrate the adaptability of the oncology pharmacy profession and highlight the importance of formal evaluation of the varied practice models to determine the evidence-based practices that enhance pharmacy services and, thus, should be reinstated as soon as practical and reasonable.
METHODS: Consecutive ACLF patients were monitored for the development of SIRS/sepsis and associated complications and followed till 90 days, liver transplant or death.
RESULTS: Of 561 patients, 201 (35.8%) had no SIRS and 360 (64.2%) had SIRS with or without infection. New onset SIRS and sepsis developed in 74.6% and 8% respectively in a median of 7 (range 4-15) days, at a rate of 11% per day. The cumulative incidence of new SIRS was 29%, 92.8%, and 100% by days 4, 7, and 15. Liver failure, that is, bilirubin > 12 mg/dL (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.05-6.19], P = 0.04) at days 0 and 4, and renal failure at day 4 (OR = 6.74 [95%CI = 1.50-13.29], P = 0.01), independently predicted new onset SIRS. Absence of SIRS in the first week was associated with reduced incidence of organ failure (20% vs 39.4%, P = 0.003), as was the 28-day (17.6% vs 36%, P = 0.02) and 90-day (27.5% vs 51%,P = 0.002) mortality. The 90-day mortality was 61.6% in the total cohort and that for those having no SIRS and SIRS at presentation were 42.8% and 65%, respectively (P