Computerized system for outcomes-based antiemetic therapy in children

Guideline for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic medication in pediatric cancer patients

This guideline provides an approach to the prevention of acute antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting (AINV) in children. It was developed by an international, inter-professional panel using AGREE and CAN-IMPLEMENT methods. Evidence-based interventions that provide optimal AINV control in children receiving antineoplastic agents of high, moderate, low, and minimal emetogenicity are recommended. Recommendations are also made regarding selection of antiemetic agents for children who are unable to receive corticosteroids for AINV control, the role of aprepitant and optimal doses of antiemetic agents. Gaps in the evidence used to support the recommendations were identified. The contribution of this guideline to AINV control in children requires prospective evaluation.

Development and validation of the pediatric nausea assessment tool for use in children receiving antineoplastic agents

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate an instrument to assess nausea intensity in children aged 4-18 years.

DESIGN

Prospective, descriptive study.

SETTING

Tertiary-quaternary, university-affiliated pediatric hospital.

PATIENTS

Four pediatric inpatient groups (177 patients): group 1 (107), those receiving cancer chemotherapy; group 2 (24), those receiving cancer chemotherapy before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; group 3 (23), those with cancer who were not receiving cancer chemotherapy; and group 4 (23), those without cancer.

INTERVENTION

We developed a scale with a standard script for administration, the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT). Revisions were made after face validity testing with clinicians and parents, and pilot testing with 15 inpatients undergoing chemotherapy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The PeNAT scores were obtained 4-24 hours after chemotherapy in groups 1 and 2. Dietary intake scores and number of emetic episodes were recorded for the 4 hours before PeNAT administration for all patients in group 2 and 36 patients in group 1. Parents of a subset of patients made an independent assessment of their child's nausea and pain intensities immediately before PeNAT administration. Reliability was evaluated in groups 1 and 2 by correlating the first and second (obtained 1 hr after the first) PeNAT scores. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing PeNAT scores in groups 1-4. Criterion-related validity was evaluated by correlating PeNAT scores with emetic episodes and dietary intake. Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlating PeNAT scores with parental assessments of nausea and pain. Significant differences in PeNAT scores were noted among the study groups (p=0.035). Moderate correlation was noted between the first and second PeNAT scores (Spearman rho = 0.649). The PeNAT scores correlated modestly with emetic episodes (Spearman rho = 0.322) but not with dietary intake (Spearman rho = -0.217). Children's PeNAT scores correlated moderately with their parents' assessment of nausea (Spearman rho = 0.442), whereas little correlation was seen between children's PeNAT scores and parents' assessment of pain (Spearman rho = 0.167).

CONCLUSION

The PeNAT is a new instrument that can be used by children to assess nausea intensity.

Measuring Nausea and Vomiting in Adolescents

Several instruments have been developed over the years to assess nausea and vomiting in adults, yet their validity and reliability with children are unknown. It would be useful to have an instrument simple enough for use with the vast majority of children (regardless of age and developmental level) to provide a consistent way to measure nausea and vomiting throughout the pediatric population. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of using one or more adult instruments with adolescents. A feasibility study was conducted using three existing instruments designed to measure nausea and vomiting. A convenience sample of 10 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18 years receiving chemotherapy was recruited at a Midwestern children's hospital oncology unit. The adolescents were assessed using instruments starting before and continuing after one individual round of chemotherapy. A qualitative analysis demonstrated significant problems in implementing all three instruments with adolescents. Future research should concentrate on original instrument development based on qualitative studies that seek to understand the unique experience of a child with cancer.

