Evidence-based management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a position statement from a European cancer nursing forum

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common, but now often overlooked side effect of cancer treatment, and one that can be largely prevented through the implementation of international evidence-based guidelines. The European CINV Forum, comprising nurses from France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and the UK, discussed the use of CINV preventive strategies in routine practice, and the factors that affect optimal delivery of antiemetic therapies. Based on these discussions, they developed a series of recommendations for optimal, evidence-based management of CINV. These state that all patients receiving chemotherapy should undergo full assessment of their risk of CINV and receive appropriate prophylactic treatment based on guidelines from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which were both updated in 2011. Other recommendations, aimed at raising awareness of CINV and its management, include timely updates of relevant local practice guidelines and protocols, translation of the MASCC and NCCN guidelines into all European languages and their dissemination through accessible articles in nursing journals and newsletters and via nursing conferences and study days, improved training for nurses on CINV, collaboration between the European Oncology Nursing Society and national nursing organisations to promote consistent practice, the development of a CINV toolkit, information provision for patients, local audits of CINV management, and a survey of CINV management between and within European countries

Closed-system drug-transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for reducing exposure to infusional hazardous drugs in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to hazardous drugs can decrease fertility and result in miscarriages, stillbirths, and cancers in healthcare staff. Several recommended practices aim to reduce this exposure, including protective clothing, gloves, and biological safety cabinets ('safe handling'). There is significant uncertainty as to whether using closed-system drug-transfer devices (CSTD) in addition to safe handling decreases the contamination and risk of staff exposure to infusional hazardous drugs compared to safe handling alone. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of closed-system drug-transfer of infusional hazardous drugs plus safe handling versus safe handling alone for reducing staff exposure to infusional hazardous drugs and risk of staff contamination. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH-UPDATE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index Expanded, economic evaluation databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included comparative studies of any study design (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) that compared CSTD plus safe handling versus safe handling alone for infusional hazardous drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We assessed risk of bias according to the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, used an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.10, and we assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 observational cluster studies (358 hospitals) in this review. We did not find any randomised controlled trials or formal economic evaluations. In 21 studies, the people who used the intervention (CSTD plus safe handling) and control (safe handling alone) were pharmacists or pharmacy technicians; in the other two studies, the people who used the intervention and control were nurses, pharmacists, or pharmacy technicians. The CSTD used in the studies were PhaSeal (13 studies), Tevadaptor (1 study), SpikeSwan (1 study), PhaSeal and Tevadaptor (1 study), varied (5 studies), and not stated (2 studies). The studies' descriptions of the control groups were varied. Twenty-one studies provide data on one or more outcomes for this systematic review. All the studies are at serious risk of bias. The quality of evidence is very low for all the outcomes.There is no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with positive urine tests for exposure between the CSTD and control groups for cyclophosphamide alone (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; I² = 12%; 2 studies; 2 hospitals; 20 participants; CSTD: 76.1% versus control: 91.7%); cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.79; 1 study; 1 hospital; 14 participants; CSTD: 6.4% versus control: 71.4%); and cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine (RR not estimable; 1 study; 1 hospital; 36 participants; 0% in both groups).There is no evidence of a difference in the proportion of surface samples contaminated in the pharmacy areas or patient-care areas for any of the drugs except 5-fluorouracil, which was lower in the CSTD group than in the control (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 3 studies, 106 hospitals, 1008 samples; CSTD: 9% versus control: 13.9%).The amount of cyclophosphamide was lower in pharmacy areas in the CSTD group than in the control group (MD -49.34 pg/cm², 95% CI -84.11 to -14.56, I² = 0%, 7 studies; 282 hospitals, 1793 surface samples). Additionally, one interrupted time-series study (3 hospitals; 342 samples) demonstrated a change in the slope between pre-CSTD and CSTD (3.9439 pg/cm², 95% CI 1.2303 to 6.6576; P = 0.010), but not between CSTD and post-CSTD withdrawal (-1.9331 pg/cm², 95% CI -5.1260 to 1.2598; P = 0.20). There is no evidence of difference in the amount of the other drugs between CSTD and control groups in the pharmacy areas or patient-care areas.None of the studies report on atmospheric contamination, blood tests, or other measures of exposure to infusional hazardous drugs such as urine mutagenicity, chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, or micronuclei induction.None of the studies report short-term health benefits such as reduction in skin rashes, medium-term reproductive health benefits such as fertility and parity, or long-term health benefits related to the development of any type of cancer or adverse events.Five studies (six hospitals) report the potential cost savings through the use of CSTD. The studies used different methods of calculating the costs, and the results were not reported in a format that could be pooled via meta-analysis. There is significant variability between the studies in terms of whether CSTD resulted in cost savings (the point estimates of the average potential cost savings ranged from (2017) USD -642,656 to (2017) USD 221,818). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence to support or refute the routine use of closed-system drug transfer devices in addition to safe handling of infusional hazardous drugs, as there is no evidence of differences in exposure or financial benefits between CSTD plus safe handling versus safe handling alone (very low-quality evidence). None of the studies report health benefits.Well-designed multicentre randomised controlled trials may be feasible depending upon the proportion of people with exposure. The next best study design is interrupted time-series. This design is likely to provide a better estimate than uncontrolled before-after studies or cross-sectional studies. Future studies may involve other alternate ways of reducing exposure in addition to safe handling as one intervention group in a multi-arm parallel design or factorial design trial. Future studies should have designs that decrease the risk of bias and enable measurement of direct health benefits in addition to exposure. Studies using exposure should be tested for a relevant selection of hazardous drugs used in the hospital to provide an estimate of the exposure and health benefits of using CSTD. Steps should be undertaken to ensure that there are no other differences between CSTD and control groups, so that one can obtain a reasonable estimate of the health benefits of using CSTD

