AIMS: This study was undertaken to establish the prevalence of VVR among whole blood donors in Hospital Pulau Pinang and to investigate factors that lead to its occurrence.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 27,890 whole blood donations in 2016.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: For each donation, donor's demographic and blood donation-related information was extracted from the blood bank database.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Qualitative data including age group, sex, race, frequency, and location of donation were analyzed using Chi-square tests, while blood pressure was analyzed using t-test.
RESULTS: Overall, 425 cases of VVRs were reported, resulting in a VVR rate of 1.5% (one event in every 65 donations). We found a statistically significant association (P < 0.05) between the occurrence of VVRs with the young age group, female gender, Indian race, first-time donor, lower predonation blood pressure, and donation performed in a mobile donation campaign. The most common vasovagal symptoms are lightheadedness (88%), followed by nausea (5.4%), muscle twitching (3.5%), vomiting (1.4%), loss of consciousness <30 s (1.4%), and paresthesia (0.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of VVRs among whole blood donors in Hospital Pulau Pinang appeared to be low. Our study reaffirms that blood donation is a relatively safe process, and the incidence of VVR can be further reduced by ensuring strict screening procedure before blood donation.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of CINV (i.e., acute and delayed) on breast cancer patients QOL and to discern opinions related with antiemetic guidelines used dependent on the three main races in Malaysia (Malay, Chinese, Indian).
METHODS: In this longitudinal prospective observational study, 158 breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy were interviewed and valid questionnaires (MANE and ONEM) were used to report the impact of CINV on their QOL within the first 24 hours and after 3 to 5 days of chemotherapy treatment.
RESULTS: The main result was that delayed CINV has an impact on QOL greater than acute CINV. The impact of nausea was reportedly higher than that of vomiting. Also differences in race i.e., genetic polymorphisms (pharmacogenomics) influenced the utility of antiemetic treatments and patients opinions.
CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our study a new guideline for antiemetic treatment should be used to reduce the impact of CINV on QOL, taking into account variation in genetic polymorphisms among the three races in Malaysia.
Methods: A single-centre, retrospective study evaluating posaconazole Cmin in LTx recipients receiving posaconazole suspension or MR tablets between January 2014 and December 2016.
Results: Forty-seven LTx patients received posaconazole suspension, and 78 received the MR tablet formulation; a total of 421 and 617 Cmin measurements were made, respectively. Posaconazole was concurrently administered with proton pump inhibitor in ≥ 90% of patients. The median (IQR) of initial posaconazole Cmin following 300 mg daily of posaconazole tablet was significantly higher than that of 800 mg daily of posaconazole suspension [1.65 (0.97-2.13) mg/L versus 0.81 (0.48-1.15) mg/L, P nausea/vomiting and weight loss) were reported in 3/78 (4%) patients receiving posaconazole MR tablets. Posaconazole Cmin in these three patients was determined to be 9.6, 6.2 and 2.3 mg/L.
Conclusions: The current study has provided clinically important insights into the TDM of posaconazole in LTx recipients. Routine TDM should be undertaken in LTx recipients receiving posaconazole suspension and/or MR tablets.
Methods: This study analyzed all suspected ADEs related to favipiravir reported from 2015. The reports were analyzed based on age, gender, and seriousness of ADEs at the System Organ Classification (SOC) level and the individual Preferred Term (PT) level.
Results: This study is based on 194 ADEs reported from 93 patients. Most frequent ADEs suspected to be caused by the favipiravir included increased hepatic enzymes, nausea and vomiting, tachycardia, and diarrhea. Severe and fatal ADEs occurred more frequently in men and those over the age of 64 years. Blood and lymphatic disorders, cardiac disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, injury poisoning, and procedural complications were more common manifestations of severe ADEs.
Conclusion: This study revealed that favipiravir appears to be a relatively safe drug. An undiscovered anti-inflammatory activity of favipiravir may explain the improvement in critically ill patients and reduce inflammatory markers. Currently, the data is based on very few patients. A more detailed assessment of the uncommon ADEs needs to be analyzed when more information will be available.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study. A total of 96 patients receiving LEC (52 with and 42 without granisetron) were randomly selected from the full patient list generated using the e-Hospital Information System (e-His). The rates of complete control (no CINV from days 1 to 5) and complete response (no nausea or vomiting in both acute and delayed phases) were identified through patient diaries which were adapted from the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Selected covariates including gender, age, active alcohol consumption, morning sickness and previous chemotherapy history were controlled using the multiple logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant difference with LEC regimens (p<0.001). No differences were found in age, gender, ethnic group and other baseline characteristics. The granisetron group indicated a higher complete response rate in acute emesis (adjusted OR: 0.1; 95%CI 0.02-0.85; p=0.034) than did the non-granisetron group. Both groups showed similar complete control and complete response rates for acute nausea, delayed nausea and delayed emesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron injection used as the primary prophylaxis in LEC demonstrated limited roles in CINV control. Optimization of the guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens may serve as a less costly alternative to protect patients from uncontrolled acute emesis.
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.
CONCLUSION: There are similarities and differences in CVS from South-East Asian children as compared to those described in the literature.
A 53-year-old woman presented with left-sided abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting for the past 3 months with associated loss of appetite and weight. On physical examination, there was a large, ill-defined, firm mass at the epigastrium. Ultrasonography showed heterogeneously hypoechoic filling defect within the dilated main portal vein. The filling defect showed florid signals on Doppler mode and it appeared to be an extension of a larger periportal mass. Contrast enhanced abdominal computed tomography confirmed a large distal gastric mass infiltrating into the periportal structures, including the main portal vein and the splenic vein. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed 2 days later showed an irregular, exophytic mass extending from the antrum into the first part of duodenum. The mass was deemed inoperable. Histopathological examination showed gastric adenocarcinoma. She was started on anticoagulant, chemotherapy and pain management. Follow-up computed tomography 4 months later showed liver metastases and formation of collateral blood vessels.
METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, and EBSCO Host and Science Direct databases were searched for articles related to the use of EOs and/or aromatherapy for nausea and vomiting. Only articles using English as a language of publication were included. Eligible articles included all forms of evidence (nonexperimental, experimental, case report). Interventions were limited to the use of EOs by inhalation of their vapors to treat symptoms of nausea and vomiting in various conditions regardless of age group. Studies where the intervention did not utilize EOs or were concerned with only alcohol inhalation and trials that combined the use of aromatherapy with other treatments (massage, relaxations, or acupressure) were excluded.
RESULTS: Five (5) articles met the inclusion criteria encompassing trials with 328 respondents. Their results suggest that the inhaled vapor of peppermint or ginger essential oils not only reduced the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting but also decreased antiemetic requirements and consequently improved patient satisfaction. However, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn due to methodological flaws in the existing research articles and an acute lack of additional research in this area.
CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence is encouraging but yet not compelling. Hence, further well-designed large trials are needed before confirmation of EOs effectiveness in treating nausea and vomiting can be strongly substantiated.