Displaying all 7 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Usman AN, Manju B, Ilhamuddin I, Ahmad M, Ab T, Ariyandy A, et al.
    Breast Dis, 2023;42(1):207-212.
    PMID: 37424457 DOI: 10.3233/BD-239003
    BACKGROUND: Cancer is a type of disease caused by the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells that can destroy body tissues. The use of traditional medicine naturally uses plants from ginger with the maceration method. The ginger plant is a herbaceous flowering plant with the Zingiberaceacea group.

    METHODS: This study uses the literature review method by reviewing 50 articles from journals and databases.

    RESULTS: A review of several articles, namely ginger has bioactive components such as gingerol. Ginger is used as a treatment in complementary therapies using plants. Ginger is a strategy with many benefits and functions as a nutritional complement to the body. This benefit has shown the effect of anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anticancer against nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy in breast cancer.

    CONCLUSION: Anticancer in ginger is shown by polyphenols associated with anti-metastatic, anti-proliferative, antiangiogenic, anti-inflammatory, cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, and autophagy. Therefore, consuming ginger regularly affects natural herbal therapy with the prevention and treatment of breast cancer and serves as a prevention against the effects of chemotherapy.

    Matched MeSH terms: Nausea/prevention & control
  2. Chan A, Abdullah MM, Ishak WZBW, Ong-Cornel AB, Villalon AH, Kanesvaran R
    J Glob Oncol, 2017 Dec;3(6):801-813.
    PMID: 29244998 DOI: 10.1200/JGO.2016.005728
    A meeting of regional experts was convened in Manila, Philippines, to develop a resource-stratified chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) management guideline. In patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy in general clinical settings, triple therapy with a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT3]) antagonist (preferably palonosetron), dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for acute CINV prevention. In resource-restricted settings, triple therapy is still recommended, although a 5-HT3 antagonist other than palonosetron may be used. In both general and resource-restricted settings, dual therapy with dexamethasone (days 2 to 4) and aprepitant (days 2 to 3) is recommended to prevent delayed CINV. In patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dual therapy with a 5-HT3 antagonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is recommended for acute CINV prevention in general settings; any 5-HT3 antagonist can be combined with dexamethasone in resource-restricted environments. In general settings, for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, corticosteroid monotherapy on days 2 and 3 is recommended. If aprepitant is used on day 1, it should be continued on days 2 and 3. Prevention of delayed CINV with corticosteroids is preferred in resource-restricted settings. The expert panel also developed CINV management guidelines for anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide combination schedules, multiday cisplatin, and chemotherapy with low or minimal emetogenic potential, and its recommendations are detailed in this review. Overall, these regional guidelines provide definitive guidance for CINV management in general and resource-restricted settings. These consensus recommendations are anticipated to contribute to collaborative efforts to improve CINV management in Southeast Asia.
    Matched MeSH terms: Nausea/prevention & control*
  3. Keat CH, Ghani NA
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2013;14(12):7701-6.
    PMID: 24460356
    BACKGROUND: In a prospective cohort study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Malaysia, a total of 94 patients received low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with or without granisetron injections as the primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study is a retrospective cost analysis of two antiemetic regimens from the payer perspective.

    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.

    Matched MeSH terms: Nausea/prevention & control
  4. Keat CH, Phua G, Abdul Kassim MS, Poh WK, Sriraman M
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2013;14(1):469-73.
    PMID: 23534775
    BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to examine the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with and without granisetron injection as the primary prophylaxis in addition to dexamethasone and metochlopramide.

    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.

    Matched MeSH terms: Nausea/prevention & control*
  5. Chanthawong S, Lim YH, Subongkot S, Chan A, Andalusia R, Ahmad Bustamam RS, et al.
    Support Care Cancer, 2019 Mar;27(3):1109-1119.
    PMID: 30112718 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4400-1
    PURPOSE: Recent studies suggested that olanzapine, together with dexamethasone and serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), is effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This regimen is particularly useful in Southeast Asia (SEA) countries where resources are limited. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating olanzapine into standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC among SEA countries.

    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.

    Matched MeSH terms: Nausea/prevention & control*
  6. Malik AS, Khairuddin RN, Amin HU, Smith ML, Kamel N, Abdullah JM, et al.
    Biomed Eng Online, 2015;14:21.
    PMID: 25886584 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-015-0006-8
    Consumer preference is rapidly changing from 2D to 3D movies due to the sensational effects of 3D scenes, like those in Avatar and The Hobbit. Two 3D viewing technologies are available: active shutter glasses and passive polarized glasses. However, there are consistent reports of discomfort while viewing in 3D mode where the discomfort may refer to dizziness, headaches, nausea or simply not being able to see in 3D continuously.
    Matched MeSH terms: Nausea/prevention & control*
  7. Chasen M, Urban L, Schnadig I, Rapoport B, Powers D, Arora S, et al.
    Support Care Cancer, 2017 01;25(1):85-92.
    PMID: 27557833
    PURPOSE: Addition of rolapitant to standard antiemetic therapy improved protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in phase 3 trials of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Here, we assessed the impact of CINV on the daily lives of patients receiving HEC or MEC using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

    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.

    RESULTS: In the pooled HEC studies, rolapitant significantly improved the FLIE total score (114.5 vs 109.3, p nausea score (55.3 vs 53.5, p control; similar results were observed in the MEC/AC study for FLIE total score (112.7 vs 108.6, p nausea score (54.1 vs 52.3, p control in the MEC/AC study (73.2 vs 67.4, p = 0.027).

    CONCLUSIONS: Compared with control, rolapitant improved quality of life in patients receiving HEC or MEC.

    Matched MeSH terms: Nausea/prevention & control*
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links