scholarly journals Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (63) ◽  
pp. 1-116
Author(s):  
Stephen Robson ◽  
Catherine McParlin ◽  
Helen Mossop ◽  
Mabel Lie ◽  
Cristina Fernandez-Garcia ◽  
...  

Background Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. Objectives To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. Design This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. Participants Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. Main outcome measures The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. Results Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. Limitations The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. Conclusions The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Bich-Thuy Truong ◽  
Elin Ngo ◽  
Hilde Ariansen ◽  
Ross T. Tsuyuki ◽  
Hedvig Nordeng

Abstract Background Maternal wellbeing and quality of life (QOL) are increasingly being recognized as important for healthy pregnancies. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a pharmacist consultation on pregnant women’s QOL focusing on nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP), and patient satisfaction. Methods For this intervention study in 14 community pharmacies, women in early pregnancy were recruited and assigned to a pharmacist consultation (intervention) or standard care (control). The consultation aimed to address each woman’s concerns regarding medications and pregnancy-related ailments. Data were collected through online questionnaires at baseline (Q1) and during the second trimester (Q2). The intervention group completed an additional satisfaction questionnaire after the consultation was completed. The primary outcome was the impact of the intervention on the Quality of Life Scale (QOLS) scores between the first and second trimesters. The impact of the intervention was assessed by linear regression, and secondary analyses were performed to assess effect modification by NVP. Results Of the 340 women enrolled in the study, we analyzed data for 245. Half (170/340) of the original participants were allocated to the intervention group, of whom 131 received the pharmacist consultation. Most women (75%, 78/96) reported that the consultation was useful to a large/very large extent. The consultation had no overall impact on QOLS scores between the first and the second trimesters compared with standard care (adjusted β: 0.7, 95% CI: -2.1, 3.4). The impact of the intervention on QOLS was greater amongst women with moderate/severe NVP (adjusted β: 3.6, 95% CI: -0.6, 7.7) compared to those with no/mild NVP (adjusted β: -1.4, 95% CI: -5.1, 2.2) (interaction term study group*NVP severity, p = 0.048). Conclusions The pregnant women highly appreciated the pharmacist consultation, but the intervention did not affect their QOL scores compared with standard care. Future studies should further explore the effect of a pharmacist consultation specifically for NVP and on other outcomes such as use of health care services and medication use in pregnancy. Trial registration Retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04182750, registration date: December 2, 2019).


1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1672-1672 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bernhard ◽  
B. Thürlimann ◽  
S.-F. Hsu Schmitz ◽  
M. Castiglione-Gertsch ◽  
F. Cavalli ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: In endocrine therapy trials in advanced breast cancer, patients with response (complete response/partial response [CR/PR]) and patients with stable disease for at least 6 months (SD6m) have shown similar survival and therefore are often defined as a population with clinical benefit (patients with CR/PR or SD6m). We evaluated the impact of response and/or clinical benefit on quality of life (QL) in postmenopausal patients under second-line endocrine treatment after failure of tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight of 177 eligible patients of a randomized trial (Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research 20/90) receiving either formestane (250 mg intramuscularly biweekly) or megestrol acetate (160 mg orally daily) were analyzed. The baseline characteristics (with the exception of site of metastases) were balanced among patients with CR/PR, SD6m, and progressive disease (PD). Patients completed QL indicators at baseline and at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 months. Responders were separately compared with nonresponders (patients with SD6m or PD) and with patients with SD6m, and patients with clinical benefit were compared with patients with PD by analysis of covariance with adjustment for baseline scores. RESULTS: Overall, 88% (557 of 634) of expected QL forms were received. In the comparison of responders versus patients with both SD6m and PD, responders indicated better physical well-being (P = .004) and mood (P = .02) at month 3. Compared only with patients with SD6m, responders showed no significant difference in baseline QL and time to treatment failure (328.5 v 340 days). While under treatment, responders reported significantly better physical well-being (months 3 to 11), mood (months 5 to 11), coping (months 5 to 9), and appetite (months 7 to 11) and less dizziness (month 9) than patients with SD6m. The changes between baseline and months 5 and 7, respectively, indicated improvement in responders but heterogeneous patterns in patients with SD6m. CONCLUSION: Although the CR/PR and SD6m groups had similar times to treatment failure, patients with CR/PR reported better QL, suggesting more beneficial response to second-line endocrine treatment. Patients' subjective perspective should be taken into account in this mainly palliative setting. Future trials should be designed so that the CR/PR and SD6m groups are investigated separately.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522199844
Author(s):  
Abdullah M Alhammad ◽  
Nora Alkhudair ◽  
Rawan Alzaidi ◽  
Latifa S Almosabhi ◽  
Mohammad H Aljawadi

Introduction Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a serious complication of cancer treatment that compromises patients’ quality of life and treatment adherence, which necessitates regular assessment. Therefore, there is a need to assess patient-reported nausea and vomiting using a validated scale among Arabic speaking cancer patient population. The objective of this study was to translate and validate the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument in Arabic, a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the influence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients’ quality of life. Methods Linguistic validation of an Arabic-language version was performed. The instrument was administered to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in a tertiary hospital's cancer center in Saudi Arabia. Results One-hundred cancer patients who received chemotherapy were enrolled. The participants’ mean age was 53.3 ± 14.9 years, and 50% were female. Half of the participants had a history of nausea and vomiting with previous chemotherapy. The Cronbach coefficient alpha for the FLIE was 0.9606 and 0.9736 for nausea and vomiting domains, respectively, which indicated an excellent reliability for the Arabic FLIE. The mean FLIE score was 110.9 ± 23.5, indicating no or minimal impact on daily life (NIDL). Conclusions The Arabic FLIE is a valid and reliable tool among the Arabic-speaking cancer population. Thus, the Arabic version of the FLIE will be a useful tool to assess the quality of life among Arabic speaking patients receiving chemotherapy. Additionally, the translated instrument will be a useful tool for future research studies to explore new antiemetic treatments among cancer patients.


1998 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Rusthoven ◽  
David Osoba ◽  
Charles A. Butts ◽  
Louise Yelle ◽  
Helen Findlay ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Cuc Thi Thu Nguyen ◽  
Binh Thanh Nguyen ◽  
Thuy Thi Thu Nguyen ◽  
Fabio Petrelli ◽  
Stefania Scuri ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document