MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, cross-sectional study. A face-to-face interview guided by a structured questionnaire with cancer patients admitted to receive repeated cycles of chemotherapy was conducted. Information collected included chemotherapy-related side effects after last chemotherapy experience, the most worrisome side effects, the side effects overlooked by healthcare professionals and the preferred method, amount and source of receiving related information.
RESULTS: Of 99 patients recruited, 90 participated in this survey (response rate: 90.9%). The majority were in the age range of 45-64 years (73.3%) and female (93.3%). Seventy-five (83.3%) and seventy-one (78.9%) experienced nausea and vomiting, respectively. Both symptoms were selected as two of the most worrisome side effects (16.7% vs. 33.3%). Other common and worrisome side effects were hair loss and loss of appetite. Symptoms caused by peripheral neuropathies were perceived as the major symptoms being overlooked (6.7%). Most patients demanded information about side effects (60.0%) and they would like to receive as much information as possible (86.7%). Oral conversation (83.3%) remained as the preferred method and the clinical pharmacist was preferred by 46.7% of patients as the educator in this aspect.
CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of chemotherapy-related side effects among local patients is of concern. Findings of their perceptions and informational needs may serve as a valuable guide for clinical pharmacists to help in side effect management in Malaysia.
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.
METHODS: Patients receiving cancer-related treatment regimes underwent screening of cardiac involvement with CMR, either within 3 months (early Tx) or >12 months (late Tx) post-treatment. T1 and T2 mapping, cardiac function, strain, ischaemia-testing, scar-imaging and serological cardiac biomarkers were obtained.
RESULTS: Compared to age/gender matched controls (n = 57), patients (n = 115, age (yrs): median(IQR) 48(28-60), females, n = 60(52%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) and strain, and higher native T1 and T2. The early Tx group (n = 52) had significantly higher native T1, T2 and troponin levels compared to the late Tx group, indicating myocardial inflammation and oedema (p