Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A Stewart

Publications and source records attributed to A Stewart.

406 records · Page 23Linked to original sources

Ondansetron compared with granisetron in the prophylaxis of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in out-patients: a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, parallel-group study. Emesis Study Group for Ondansetron and Granisetron in Breast Cancer Patients.

This is the first double-blind clinical trial in a homogenous group of patients to compare the recommended dosing schedules of ondansetron and granisetron in the control of prolonged emesis after cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (48% CMF, 35% EC) for breast cancer. A total of 514 patients were recruited. Of the 488 patients included in the intent-to-treat analyses, 167 were randomised to group A [8 mg ondansetron intravenously (i.v.) + placebo by mouth (p.o.) before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. twice daily (b.d.) until day 5], 155 to group B (placebo i,.v. + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. b.d. until day 5) and 166 to group C (3 mg granisetron i.v. + placebo p.o. before chemotherapy + placebo p.o. b.d. until day 5). On study day 1, the groups were comparable with respect to the proportion of patients experiencing up to 2 emetic episodes (group A: 89%; B: 86%; C: 91%) and in the severity of nausea (no nausea; group A: 51%; B: 55%; C: 54%). Over the 5-day study period significantly more patients were rescued or withdrawn due to lack of response after the granisetron regimen (26%) than after the i.v. + p.o. ondansetron regimen (11%; p < 0.001). Since there was no difference in these parameters on day 1, this reflects differences on days 2-5 and was also reflected in the all-oral ondansetron group over this period (group B: 12%; C: 22% on days 2-5). A significant difference in the severity of nausea after i.v. and p.o. ondansetron compared with granisetron was also observed over the 5-day study period (p = 0.009). This was reflected in a numerical difference in favour of the all-p.o. ondansetron regimen compared with the granisetron regimen (no nausea; group A: 33%; B: 34%; C: 25%). Again these differences reflected differences in nausea control on days 2-5, since no differences were observed on day 1. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for prognostic factors also revealed a significant difference (p = 0.011) in favour of the i.v. + ondansetron group compared with the granisetron group when complete plus major response was compared over days 2-5. No significant differences in the safety profiles of the three treatment groups were observed. There were no severe or unexpected drug-related adverse events and as is well established for the serotonin receptor antagonists, mild constipation (mean 8%) and mild headache (mean 8%) were most commonly reported.

Adult↗

Evaluating the implications of clinical practice guidelines for patient care.

Patient care evaluation studies have been developed by the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons. The studies were primarily designed to monitor trends in diagnosis, therapy, and outcome of specific oncologic diseases in hospitals and cancer centers. As they reflect the current standards of patient care, patient care evaluation studies have become valid tools of quality management in medicine. In an international pilot project that began in 1996, this approach was redefined to evaluate the impact of current clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Close cooperation between medical societies in the United States and Germany under the coordination of the Commission on Cancer and the Institute of Medical Informatics at the Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen was established. This infrastructure for data collection, data management, analysis, and interpretation of results allows for the recognition of international differences in patient care. Our results indicate discrepancies between current state-of-the-art patient care represented by clinical practice guidelines and the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the clinical routine. Patient care evaluation studies are designed as exploratory, not confirmatory, trials. In contrast with confirmatory trials, their aims may not always lead to predefined hypotheses. They reflect routine practice and are not the basis of the formal proof of efficacy, although they may contribute to the total body of relevant evidence. Without this comprehensive approach to evaluation, the potential of clinical practice guidelines to improve patient care remains unknown.

Germany↗

Compatibilities in education structures.

This article examines the relationships between the Government's Working Paper 10 on education and training in the National Health Service and the English National Board's framework for continuing education in the nursing profession. The author concludes that the two different approaches are compatible, but great efforts will be required from nurses and managers to enable a harmonious union to ensue.

Education, Nursing, Continuing↗

Liquid chromatographic determination of nystatin in pharmaceutical preparations.

A rapid, reversed-phase liquid chromatographic method was developed for the assay of nystatin in the bulk drug and a variety of dosage forms. Analysis was performed on a Symmetry C18 reversed-phase column using a mobile phase of methanol-water-dimethylformamide (DMF; 55 + 30 + 15, v/v/v), with detection by UV at 305 nm. Quantitation is based on the sum of the peak areas of the 2 major isomers of nystatin. The linearity of the assay was determined for a concentration range of 0.05 to 0.2 mg/mL (correlation coefficient > 0.999). Accuracies and precision showed good reproducibility.

Antifungal Agents↗

Adherence to cardiovascular risk factor modification in patients with hypertension.

AIM: The effectiveness of the support of a healthcare practitioner and a family member in producing changes in cardiovascular risk factor modification was tested in a randomised, controlled trial in patients with hypertension. METHODS: The primary outcome measured after the 24-week intervention was blood pressure change. Secondary outcomes included patients' adherence to the programme, their knowledge about hypertension, exercise capacity, body weight, self-reported ability to control stress, adherence to medication and salt restriction, as well as symptoms. RESULTS: There were no marked improvements in blood pressure regulation in either group. The differences between the experimental and control groups were 3 mmHg (CI -6.18-12.18) for systolic blood pressure and 4 mmHg (CI -1.48-9.48) for diastolic blood pressure. The estimated blood pressure effects were small increases in both diastolic and systolic blood pressure, due to larger changes in the control group. These small changes were of no clinical significance. This intervention was not successful in reducing blood pressure of hypertensive patients who participated in a lifestyle programme. Secondary outcomes did show positive changes as a result of the given intervention. The absolute difference in improvement between the two groups was significantly greater for the experimental group than for the control group for the following variables: 24% better adherence to the programme (p = 0.007); 10% higher mean percentage score of hypertension knowledge and its management (p = 0.04); 20% more patients could control their stress levels (p = 0.05); 26% more patients could control their salt ingestion (p = 0.02); and 20% had better adherence to their given medication regimen (p = 0.05). The experimental group had a statistically significant weight reduction of 1 (+/- 4) kg relative to the control group (p = 0.03). Both groups increased their exercise capacity during the trial (p = 0.03). On the completion of the intervention, significantly fewer patients in the experimental group than in the control complained of tiredness (p = 0.05). Patients who had a 75% adherence or more to the programme were found to have maintained their knowledge and their exercise capacity, but not their weight loss after a maintenance phase of 12 weeks, during which time there was no intervention. CONCLUSION: Patients in a supported environment such as the one in this study were able to modify their cardiovascular risk factors, even though there were non-significant changes in blood pressure reported in this study.

Antihypertensive Agents↗