BACKGROUND: Nausea can be a debilitating symptom for patients with a life-limiting illness. While addressing reversible components, nonpharmacological strategies and antiemetics are the main therapeutic option. The choice of medication, dose, and route of administration remain highly variable. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to codify the current clinical approaches and quantify any variation found nationally. METHODS: A cross-sectional study utilizing a survey of palliative medicine clinicians examined prescribing preferences for nausea using a clinical vignette. Respondent characteristics, the use of nonpharmacological interventions, first- and second-line antiemetic choices, commencing and maximal dose, and time to review were collected. RESULTS: Responding clinicians were predominantly working in palliative medicine across a range of settings with a 49% response rate (105/213). The main nonpharmacological recommendation was "small, frequent snacks." Metoclopramide was the predominant first-line agent (69%), followed by haloperidol (26%), while second-line haloperidol was the predominant agent (47%), with wide variation in other nominated agents. Respondents favoring metoclopramide as first-line tended to use haloperidol second-line (65%), but not vice versa. Maximal doses for an individual antiemetic varied up to tenfold. CONCLUSION: For nausea, a commonly encountered symptom in palliative care, clinicians' favored metoclopramide and haloperidol; however, after these choices, there was large variation in antiemetic selection. While most clinicians recommended modifying meal size and frequency, use of other nonpharmacological therapies was limited.
BACKGROUND:Nausea can be a debilitating symptom for patients with a life-limiting illness. While addressing reversible components, nonpharmacological strategies and antiemetics are the main therapeutic option. The choice of medication, dose, and route of administration remain highly variable. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to codify the current clinical approaches and quantify any variation found nationally. METHODS: A cross-sectional study utilizing a survey of palliative medicine clinicians examined prescribing preferences for nausea using a clinical vignette. Respondent characteristics, the use of nonpharmacological interventions, first- and second-line antiemetic choices, commencing and maximal dose, and time to review were collected. RESULTS: Responding clinicians were predominantly working in palliative medicine across a range of settings with a 49% response rate (105/213). The main nonpharmacological recommendation was "small, frequent snacks." Metoclopramide was the predominant first-line agent (69%), followed by haloperidol (26%), while second-line haloperidol was the predominant agent (47%), with wide variation in other nominated agents. Respondents favoring metoclopramide as first-line tended to use haloperidol second-line (65%), but not vice versa. Maximal doses for an individual antiemetic varied up to tenfold. CONCLUSION: For nausea, a commonly encountered symptom in palliative care, clinicians' favored metoclopramide and haloperidol; however, after these choices, there was large variation in antiemetic selection. While most clinicians recommended modifying meal size and frequency, use of other nonpharmacological therapies was limited.