Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conference Series LLC LTD Events with over 1000+ Conferences, 1000+ Symposiums
and 1000+ Workshops on Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business.

Explore and learn more about Conference Series LLC LTD : World’s leading Event Organizer

Back

9th Indo Global Summit on Cancer Therapy

Hyderabad, India

Ibel C Fredy

Ibel C Fredy

PES College of Pharmacy, India

Title: Study of the pattern of antiemetic usage in cancer chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting

Biography

Biography: Ibel C Fredy

Abstract

Introduction: Cancer chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting is one of the most common and feared adverse effects in cancer patients, which not only hampers therapy, but also affects the quality of life in these patients. This study investigates patterns of antiemetic regimens, their efficacy, and the effect of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on the quality of life of the patients. The objective is to review the antiemetics prescribed in preventing/reducing CINV, to investigate effect of the combination of clinically used standard antiemetic regimens employed in CINV on the quality of life of patients, and to evaluate which antiemetic regimen is more efficacious in CINV. Methods Around 60 patients were included in the study and were followed up for 6 cycles of chemotherapy. The extent of nausea and vomiting and the effect of the same on the quality of life of the patients were assessed using a modified FLIE questionnaire, which was filled at 0h,6h, 24h and 120h following the initiation of chemotherapy. Results Comparison of the mean of the various parameters showed that the mean age of the patients enrolled was 47.55± 9.893 with 73.3% females and 26.78% males.The most common type of cancer in this study was Ca. breast (35%). Palonosetron was the most common antiemetic used (63.3%), followed by aprepitant, granisetron, and ondansetron. Dexamethasone was prescribed in all patients. Patients who were on antiemetic regimens which didn’t include aprepitant, complained of acute (75%) and delayed nausea (6%) as well as acute (45%) and delayed emesis (5%). Patients who received aprepitant had complete response (no nausea, no emesis )(100%) The quality of life parameters of patients was not affected significantly. Conclusion The combination of aprepitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone or aprepitant + dexamethasone were most commonly preferred and achieved reasonable effectiveness that did not compromise their quality of life.