MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102067428 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.12.389

Retrospective Analysis of the Efficacy of Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Different Preparative Regimens for Autologous and Allogeneic Bone Marrow Transplantation

2011· article· en· W2102067428 on OpenAlexaff
Dakota Duquette, J. Adam, Dennis R. Goulet, Robert Delage

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNauseaAntiemeticMelphalanVomitingRegimenProchlorperazineAnesthesiaDexamethasoneSurgeryChemotherapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is of particular concern for patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation (BMT) given the highly emetogenic agents used. We conducted a retrospective observational study to verify the efficacy of our different prophylactic CINV prevention regimens for different types of BMT performed at our center. We looked at 78 autologous and 38 allogeneic BMT patients hospitalised between august 2007 and july 2009. Patients received our standard antiemetic prophylaxis tailored to the preparative regimen. Most patients received a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone as prophylaxis and prochlorperazine for breakthrough nausea. We measured emesis, nausea and use of breakthrough antiemetics on a daily basis. Results of the overall absence of emesis, nausea and non-use of breakthrough antiemetics throughout the entire duration of the BMT process are given in the following table.Table 1Control of nausea and emesis by preparative regimenBEAMHD-MelFlu-CyTBI-CyBu-CyFlu-Bu-ATGAbsence of vomiting59.6%29.0%38.5%0%33.3%66.7%Absence of nausea25.5%6.5%15.4%0%0%50%Non-use of breakthrough agents25.5%12.9%15.4%0%0%50% Open table in a new tab In the daily evaluations, patients receiving the BEAM regimen and the high-dose melphalan (HD-Mel) were particularly at risk of emesis immediately following the melphalan. Control of CINV was approximately 90% before administration of melphalan and dropped to 45% on the following days. The study included only a small number of patients in the allogeneic BMT setting. This group was then divided in even smaller cohorts for each different regimen making it harder to reach conclusions. However, all groups showed a low incidence of complete control of CINV. The use of high dose cyclophosphamide has a preparative regimen is associated with very poor nausea control. This retrospective case study demonstrates the need to reassess periodically the effectiveness of our prophylactic regimens for emesis in the BMT setting and to make the appropriate changes to improve our supportive care. Our center has changed our prophylactic CINV prevention regimens and aprepitant (Emend®) has been added to some of BMT regimens even if it has not yet received approval for this indication. Ongoing trials are assessing its efficacy but early trials have successfully proven its safety. A second study is planned at our center to evaluate if these modifications will improve the control of nausea and emesis in our BMT patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207