Background： Few studies have attempted to evaluate the use of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting （CINV） at a national level in China or to assess how treatment regimens adhere to current...Background： Few studies have attempted to evaluate the use of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting （CINV） at a national level in China or to assess how treatment regimens adhere to current guidelines. Methods： We searched the China Health Insurance Research Association （CHIRA） Database to identify patients with cancer who were 〉 18 years old and received either moderately or highly emetogenie chemotherapy （MEC and HEC, respectively） between 2008 and 2012. Patients＇ characteristics as well as usage of specific antiemetic regimens were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results： Of the 14,548 patients included in the study, 6,477 received HEC while 8,071 were treated with MEC. Approximately 89.9% used antiemetics prophylactically to prevent acute CINV and 71.5% for delayed CINV while 9.0% were prescribed antiemetics as rescue therapy. A significantly lower proportion of patients treated with HEC received prophylactic antiemetic therapy for delayed CINV as compared to those treated with MEC （59.4% vs. 81.3 %; P〈0.001）. The HEC group had a slightly lower proportion of patients using a mixed regimen containing a 5-HT3 antagonist to prevent both acute and delayed CINV than the MEC group （P〈0.012）; however, a higher proportion received a mixed regimen containing eorticosteroids （P≤0.007）. Although more than half of the patients in the HEC group took three antiemeties to prevent acute and delayed CINV, these rates were significantly lower than those of the MEC group （both P〈0.001）. Finally, analysis of the regimens used revealed that there is over-utilization of drugs within the same class of antiemetic. Conclusions： These findings indicate that more attention is needed for treatment of delayed CINV, in terms of both overall use and the components of a typical treatment regimen.展开更多
目的探讨个体化饮食指导结合人文关怀对肺癌合并2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者血糖水平、生活质量及化疗依从性的影响。方法将82例肺癌合并T2DM患者根据干预方法不同分为对照组和观察组,各41例;对照组给予常规干预,观察组在对照组基础上给予个体...目的探讨个体化饮食指导结合人文关怀对肺癌合并2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者血糖水平、生活质量及化疗依从性的影响。方法将82例肺癌合并T2DM患者根据干预方法不同分为对照组和观察组,各41例;对照组给予常规干预,观察组在对照组基础上给予个体化饮食指导结合人文关怀;比较干预前和干预3个月后两组患者的血糖、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平和生活质量;比较干预3个月后两组患者的化疗依从性和不良反应发生率。结果干预前,两组患者的血糖、HbA1c、焦虑自评量表(SAS)和抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P﹥0.05);干预3个月后,观察组患者的空腹血糖(FPG)、餐后2 h血糖(2 h PG)、HbA1c、SAS和SDS评分均低于对照组患者(P﹤0.05)。干预3个月后,观察组患者的化疗依从率97.56%高于对照组患者的78.05%;观察组患者食欲减退、恶心呕吐、腹泻和粒细胞减少的发生率分别为17.07%、19.51%、7.32%和24.39%,均低于对照组患者的36.59%、41.46%、29.27%和51.22%(P﹤0.05)。结论个体化饮食指导结合人文关怀能够明显降低肺癌合并T2DM患者的血糖和HbA1c水平,改善患者心理状态,提高患者化疗依从性,并降低不良反应发生率。展开更多
Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common malignant diseases in women and adjuvant combination chemotherapy has been shown to reduce mortality from this disease. Adherence to medical treatment is a multiface...Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common malignant diseases in women and adjuvant combination chemotherapy has been shown to reduce mortality from this disease. Adherence to medical treatment is a multifaceted issue that can substantially alter the outcomes of therapy. Patient non-adherence to chemotherapy is the ultimate barrier to the treatment effectiveness. Objective: This study was carried out to determine the relationship between cancer chemotherapy adherence and breast cancer staging, patient’s perception of cancer care and patient’s socio-demographic characteristics. Material and method: This was a cross sectional study selection of respondents and was based on simple random sampling technique, 184 patients were interviewed and data was collected using a semi-structured questionnaire to obtain socio-demographic data, adherence data, and facility-related information. Results: There was a significant association between marital status and non-adherence (P?= 0.013). Both separated and single subjects had higher proportion of non-adherence compared with married subjects. Analysis of perception of chemotherapy care revealed a significant association between the satisfaction score and non-adherence, with non-adherent patients showing higher scores or being less satisfied. The quality of service (P?= 0.0052);rating of needs been met (P?= 0.0079);rating on whether the services helped the subject (P?= 0.0405);rating on the general satisfaction of the services provided (P?= 0.0115);and rating on whether subject would seek help again (P?= 0.0320) all had a significant association with non-adherence. Conclusion: The awareness of oncologist and patient of the problem of non-adherence and communication regarding the importance of adherence to therapy may improve health outcomes.展开更多
