Cancer-related fatigue: clinical practice versus practice guidelines

Purpose This study investigated adherence to treatment guidelines on cancer-related anaemia and fatigue (CRA/CRF) and factors influencing the choice of intervention. Methods In this prospective, observational study, 136 cancer patients being treated with chemotherapy in a large community hospital completed a questionnaire at consecutive outpatient visits assessing fatigue (the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Fatigue) and fatigue-related counselling and advice received. Data on administration of chemotherapy and use of epoetin or blood transfusions were abstracted from the medical records. Results Fifty-three percent of patients with severe anaemia (Hb<10 g/dl) and 6% of patients with less severe anaemia (Hb levels 10-12 g/dl) received treatment (epoetin and/or blood transfusions). Half of the patients with less severe anaemia reported clinically relevant levels of fatigue. More than 50% of all patients received fatigue-related counselling, primarily at the start of chemotherapy. Most counselling was directed at energy conservation. Fatigue was not associated significantly with the use of epoetin or blood transfusion. Patients receiving palliative treatment (17%), male patients (16%) and patients with a low Hb level (<6.2 g/dl, 38%) were treated significantly more often with epoetin. Conclusions In daily clinical practice, guidelines concerning the use of epoetin or blood transfusion in severe CRA are adhered to in about half of the cases. In patients with less severe anaemia, the level of fatigue did not play a significant role in the use of epoetin. According to current guidelines, counselling on CRF should be directed primarily at activity enhancement. However, only a minority of patients receive such counselling

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in daily clinical practice: a community hospital-based study

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are major adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy. This study investigated: (1) the impact of CINV on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL) in daily clinical practice; (2) the association between patient characteristics and type of antiemetics and CINV; and (3) the role of CINV in physicians' decisions to modify antiemetic treatment. Patients and methods This prospective, multicenter study was conducted in nine general hospitals in the Netherlands. During three consecutive chemotherapy cycles, patients used a diary to record episodes of nausea, vomiting and antiemetic use. For each cycle, these ratings were made 1 day prior to and 7 days after having received chemotherapy. The influence of CINV on patients' HRQL was evaluated with the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire at day 6 of each treatment cycle. (Changes in) antiemetic use were recorded by the treating nurse. Patient inclusion took place between May 2005 and May 2007. Results Two hundred seventy-seven patients were enrolled in the study. Acute and delayed nausea during the first treatment cycle was reported by 39% and 68% of the patients, respectively. The comparable figures for acute and delayed vomiting were 12% and 23%. During the first and subsequent treatment cycle, approximately one-third of the patients indicated that CINV had a substantial impact on their daily lives. Female patients and younger patients reported significantly more CINV than male and older patients. At all treatment cycles, patients receiving treatment with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, containing anthracycline, reported more acute nausea than patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Acute vomiting was associated significantly with change in (i.e., additional) antiemetic treatment. Delayed CINV did not influence antiemetic treatment. Conclusion CINV continues to be a problem that adversely affects the daily lives of patients. CINV is worse in women and in younger patients. In daily clinical practice, acute CINV, but not delayed CINV, results in changes in antiemetic treatment. In view of the effects of not only acute, but also delayed CINV on daily life, more attention should be paid to adjustment of antiemetic treatment to cover CINV complaints, later during the chemotherapy cycle

Nationwide Outcomes of Advanced Melanoma According to BRAF(V600) Status

Item does not contain fulltex

A comparison of the effectiveness of different doses of tocilizumab and sarilumab in the treatment of severe COVID-19: a natural experiment due to drug shortages

Objectives: Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real-world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors. Methods: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed-dose tocilizumab, low-dose tocilizumab, and fixed-dose sarilumab treatment groups. Results: A total of 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios (HRs) for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.39), low-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31), and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds of progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low-dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group. Conclusion: We found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time-associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted

A comparison of the effectiveness of different doses of tocilizumab and sarilumab in the treatment of severe COVID-19: a natural experiment due to drug shortages

Objectives: Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real-world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors. Methods: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed-dose tocilizumab, low-dose tocilizumab, and fixed-dose sarilumab treatment groups. Results: A total of 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios (HRs) for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.39), low-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31), and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds of progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low-dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group. Conclusion: We found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time-associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted

Nationwide Outcomes of Advanced Melanoma According to BRAFV600Status

Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of patients with BRAFV600wild-type and BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma in the Netherlands.Methods:We selected patients of 18 years and over, diagnosed between 2016 and 2017 with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. To assess the association of BRAFV600-mutation status with OS we used the Cox proportional-hazards model.Results:A total of 642 BRAFV600wild-type and 853 mutant patients were included in the analysis. Median OS did not differ significantly between both groups, 15.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.2-19.2) versus 20.6 months (95% CI: 18.3-25.0). Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were significantly lower for BRAFV600wild-type patients compared with BRAFV600-mutant patients, 72.0% (95% CI: 68.6-75.6) and 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2-60.0) versus 83.4% (95% CI: 80.9-85.9) and 65.7% (95% CI: 62.6-69.0). Two-year survival was not significantly different between both groups, 41.1% (95% CI: 37.2-45.3) versus 47.0% (95% CI: 43.6-60.6). Between 0 and 10 months, BRAFV600wild-type patients had a decreased survival with a hazard ratio for OS of 2.00 (95% CI: 1.62-2.46) but this effect disappeared after 10 months. At 12 months, BRAFV600-mutant patients had started with second-line systemic treatment more often compared with BRAFV600wild-type patients (50% vs. 19%).Conclusion:These results suggest that advanced BRAFV600wild-type melanoma patients have worse survival than BRAFV600-mutated patients during the first 10 months after diagnosis because of less available treatment options