We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Randomized cross-over trial comparing inpatient and outpatient administration of high-dose cisplatin.
Internal Medicine Journal 2011 Februrary
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Treatment with high-dose cisplatin (HDC) previously required inpatient (IP) admission with overnight hospitalization, but recently practice has shifted to outpatient (OP) therapy. We aimed to determine whether it is preferable to give HDC as an IP or OP using a two-period cross-over trial.
METHODS: Eligible patients were starting chemotherapy with ≥2 cycles of HDC (≥100 mg/dose) and were suitable for OP treatment. All patients received an IP cycle and OP cycle: the order was randomly allocated. Pre-hydration, anti-emetics and chemotherapy were identical for IP and OP. Post-hydration varied by group (3 L normal saline (NS) for IP, 2 L NS for OP). The primary outcome was patient preference for IP versus OP treatment. Secondary outcomes included aspects of health-related quality of life, adverse events (dose delays and reductions, elevated creatinine and unplanned readmissions) and resource use.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were randomized, 53 completed two cycles of HDC. Most patients preferred OP treatment (36 vs 13, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in patients' ratings of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, anxiety, depression or overall quality of life. Adverse events were few and unrelated to IP versus OP treatment. Nursing time was longer for IP than OP (163 vs 104 min, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: OP treatment was preferred by most patients, appeared safe and used less resources.
METHODS: Eligible patients were starting chemotherapy with ≥2 cycles of HDC (≥100 mg/dose) and were suitable for OP treatment. All patients received an IP cycle and OP cycle: the order was randomly allocated. Pre-hydration, anti-emetics and chemotherapy were identical for IP and OP. Post-hydration varied by group (3 L normal saline (NS) for IP, 2 L NS for OP). The primary outcome was patient preference for IP versus OP treatment. Secondary outcomes included aspects of health-related quality of life, adverse events (dose delays and reductions, elevated creatinine and unplanned readmissions) and resource use.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were randomized, 53 completed two cycles of HDC. Most patients preferred OP treatment (36 vs 13, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in patients' ratings of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, anxiety, depression or overall quality of life. Adverse events were few and unrelated to IP versus OP treatment. Nursing time was longer for IP than OP (163 vs 104 min, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: OP treatment was preferred by most patients, appeared safe and used less resources.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app