The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia. METHODS: The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods. CONCLUSION: Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

Advances in clinical pharmacy education in Germany: a quasi-experimental single-blinded study to evaluate a patient-centred clinical pharmacy course in psychiatry.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacy profession has shifted towards patient-centred care. To meet the new challenges it is necessary to provide students with clinical competencies. A quasi-experimental single-blinded teaching and learning study was carried out using a parallel-group design to evaluate systematically the benefits of clinical teaching in pharmacy education in Germany. METHODS: A clinical pharmacy course on a psychiatric ward was developed and implemented for small student groups. The learning aims included: the improvement of patient and interdisciplinary communication skills and the identification and management of pharmaceutical care issues. The control group participated only in the preparation lecture, while the intervention group took part in the complete course. The effects were assessed by an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and a student satisfaction survey. RESULTS: The intervention group achieved significantly better overall results on the OSCE assessment (46.20 ± 10.01 vs. 26.58 ± 12.91 of a maximum of 90 points; p < 0.0001).The practical tasks had the greatest effect, as reflected in the outcomes of tasks 1-5 (34.94 ± 9.60 vs. 18.63 ± 10.24 of a maximum of 60 points; p < 0.0001). Students' performance on the theoretical tasks (tasks 6-10) was improved but unsatisfying in both groups considering the maximum score (11.50 ± 4.75 vs. 7.50 ± 4.00 of a maximum of 30 points; p < 0.0001). Of the students, 93% rated the course as practice-orientated, and 90% felt better prepared for patient contact. Many students suggested a permanent implementation and an extension of the course. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the developed ward-based course provided learning benefits for clinical skills. Students' perception of the course was positive. Implementation into the regular clinical pharmacy curriculum is therefore advisable.

Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The aim of this project was to develop clinical practice guidelines on the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and management of oral mucositis (OM) in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was conducted. The body of evidence for the use of each agent, in each setting, was assigned a level of evidence. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible. RESULTS: A recommendation was developed in favor of patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Suggestions were developed in favor of transdermal fentanyl in standard dose chemotherapy and HSCT patients and morphine mouth rinse and doxepin rinse in head and neck radiation therapy (H&N RT) patients. Recommendations were developed against the use of topical antimicrobial agents for the prevention of mucositis. These included recommendations against the use of iseganan for mucositis prevention in HSCT and H&N RT and against the use of antimicrobial lozenges (polymyxin-tobramycin-amphotericin B lozenges/paste and bacitracin-clotrimazole-gentamicin lozenges) for mucositis prevention in H&N RT. Recommendations were developed against the use of the mucosal coating agent sucralfate for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy-induced or radiation-induced OM. No guidelines were possible for any other agent due to insufficient and/or conflicting evidence. CONCLUSION: Additional well-designed research is needed on prevention and management approaches for OM.

Adherence to hospital discharge medication in patients with ischemic stroke: a prospective, interventional 2-phase study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Communication between hospitals and primary care physicians is essential for the continuity of care for patients being transferred from hospital to ambulatory care. Patients are often discharged from hospital on medication regimes different from those used before hospital admission. The aim of the study was to evaluate the adherence to hospital discharge medication in patients with ischemic stroke before and after implementing a systematic approach provided by a clinical pharmacist. METHODS: Patients with transient ischemic attack/ischemic stroke taking ≥ 2 drugs during hospital stay and at discharge were prospectively recruited. In the control group, the neurologist included the medication list in the discharge letter as before. In the intervention group, the clinical pharmacist listed the medication on admission and at discharge next to each other and gave detailed information for all medication changes during hospital stay. RESULTS: Overall, 312 patients were enrolled in the study with 156 patients in each group. Significant differences between the control group and intervention group were ascertained with regard to adherence to both antithrombotic drugs (83.8% control group versus 91.9% intervention group [P=0.033]) and to statin therapy (69.8% control group versus 87.7% intervention group [P<0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Providing detailed information on medication changes can lead to substantially improved adherence to discharge medication, probably resulting in better secondary stroke prevention.

Drug-related problems in patients with ischemic stroke in hospital.

BACKGROUND: Drug therapy is getting more complex, thus making it more challenging to prescribe appropriate drug therapy. Accordingly, in clinical practice, a wide range of drug-related problems (DRP) may arise; they are relatively common in hospitalised patients and can result in patient morbidity and mortality, and increased costs. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate the nature and frequency of DRPs along with pharmaceutical interventions to address them in patients with ischemic stroke from hospital admission to discharge. METHOD: From January to June 2011 patients with ischemic stroke, who were taking >2 drugs during hospital stay and at discharge, were recruited. A clinical pharmacist performed medication reconciliation on admission, and checked the medication records during the hospital stay regularly. DRPs were categorized by APS-Doc. Results In total, DRPs occurred in 105/155 (67.7 %) patients: Overall 271 DRPs were documented, with a mean of 1.8 ± 2.0 DRPs per patient. The DRPs occurred mainly in the categories "drug", "indication", and "dosage". CONCLUSION: In conclusion, DRPs are relatively common in hospitalised patients and may occur at any part of the prescribing process. The clinical pharmacist can provide a valuable contribution in the multidisciplinary team to an optimized pharmacotherapy in patients with ischemic stroke.