METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted in a university hospital from May 2019 to December 2020. 128 women at their discharge following hospitalization for HG were randomized: 64 to watermelon and 64 to control arm. Women were randomized to consume watermelon and to heed the advice leaflet or to heed the dietary advice leaflet alone. A personal weighing scale and a weighing protocol were provided to all participants to take home. Primary outcomes were bodyweight change at the end of week 1 and week 2 compared to hospital discharge.
RESULTS: Weight change (kg) at end of week 1, median[interquartile range] -0.05[-0.775 to + 0.50] vs. -0.5[-1.4 to + 0.1] P = 0.014 and to the end of week 2, + 0.25[-0.65 to + 0.975] vs. -0.5[-1.3 to + 0.2] P = 0.001 for watermelon and control arms respectively. After two weeks, HG symptoms assessed by PUQE-24 (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea over 24 h), appetite assessed by SNAQ (Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire), wellbeing and satisfaction with allocated intervention NRS (0-10 numerical rating scale) scores, and recommendation of allocated intervention to a friend rate were all significantly better in the watermelon arm. However, rehospitalization for HG and antiemetic usage were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: Adding watermelon to the diet after hospital discharge for HG improves bodyweight, HG symptoms, appetite, wellbeing and satisfaction.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the center's Medical Ethics Committee (on 21/05/2019; reference number 2019327-7262) and the ISRCTN on 24/05/2019 with trial identification number: ISRCTN96125404 . First participant was recruited on 31/05/ 2019.
METHODS: This study uses the literature review method by reviewing 50 articles from journals and databases.
RESULTS: A review of several articles, namely ginger has bioactive components such as gingerol. Ginger is used as a treatment in complementary therapies using plants. Ginger is a strategy with many benefits and functions as a nutritional complement to the body. This benefit has shown the effect of anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anticancer against nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy in breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: Anticancer in ginger is shown by polyphenols associated with anti-metastatic, anti-proliferative, antiangiogenic, anti-inflammatory, cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, and autophagy. Therefore, consuming ginger regularly affects natural herbal therapy with the prevention and treatment of breast cancer and serves as a prevention against the effects of chemotherapy.
DESIGN: Single-blind, controlled, randomized cross-over study. Patients received 5-day aromatherapy treatment using either ginger essential oil or fragrance-matched artificial placebo (ginger fragrance oil) which was instilled in a necklace in an order dictated by the treatment group sequence.
SETTING: Two oncology clinics in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VAS nausea score, frequency of vomiting and HRQoL profile (EORTC QLQ-C30 scores).
RESULTS: Sixty female patients completed the study (age=47.3±9.26 years; Malay=98.3%; on highly emetogenic chemotherapy=86.7%). The VAS nausea score was significantly lower after ginger essential oil inhalation compared to placebo during acute phase (P=0.040) but not sustained for overall treatment effect (treatment effect: F=1.82, P=0.183; time effect: F=43.98, P<0.001; treatment×time effect: F=2.04; P=0.102). Similarly, there was no significant effect of aromatherapy on vomiting [F(1, 58)=0.29, P=0.594]. However, a statistically significant change from baseline for global health status (P<0.001) was detected after ginger essential oil inhalation. A clinically relevant 10 points improvement on role functioning (P=0.002) and appetite loss (P<0.001) were also documented while patients were on ginger essential oil.
CONCLUSION: At present time, the evidence derived from this study is not sufficiently convincing that inhaled ginger aromatherapy is an effective complementary therapy for CINV. The findings for HRQoL were however encouraging with significant improvement in several domains.
CASE REPORT: He presented with worsening headache that was associated with fatigue, nausea and vomiting. Radiologic examination revealed a multilobular mass in the pineal region with internal calcifications. Biopsy showed a pure germinoma with unusually extensive calcification.
DISCUSSION: Although a diagnosis may be suggested with a careful evaluation of imaging, there is no pathognomonic pattern. Thus, histologic verification is necessary for most pineal region masses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.
RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, within-subject cross-over trial.
SETTING: Single-centre, tertiary, university hospital in Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: 72 women within 24-hour of first admission for HG who were 18 years or above, with confirmed clinical pregnancy of less than 16 weeks' gestation were recruited and analysed. Women unable to consume food due to extreme symptoms, known taste or swallowing disorder were excluded.
INTERVENTIONS: Each participant chewed and swallowed a small piece of apple, watermelon, cream cracker and white bread in random order and was observed for 10 min after each tasting followed by a 2 min washout for mouth rinsing and data collection.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was food agreeability scored after 10 min using an 11-point 0-10 Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS). Nausea was scored at baseline (prior to tasting) and 2 and 10 min using an 11-point VNRS. Intolerant responses of gagging, heaving and vomiting were recorded.
RESULTS: On agreeability scoring, apple (mean±SD 7.2±2.4) ranked highest followed by watermelon (7.0±2.7) and crackers (6.5±2.6), with white bread ranked lowest (6.0±2.7); Kruskal-Wallis H test, p=0.019. Apple had the lowest mean nausea score and mean rank score, while white bread had the highest at both 2 and 10 min; the Kruskal-Wallis H test showed a significant difference only at 10 min (p=0.019) but not at 2 min (p=0.29) in the ranking analyses. The intolerant (gagged, heaved or vomited) response rates within the 10 min study period were apple 3/72 (4%), watermelon 7/72 (10%), crackers 8/72 (11%) and white bread 12/72 (17%): χ2 test for trend p=0.02.
CONCLUSION: Sweet apple had the highest agreeability score, the lowest nausea severity and intolerance-emesis response rate when tasted by women with HG. White bread consistently performed worst.