Acute and delayed nausea and emesis control in pediatric oncology patients

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge there is little information available regarding the effectiveness of standard antiemetic therapy among cancer patients who receive emetogenic chemotherapy in clinical practice, especially in the pediatric population. The current study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of standard antiemetic interventions among children receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of antiemetic surveys for children who received emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients and/or their parents were surveyed for acute and delayed nausea and emesis after each course of emetogenic chemotherapy. The survey consisted of validated measures of the severity of nausea and emesis. Complete protection (CP) rates were calculated for each chemotherapy regimen during both the acute and delayed phases and also by gender and age group (ages birth-3 yrs, 4-11 yrs, and 12-20 yrs). Antiemetic therapy consisted of intravenous ondansetron administered once daily during chemotherapy either alone (for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy) or in combination with dexamethasone (for severely emetogenic chemotherapy).

RESULTS

In total, 224 different patients completed 1256 surveys. CP from both acute and delayed nausea and emesis was more likely in the children ages birth-3 years than in older children. For moderately emetogenic regimens, nausea and emesis in the acute and delayed phases were controlled well. Among severely emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, 7 of 12 different regimen types had CP rates < 50% in either the acute phase or the delayed phase. CP rates were particularly low for cisplatin-based and cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Nausea and emesis remain significant problems among children who receive emetogenic chemotherapy. CP rates were associated significantly with patient age, and higher rates were observed among very young children.

Development of questionnaires to measure patient preferences for intranasal corticosteroids in patients with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To develop a questionnaire to evaluate preferences for attributes of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) in clinical trials with allergic rhinitis (AR) patients.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Established questionnaire development practices were used, including performance of a literature review and use of patient and physician focus groups, cognitive debriefing interviews, and pilot testing before validation.

RESULTS

Findings from patient and physician focus groups suggest that sensory attributes are relevant to AR patients when choosing INSs. Physician focus groups identified the need for 2 distinct preference instruments, a clinical trial patient preference questionnaire (CTPPQ) and a clinical practice preference questionnaire (CPPPQ). A pilot study suggests that the CTPPQ is capable of discriminating between 2 INSs in the clinical trial setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial findings suggest that items in the CTPPQ and CPPPQ are easy to understand and relevant to patients. Further validation studies with larger sample sizes are needed to assess the psychometric properties of both questionnaires.

EBM RATING

B-20.

Ondansetron for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting following pediatric strabismus surgery

BACKGROUND

Neither droperidol nor ondansetron has been proven completely effective, and there are conflicting data comparing the efficacy of the two agents. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and cost of a combination of ondansetron administered intravenously in the operating room followed by oral ondansetron treatment at home with the more commonly used treatment of intravenous droperidol therapy and oral dimenhydrinate therapy, for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

METHODS

Double-blind randomized clinical trial with parallel comparison groups. All patients aged 6 months to 18 years who underwent strabismus surgery at a pediatric hospital in Montreal between Nov. 13, 2000, and June 12, 2001, were included. The exclusion criteria were nausea or vomiting, or use of antiemetics or narcotics in the 24 hours preceding surgery, and past history of hepatic, gastric or renal disease. The outcome measures were frequency of nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea and adverse effects in hospital, during transportation home and during the first 24 hours at home. Data were obtained through nursing notes and through a telephone interview conducted 24 to 48 hours after discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 208 eligible patients, 172 were randomly assigned to the study groups (88 to the ondansetron group and 84 to the droperidol/dimenhydrinate group). We found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting in hospital or at home between the two groups (25.3% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.371). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the rate of vomiting during transportation home (3.6% vs. 12.6%, p = 0.044). The incidence of severe nausea was 14.4% with ondansetron and 15.4% with droperidol, a nonsignificant difference (p = 1.00). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in the incidence of any nausea (p = 0.434) or adverse effects (p = 0.220). We calculated that the combination of droperidol and dimenhydrinate was seven times less costly than the ondansetron regimen.

INTERPRETATION

In this study, the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of droperidol followed by oral use of dimenhydrinate did not differ from that of intravenous followed by oral use of ondansetron in children undergoing strabismus surgery. Since treatment with ondansetron is much more costly than the combination of droperidol and dimenhydrinate, at this time the use of ondansetron in the prevention and treatment of vomiting and nausea in this population may not be beneficial on a cost basis if all other variables are considered.