A Synoptic Overview of Expert Opinion on Fisheries in a Post-Brexit World

Publisher PD

A web-based intervention (RESTORE) to support self-management of cancer-related fatigue following primary cancer treatment: a multi-centre proof of concept randomised controlled trial

. A web-based intervention (RESTORE) to support self-management of cancer-related fatigue following primary cancer treatment: a multi-centre proof of concept randomised controlled trial. Supportive Care in Cancer, Results One hundred and sixty-three people participated in the trial and 19 in the process evaluation. The intervention was feasible (39 % of eligible patients consented) and acceptable (attrition rate 36 %). There was evidence of higher fatigue self-efficacy at T1 in the intervention group vs comparator (mean difference 0.51 [−0.08 to 1.11]), though the difference in groups decreased by 12 weeks. Time since diagnosis influenced perceived usefulness of the intervention. Modifications were suggested

Immunological aspects in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) development

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is unique among B cell malignancies in that the malignant clones can be featured either somatically mutated or unmutated IGVH genes. CLL cells that express unmutated immunoglobulin variable domains likely underwent final development prior to their entry into the germinal center, whereas those that express mutated variable domains likely transited through the germinal center and then underwent final development. Regardless, the cellular origin of CLL remains unknown. The aim of this review is to summarize immunological aspects involved in this process and to provide insights about the complex biology and pathogenesis of this disease. We propose a mechanistic hypothesis to explain the origin of B-CLL clones into our current picture of normal B cell development. In particular, we suggest that unmutated CLL arises from normal B cells with self-reactivity for apoptotic bodies that have undergone receptor editing, CD5 expression, and anergic processes in the bone marrow. Similarly, mutated CLL would arise from cells that, while acquiring self-reactivity for autoantigens—including apoptotic bodies—in germinal centers, are also still subject to tolerization mechanisms, including receptor editing and anergy. We believe that CLL is a proliferation of B lymphocytes selected during clonal expansion through multiple encounters with (auto)antigens, despite the fact that they differ in their state of activation and maturation. Autoantigens and microbial pathogens activate BCR signaling and promote tolerogenic mechanisms such as receptor editing/revision, anergy, CD5+ expression, and somatic hypermutation in CLL B cells. The result of these tolerogenic mechanisms is the survival of CLL B cell clones with similar surface markers and homogeneous gene expression signatures. We suggest that both immunophenotypic surface markers and homogenous gene expression might represent the evidence of several attempts to re-educate self-reactive B cells

TAXONOMY OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS INFORMATION FOR THE FUTURE LONG-RANGE ASSAULT AIRCRAFT (FLRAA) MEDICAL EVACUATION (MEDEVAC) CO-PILOT

This study identifies and classifies situational awareness information for copilots in the MEDEVAC mission set of Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) platforms. It also provides a basis for follow-on projects to conduct similar research and analysis into other aircrew members, other FLRAA missions, and other Future Vertical Lift (FVL) platforms including Future Attack Reconnaissance (FARA) and the future unmanned platforms. This report describes a five-phased methodology that is both repeatable and expandable. Follow-on capstone projects can leverage this method to identify the top situational awareness information for the various mission sets and crew positions. Once the critical situational awareness information is identified and classified, the latest technologies can be proposed against those functions to maximize situational awareness. In addition, the situational awareness drivers can then be leveraged toward the identification of cognitive workload drivers when combined with user surveys.Civilian, Department of the ArmyCivilian, Department of the ArmyCivilian, Department of the ArmyCivilian, Department of the ArmyCivilian, Department of the ArmyCivilian, Department of the ArmyApproved for public release. Distribution is unlimited