MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients for laparoscopic surgery with at least one of the determined risks (nonsmoker, female, previous PONV/motion sickness, or postoperative opioid use) were randomized into either an active or sham group. At the end of surgery, Reletex electrical acustimulation was placed at the P6 acupoint. The active group had grade 3 strength and the sham group had inactivated electrodes covered by silicone. It was worn for 24 h following surgery. PONV scores were recorded.

RESULTS: The active group had significantly shorter durations of surgery and lower PONV incidence over 24 h (35.1% versus 64.9%, P = 0.024) and this was attributed to the lower incidence of nausea (31.4% versus 68.6%, P = 0.006). The overall incidence of vomiting was not significantly different between the groups, but it was higher in the sham group of patients with PONV risk score 3 (23.9%, P = 0.049).

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.

METHODOLOGY: Retrospective review of all children who fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of CVS and who were seen at Department of Paediatrics, University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Paediatric Unit, Penang Hospital, Penang, Malaysia from 1987 to 1997.

RESULTS: Eight children with CVS were seen at the two units during the study period, five girls and three boys. All had cyclical, self-limited episodes of nausea and vomiting with symptom-free intervals. The mean age of onset was 5.9 years. The clinical features were similar to other series described in the literature. Only two of the eight children were described as 'perfectionist'. Two children identified stress as precipitating factors. Therapy to reduce the number of emeses during acute attacks and to prevent subsequent attacks had been ineffective.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING: Tertiary level hospital in Malaysia.

PATIENTS: 77 patients undergoing elective Caesarean delivery.

INTERVENTION: Differing speeds of spinal injection.

MEASUREMENTS: Systolic blood pressure was assessed every minute for the first 10min and incidence of hypotension (reduction in blood pressure of >30% of baseline) was recorded. The use of vasopressor and occurrence of nausea/vomiting were also recorded.

MAIN RESULTS: 36 patients in SLOW group and 41 patients in FAST group were recruited into the study. There was no significant difference in blood pressure drop of >30% (p=0.497) between the two groups. There was no difference in the amount of vasopressor used and incidence of nausea/vomiting in both groups.

CONCLUSION: In our study population, there was no difference in incidence of hypotension and nausea/vomiting when spinal injection time is prolonged beyond 15s to 60s.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.

RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.

METHODS: In three double-blind phase 3 studies, patients receiving HEC or MEC were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo prior to chemotherapy plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone therapy. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included FLIE total score, nausea and vomiting domain scores, and the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (total score >108 [range 18-126]). We performed a prespecified analysis of the MEC/anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) study and a post hoc analysis of two pooled cisplatin-based HEC studies.

DESIGN: 1805 consecutive unselected patients with FGID who presented for primary or secondary care to 11 centres across Asia completed a cultural and linguistic adaptation of the Rome III Diagnostic Questionnaire that was translated to the local languages. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify symptom clusters.

RESULTS: Nine symptom clusters were identified, consisting of two oesophageal factors (F6: globus, odynophagia and dysphagia; F9: chest pain and heartburn), two gastroduodenal factors (F5: bloating, fullness, belching and flatulence; F8 regurgitation, nausea and vomiting), three bowel factors (F2: abdominal pain and diarrhoea; F3: meal-related bowel symptoms; F7: upper abdominal pain and constipation) and two anorectal factors (F1: anorectal pain and constipation; F4: diarrhoea, urgency and incontinence).