基金supported by MSD Holding Co.,Ltd.The funding was only for the payment of using CHIRA database
文摘Background： Few studies have attempted to evaluate the use of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting （CINV） at a national level in China or to assess how treatment regimens adhere to current guidelines. Methods： We searched the China Health Insurance Research Association （CHIRA） Database to identify patients with cancer who were 〉 18 years old and received either moderately or highly emetogenie chemotherapy （MEC and HEC, respectively） between 2008 and 2012. Patients＇ characteristics as well as usage of specific antiemetic regimens were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results： Of the 14,548 patients included in the study, 6,477 received HEC while 8,071 were treated with MEC. Approximately 89.9% used antiemetics prophylactically to prevent acute CINV and 71.5% for delayed CINV while 9.0% were prescribed antiemetics as rescue therapy. A significantly lower proportion of patients treated with HEC received prophylactic antiemetic therapy for delayed CINV as compared to those treated with MEC （59.4% vs. 81.3 %; P〈0.001）. The HEC group had a slightly lower proportion of patients using a mixed regimen containing a 5-HT3 antagonist to prevent both acute and delayed CINV than the MEC group （P〈0.012）; however, a higher proportion received a mixed regimen containing eorticosteroids （P≤0.007）. Although more than half of the patients in the HEC group took three antiemeties to prevent acute and delayed CINV, these rates were significantly lower than those of the MEC group （both P〈0.001）. Finally, analysis of the regimens used revealed that there is over-utilization of drugs within the same class of antiemetic. Conclusions： These findings indicate that more attention is needed for treatment of delayed CINV, in terms of both overall use and the components of a typical treatment regimen.
文摘目的探讨个体化饮食指导结合人文关怀对肺癌合并2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者血糖水平、生活质量及化疗依从性的影响。方法将82例肺癌合并T2DM患者根据干预方法不同分为对照组和观察组,各41例;对照组给予常规干预,观察组在对照组基础上给予个体化饮食指导结合人文关怀;比较干预前和干预3个月后两组患者的血糖、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平和生活质量;比较干预3个月后两组患者的化疗依从性和不良反应发生率。结果干预前,两组患者的血糖、HbA1c、焦虑自评量表(SAS)和抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P﹥0.05);干预3个月后,观察组患者的空腹血糖(FPG)、餐后2 h血糖(2 h PG)、HbA1c、SAS和SDS评分均低于对照组患者(P﹤0.05)。干预3个月后,观察组患者的化疗依从率97.56%高于对照组患者的78.05%;观察组患者食欲减退、恶心呕吐、腹泻和粒细胞减少的发生率分别为17.07%、19.51%、7.32%和24.39%,均低于对照组患者的36.59%、41.46%、29.27%和51.22%(P﹤0.05)。结论个体化饮食指导结合人文关怀能够明显降低肺癌合并T2DM患者的血糖和HbA1c水平,改善患者心理状态,提高患者化疗依从性,并降低不良反应发生率。
文摘Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common malignant diseases in women and adjuvant combination chemotherapy has been shown to reduce mortality from this disease. Adherence to medical treatment is a multifaceted issue that can substantially alter the outcomes of therapy. Patient non-adherence to chemotherapy is the ultimate barrier to the treatment effectiveness. Objective: This study was carried out to determine the relationship between cancer chemotherapy adherence and breast cancer staging, patient’s perception of cancer care and patient’s socio-demographic characteristics. Material and method: This was a cross sectional study selection of respondents and was based on simple random sampling technique, 184 patients were interviewed and data was collected using a semi-structured questionnaire to obtain socio-demographic data, adherence data, and facility-related information. Results: There was a significant association between marital status and non-adherence (P?= 0.013). Both separated and single subjects had higher proportion of non-adherence compared with married subjects. Analysis of perception of chemotherapy care revealed a significant association between the satisfaction score and non-adherence, with non-adherent patients showing higher scores or being less satisfied. The quality of service (P?= 0.0052);rating of needs been met (P?= 0.0079);rating on whether the services helped the subject (P?= 0.0405);rating on the general satisfaction of the services provided (P?= 0.0115);and rating on whether subject would seek help again (P?= 0.0320) all had a significant association with non-adherence. Conclusion: The awareness of oncologist and patient of the problem of non-adherence and communication regarding the importance of adherence to therapy may improve health outcomes.
