BACKGROUNDThe authors determined the incidence of acute and delayed chemotherapy‐induced nausea and emesis (vomiting) (CINV) among patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy. They also assessed whether physicians and nurses accurately recognized the incidence of acute and delayed CINV in their own practices.METHODSA prospective, observational study of adult patients receiving HEC or MEC for the first time was performed. Before patient enrollment, medical oncologists and oncology nurses estimated the incidence of acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2–5) CINV after first administration of HEC and MEC in their own practices. Eligible patients from their practices then completed a 6‐day diary including emetic episodes, nausea assessment, and antiemetic medication use. Observed incidence rates of acute and delayed CINV were compared with physician/nurse predictions.RESULTSTwenty‐four physicians and nurses and 298 eligible patients (67 receiving HEC and 231 receiving MEC) were recruited from 14 oncology practices in 6 countries. Greater than 35% of patients overall experienced acute nausea, whereas 13% experienced acute emesis. Delayed nausea and emesis were observed in 60% and 50% of HEC patients, respectively, and in 52% and 28% of MEC patients, respectively. Delayed symptoms appeared without acute symptoms after HEC (emesis, 38%; nausea, 33%) and MEC (emesis, 19%; nausea, 21%). Physicians and nurses accurately predicted the incidence of acute CINV but underestimated the incidence of delayed nausea and emesis after HEC by 21 and 28 percentage points, respectively, and delayed nausea after MEC by 28 percentage points. Greater than 75% of physicians and nurses underestimated the incidence of delayed CINV after both HEC and MEC.CONCLUSIONSPhysicians and nurses markedly underestimated the incidence of delayed nausea and emesis after both HEC and MEC. Delayed nausea and emesis, which may appear even in the absence of acute nausea and emesis, remain important targets for improved therapeutic intervention. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

Neither clinical evidence nor considerations of cost effectiveness justify using 5-HT(3) antagonists beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy for prevention of delayed emesis.

No abstract

Background:Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ) is a unique style of martial arts with rapid growth in the United States and internationally. Although studies have examined injuries in other martial arts and combat sports, to date, no published medical study has examined injuries in BJJ competitions.Purpose:(1) To estimate the incidence of injuries in BJJ competitions and (2) to identify and describe the types and mechanisms of injuries associated with competitive BJJ.Study Design:Descriptive epidemiology study.Methods:Injury data were obtained from records of on-site medical coverage at 8 statewide BJJ tournaments in Hawaii, USA, between 2005 and 2011.Results:The identified injury incidence on the day of matches was 9.2 per 1000 exposures (46 injuries out of 5022 exposures, ie, match participations). Orthopaedic injuries were the most common and accounted for 78% of all injuries (n = 36), followed by costochondral or rib injuries (n = 7) and lacerations requiring medical care (n = 3). The elbow was found to be the joint most commonly injured during BJJ competitions, with the arm bar being the most common mechanism. We propose that this BJJ-specific injury mechanism, the “arm bar,” be recognized as another mechanism of hyperextension injury to the elbow in sports.Conclusion:Comparison of the BJJ injury data with injury data reported for judo, taekwondo, wrestling, and mixed martial arts showed that BJJ competitors were at substantially lower risk of injury compared with these other sports. With orthopaedic injuries being most common and the elbow being the area most vulnerable to injury in BJJ, it is important that participants, referees, and physicians be properly educated about the unique mechanisms of injury that can occur, particularly to the elbow.