Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Oncol Pharm Pract ; 29(6): 1317-1325, 2023 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36518002

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are two serious adverse effect of cancer chemotherapy. The objectives of this study are to assess patient satisfaction with antiemetics prescribed, incidence of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients, and the effectiveness of antiemetic regimens in reducing CINV. METHODS: This is a prospective observational cross-sectional patient survey study, conducted between January and July 2021 in the oncology center at King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A suitable, data entry form was designed to collect data including patient demographics, cancer type, antiemetics prescribed, chemotherapy regimen, and incidence of CINV. RESULTS: The sample comprised 283 cancer patients with a mean age of 47.7 (±14.6) years. Colorectal and breast cancer (n = 67; 23.6%, for each) were the two most common diagnoses. Among the patients who received chemotherapy, most patients (n = 144; 50.8%) received chemotherapy that was classified as highly emetogenic, and 139 (49%) received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Antiemetics were given to control CINV before chemotherapy administration (as prophylaxis) were either combination therapy (170 patients (60.0%) received four classes of antiemetics, 72 (25.4%) received three classes; and 31 (10.9%) received two classes) or monotherapy (six patients (2.1%) received one drug). Four patients (1.4%) did not receive any antiemetic medication. Antiemetics given to control CINV after chemotherapy administration (for delayed CINV) were also either in combination (151 patients (53.3%) received three classes of antiemetics and 94 (33.2%) received two classes) or as monotherapy, where 27 patients (9.5%) received one medication. Eleven patients (3.8%) did not receive any antiemetic. The incidence rates for acute and delayed nausea after chemotherapy treatment were 32.1% and 30.7%, respectively; and those for acute and delayed vomiting were 13.4% and 10.2%, respectively. Acute nausea was much more frequent than vomiting. CONCLUSION: The incidence of CINV was relatively high, and patients who received chemotherapy continued to experience nausea and vomiting despite receiving antiemetic treatment. This demonstrates that antiemetic regimens used are not effective in preventing CINV.


Assuntos
Antieméticos , Antineoplásicos , Neoplasias da Mama , Humanos , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Feminino , Estudos Transversais , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Vômito/induzido quimicamente , Vômito/tratamento farmacológico , Vômito/prevenção & controle , Náusea/induzido quimicamente , Náusea/tratamento farmacológico , Náusea/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico
2.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(2)2022 Feb 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35214781

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Saudi Arabia expedited the approval of some COVID-19 vaccines and launched mass vaccination campaigns. The aim of this study was to describe the demographics of vaccinated COVID-19 cases and compare the mortality rates of COVID-19 cases who were infected post-vaccination in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. We retrieved data for COVID-19 cases who were infected pre- or post-vaccination and had received at least one injection of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine from 4 December 2020 to 15 October 2021. RESULTS: The number of patients who were infected and had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was 281,744. Approximately 45% of subjects were infected post-vaccination, and 75% of subjects had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Only 0.342% of the patients who were infected post-vaccination died, and 447 patients were admitted to ICUs. Most of the patients who were infected with COVID-19 post-vaccination and were admitted to ICUs (69.84%) had received only one dose of the vaccine (p < 0.0001). The mean time to infection for patients who had received one and two doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were 27 and 8 days longer than their counterparts who had received one and two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, respectively. No difference in the odds of mortality between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines was found (OR = 1.121, 95% CI = [0.907-1.386], p-value = 0.291). Patients who had received two doses of the vaccine had significantly lower odds of mortality compared to those who had received one dose (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccines are vital in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study show no difference between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines in the rate of mortality. However, the number of vaccine doses was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of different COVID-19 vaccines using real-world data and more robust designs.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA