Medline ® Abstracts for References 108-110
of 'Prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults'
Incidence and predictors of anticipatory nausea and vomiting in Asia Pacific clinical practice--a longitudinal analysis.
Chan A, Kim HK, Hsieh RK, Yu S, de Lima Lopes G Jr, Su WC, Baños A, Bhatia S, Burke TA, Keefe DM
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Jan;23(1):283-91. Epub 2014 Aug 13.
PURPOSE: Some patients experience nausea and/or vomiting (NV) before receipt of chemotherapy. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of prior chemotherapy-induced NV (CINV) on the incidence of anticipatory NV in later cycles.
METHODS: This multicenter, prospective non-interventional study enrolled chemotherapy-naïve adults scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries, excluding those with emesis within 24 h before cycle 1 chemotherapy. On day 1 before chemotherapy, patients answered four questions regarding emesis in the past 24 h, nausea, expectation of post-chemotherapy nausea, and anxiety in the past 24 h, the latter three scored from 0-10 (none-maximum). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of prior CINV on anticipatory NV in cycles 2 and 3.
RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-eight patients (59% female) were evaluable in cycle 2 (49% HEC, 51% MEC). The incidence of anticipatory emesis was low before cycles 2 and 3 (1.5-2.3%). The incidence of clinically significant anticipatory nausea (score of≥3) was 4.8, 7.9, and 8.3% before cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with adjusted odds ratio (OR), 3.95 (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.23-7.00; p < 0.001) for patients with clinically significant nausea in prior cycles, compared with none. The adjusted ORs for other anticipatory NV endpoints ranged from 4.54-4.74 for patients with prior CINV. The occurrence of clinically significant anxiety in the prior cycle also resulted in a significantly increased likelihood of anticipatory nausea.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of preventing CINV in cycle 1 to reduce anticipatory NV in subsequent cycles.
National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore, email@example.com.
Behavioral treatment for the anticipatory nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy.
Morrow GR, Morrell C
N Engl J Med. 1982;307(24):1476.
The nausea and vomiting experienced by one in four cancer patients in anticipation of chemotherapy is probably a learned response to treatment. To determine whether behavioral approaches for altering learned responses might be useful treatments for these symptoms, we compared the effects of "systematic desensitization" (a behavioral treatment in which relaxation is learned as a response to situations in which patients have had anticipatory nausea and vomiting) with those of counseling and of no treatment. Sixty ambulatory cancer patients with anticipatory nausea and vomiting before their third and fourth chemotherapy treatments were randomized equally to the three groups. Significantly more patients receiving desensitization reported no anticipatory nausea before their fifth and sixth chemotherapy treatments than patients given counseling (P less than 0.05) or no treatment (P less than 0.01). Desensitized patients also reported significantly less severe anticipatory nausea (P less than 0.01) and vomiting (P less than 0.05) and a shorter duration of anticipatory nausea (P less than 0.01). We conclude that systematic desensitization appears to have an antiemetic effect in cancer patients who receive chemotherapy, and may be useful in the management of these problems.
Effectiveness of biofeedback and relaxation training in reducing the side effects of cancer chemotherapy.
Burish TG, Jenkins RA
Health Psychol. 1992;11(1):17.
Assessed the effectiveness of electromyographic (EMG) and skin-temperature (ST) biofeedback and relaxation training (RT) in reducing the aversiveness of cancer chemotherapy. Eighty-one cancer patients, equated on several individual-difference variables, were randomized to one of six groups formed by a 3 (EMG Biofeedback, ST Biofeedback, No Biofeedback) x 2 (RT, No RT) factorial design. Outcome was assessed with physiological, patient-reported, and nurse-reported indices taken over five consecutive chemotherapy treatments. RT patients showed decreases in nausea and anxiety during chemotherapy and physiological arousal after chemotherapy. EMG and ST biofeedback reduced some indices of physiological arousal but had no other effects on chemotherapy side effects. These findings suggest that RT can be effective in reducing the adverse consequences of chemotherapy and that the positive effects found for biofeedback in prior research were due to the RT that was given with the biofeedback, not to the biofeedback alone.
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240.