The use of handheld computers in clinical trials

A recently completed, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial is presented in which Palm handheld computers were used as a substitute for normal paper-based patient diaries. In this nasal provocation study, a common antihistamine approved for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis was tested against placebo for evidence of additional properties. In addition to their medical examinations, the 12 study volunteers rated subjective complaints in a diary program on 4 examination days, for a duration of 4.5 hours every 15 minutes at each visit. This resulted in 903 data sets consisting of five questions each, or 4515 data points total. In this study the use of handheld computers resulted in an increase in data quality and shortened the time needed to close the database. Moreover, the benefit of electronic reminders for protocol compliance is clearly demonstrated. Our findings support the results found in the literature we reviewed. For more than 16 years, mobile computers have been supporting the implementation of clinical trials. Our review of 27 articles out of more than 100 clinical trials in which mobile computers have been used elaborates on the advantages and problems of this technology. We give a comprehensive overview of the various technologies as used in different settings, and then discuss the methodology of using mobile devices in comparison to traditional methods, the considerations that need to be made and things to be avoided in order to conduct a successful clinical trial with mobile tools. We conclude that mobile devices are very useful in most cases, especially when design and software validation aspects have been taken into account.

Ondansetron: a review of its use as an antiemetic in children

Ondansetron, a selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is an antiemetic agent available for use in adults and children. In children receiving ondansetron (multiple 5 mg/m2 or 0.15 mg/kg intravenous and/or oral doses) in addition to chemotherapy in 2 large (n > 100) non-comparative analyses, < or =2 emetic episodes were observed in 33 and 40% of cisplatin recipients, 48 and 68% of ifosfamide recipients, and 70 and 72% of patients receiving other chemotherapeutic regimens. In comparative trials, ondansetron was significantly more effective at reducing nausea and vomiting than metoclopramide or chlorpromazine (both combined with dexamethasone), although the incidence of delayed symptoms were similar between children receiving ondansetron and metoclopramide. In addition, dexamethasone significantly improved the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron in 1 randomised trial. When used in children undergoing conditioning therapy (including total body irradiation) prior to bone marrow transplantation, ondansetron was significantly better at controlling nausea and vomiting than combined perphenazine and diphenhydramine therapy. In dose-ranging and large placebo-controlled trials, intravenous (0.075 to 0.15 mg/kg) or oral (0.1 mg/kg) ondansetron was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing emesis in children undergoing surgery associated with a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) including tonsillectomy or strabismus repair. In comparative studies, intravenous administration of ondansetron 0.1 to 0.15 mg/kg was significantly superior to droperidol 0.02 to 0.075 mg/kg or metoclopramide 0.2 to 0.25 mg/kg in preventing emesis in children undergoing various surgical procedures. In comparison with other antiemetics, including prochlorperazine and dimenhydrinate, ondansetron generally showed greater prophylactic antiemetic efficacy. Ondansetron combined with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than ondansetron or dexamethasone alone, as was the combination of ondansetron with a propofol-based anaesthetic compared with either agent alone. Ondansetron is generally well tolerated in children, rarely necessitating treatment withdrawal. The most frequently reported adverse events were mild to moderate headache, constipation and diarrhoea in patients receiving chemotherapy. Wound problems, anxiety, headache, drowsiness and pyrexia were reported most frequently in patients postsurgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron has shown good efficacy in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting in children receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and/or irradiation, particularly when combined with dexamethasone. In the chemotherapy setting, ondansetron is significantly better than metoclopramide and chlorpromazine and has a more favourable tolerability profile. In children undergoing surgery, ondansetron demonstrated superior prophylactic antiemetic efficacy compared with placebo, droperidol and metoclopramide, and was relatively free of adverse events. Ondansetron is thus an effective first-line antiemetic in children undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery.