Implementation of institutional antiemetic guidelines for low emetic risk chemotherapy with docetaxel: a clinical and cost evaluation.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of implementation of institutional guidelines for low emetic risk chemotherapy with docetaxel and estimate the cost saving for all low emetic risk chemotherapies. METHODS: We examined the clinical effect of preparing and implementing institutional antiemetic guidelines for the breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel therapy. Although the antiemetic medication for such patients used to be ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (OND + DEX), it was changed to dexamethasone (DEX) 12 mg alone after implementation of the institutional guidelines. The effectiveness and adverse effects of DEX alone (56 patients, 205 courses) were compared with those of OND + DEX (41 patients, 151 courses). The cost saving was calculated from the antiemetic costs in both groups. The annual cost saving was estimated from the number of all low emetic risk chemotherapies in a year. RESULTS: The incidences of nausea (19.5% versus 16.1%), vomiting (2.4% versus 0%), constipation (34.1% versus 30.4%), and insomnia (17.1% versus 17.9%) were not significantly different between the OND + DEX group and DEX alone group. In all low emetic risk chemotherapies, US $78,883 of potential cost saving was estimated in the first year after changing the antiemetic treatment. CONCLUSION: The present results suggest that DEX alone is equally effective for preventing nausea and vomiting and less expensive compared with a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist plus DEX in low emetic risk chemotherapy with docetaxel.

Comparative study of dexamethasone and ondansetron for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare intravenous dexamethasone and ondansetron for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), a main complaint that affects almost 40%-75% of patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. METHODS: In a prospective study, 93 women were divided into 3 groups receiving 4mg of dexamethasone, 8mg of dexamethasone, or 4mg of ondansetron. PONV score was used for assessment during the first 24hours after surgery. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV during the 24-hour postoperative period was highest in the ondansetron group (61%). In the first 3hours, the incidence of PONV in the ondansetron group was also higher: 51.6% as compared with 22.6% and 36.6% in the dexamethasone 4mg and 8mg groups, respectively. The overall incidence of PONV was highest in the first 3hours as compared with later time periods, and there was a linear trend in decreasing PONV among the groups (P=0.017). In the dexamethasone 4mg group, the request for a rescue antiemetic was significantly lower: 0% as compared with 6.7% and 16.1% in the dexamethasone 8mg and ondansetron 4mg groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone was found to be an efficacious and cost-effective drug for the prophylaxis of PONV.

Does the added benefit of ondansetron over dexamethasone, to control post-operative nausea and vomiting, justify the added cost in patients undergoing tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate comparative effectiveness of ondansteron and dexamethasone in prophylaxis of PONV in tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy patients. METHODS: The study was conducted at Shifa International Hospital Islamabad from 1st January to 30th June 2009, on 60 patients undergoing tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy, with their consent. After consecutive alternate sampling, patients were divided into two groups containing 30 patients each. Ondansteron was given in one group, and Dexamethasone in the other group, as anti emetic, at the time of induction. Episodes of PONV were recorded at three specified intervals, i.e., immediate postoperative, 6 hours after surgery and 12 hours after surgery. Data was entered on a pre-designed performa. The data was analyzed in SPSS Version 13.0. RESULTS: Ondansteron Group had a mean age of 12.7 +/- 9.54 years (5-36 years). There were 22 (73.3%) males and 8 (26.7%) females. Dexamethasone Group had a mean age of 14.8 +/- 8.4 years (5-35 years) of whom 18 (60.0%) were males and 12 (40.0%) were females. Overall 6 patients who received ondansetron had PONV compared to 7 patients in the dexamethasone group. This difference was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone was equally effective in controlling PONV in tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy patients. The improved benefit of using ondansetron over dexamethasone, on a regular basis, does not justify the added cost.

Estudio farmacoeconómico de esquemas de tratamiento antiemético en quimioterapia moderada y altamente emetógena / Pharmacoeconomic study of antiemetic treatment in moderate and highly emethogenic chemotherapy

INTRODUCCIËN: Las náuseas y vómitos por quimioterapia (NVIQ) constituyen una complicación importante. La introducción de los antiserotoninérgicos 5HT3 (AR 5HT3 ) unida a los esteroides, ha posibilitado un mayor control de estos síntomas. OBJETIVO: evaluar económicamente dos alternativas para el tratamiento antiemético en cáncer. MÉTODOS: se utilizaron varias técnicas de evaluación económica para dos alternativas de tratamiento antiemético. Para la primera línea, la técnica de minimización de costos (MC), que incluyó los esquemas de granisetron más dexametasona y ondansetron más dexametasona. El análisis de costoefectividad (ACE) evaluó el tratamiento alternativo después del fallo del esquema que contiene ondansetron, se realizaron los análisis de relación costo-efectividad medio (ACEM) y costo-efectividad incremental (ACEI). También análisis de sensibilidad. RESULTADOS: para los esquemas de tratamientos utilizados en la primera línea por cada paciente tratado, se logró un ahorro de $0,76 en la quimioterapia moderadamente emetógena (QME) y la quimioterapia altamente emetógena (QAE). En el ACEM, la opción que utilizó ondansetron como tratamiento de segunda línea para la QME es de $22,77 y de $4,034 para el esquema que utilizó el granisetron, para cada caso controlado. La terapia para QAE que utilizó ondansetron necesita $ 65,41 y la opción que utilizó granisetron $ 13,45, para cada paciente controlado respectivamente. En el ACEI se obtuvo un resultado no satisfactorio para el esquema que contiene ondansetron de $1,490/ caso adicional controlado en la QME y de $3,140/ caso adicional controlado para la QAE. CONCLUSIONES: el tratamiento antiemético que produjo mayor ahorro económico como terapia antiemética de primera línea es el que utilizó ondansetron, y en segunda línea el esquema que utilizó granisetron

INTRODUCTION: the occurrence of nauseas and vomiting from chemotherapy are a significant complication. With appearance of antiserotoninergics 5HT3 (AR 5HT3) combined with steroids, have allowed a great control of these symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of present paper is to asses in a economic way two alternatives for antiemetic tratment in cancer. METHODS: Some techniques of economical assessment to two alternatives of antiemetic treatment were used. For the first line, the cost minimization (CM) technique including the Granisetron hydrochloride schemes plus Dexamethasone and Ondansetron hydrochloride plus Dexamethasone. The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) assessed the alternative treatment after the scheme failure containing Ondansetron; we performed mean cost-effectiveness (MCE) and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) analyses, as well as the sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: For the treatment schemes used in the first line by patient with treatment, it is possible to achieve a saving of $0.76 in the moderately emethogenic chemotherapy (MECM) and the highly emethogenic chemotherapy (HECT). In MCE, the option using Ondansetron as a second line treatment for MECM is of $22.77 and of $4.034 for scheme uses Granisetron for each controlled case. Therapy for HECT using Ondansetron needs percent65,41 and option using Granisetron needs $13.45 for each controlled patient, respectively. In the case of ICE a non-satisfactory result of $1.490 for scheme containing Ondansetron/controlled additional case in MECM, and of $3.140/controlled additional case for HECT. CONCLUSIONS: Antiemetic treatments with a higher economical save as first-line antiemetic therapy is that using Ondansetron, and in second line the scheme using Granisetron

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of patient-controlled analgesia compared to continuous elastomeric pump infusion of tramadol and metamizole]. / Análisis coste-efectividad de la PCA postoperatoria frente a la infusión continua elastomérica de tramadol y metamizol.

OBJECTIVES: Little information is available on the cost-effectiveness of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). The present study compared PCA to continuous infusion by elastomeric pump. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty ASA 1 or 2 patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery were enrolled for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and costs derived from intravenous PCA with metamizole and tramadol compared to continuous infusion of the same analgesic solution by elastomeric pump in the 48 hours following surgery. Patient satisfaction and side effects were also recorded. RESULTS: The analgesic effectiveness and side effects of the 2 regimens were similar, although 61% of patients in the elastomeric pump group needed morphine for rescue analgesia compared to 33% in the PCA group (P < .05). In the PCA group, 81% of the patients said they would repeat the analgesic treatment compared to only 56% in the elastomeric pump group (P = .05). The mean number of nursing interventions was 16 for the PCA group and 19 for the elastomeric pump group. The mean cost of the treatment (not including the PCA pump, provided by the manufacturer) was Euros 41.35 for the PCA group and Euros 56.22 for the elastomeric pump group. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic efficacy of the 2 regimens was similar. However, patient satisfaction was greater with PCA and use of an elastomeric pump was more expensive. In the setting of the present study, postoperative PCA proved to be more advantageous than continuous elastomeric pump infusion.

Tropisetron, ondansetron, and granisetron for control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in Turkish cancer patients: a comparison of efficacy, side-effect profile, and cost.

BACKGROUND: Tropisetron, ondansetron, and granisetron are considered equally efficacious, supported by several international studies. However, there are interindividual variations in their metabolism that could affect efficacy. The clustering of such variations may change from one to another nation. Therefore, their equality must be validated in Turkish patients. The aim of this study was to compare their efficacies, side-effect profiles, and costs in the prophylaxis of emesis induced by moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapies. METHODS: A total of 158 patients with a median age of 48 years, 115 (72.8 percent) female and 43 (27.2 percent) male, were included, respectively. Fifty-one, 61, and 46 patients were allocated to tropisetron (5 mg), ondansetron (8 mg), and granisetron (3 mg IV) in combination with 8 mg dexamethasone, which were continued 5 mg once a day, 8 mg b.i.d. and 1 mg b.i.d. PO for 5 days, respectively. RESULTS: The complete response (CR) rates in the control of acute emesis were 80.4 percent with tropisetron, 72.1 percent with ondansetron, and 71.7 percent granisetron (p = 0.877). CR rates in delayed emesis (Days 2-5) were 68.6 percent, 68.9 percent, and 76.1 percent, respectively (p = 0.527). Rates of freedom from nausea in the same period were 37.3 percent, 35.9 percent, and 33.9 percent (p = 0.949). Nausea control rates, side-effect profile did not differ. However, headache seemed to be encountered higher (45.6 percent) in Turkish patients than others (3.9-9 percent). Tropisetron is the least expensive one ($95.3 per cycle) according to current prices in Turkey. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences among the 3 serotonin antagonists with respect to efficacy and frequency of side-effects in our patients. Tropisetron is the least expensive at current prices. The choice may be based on other parameters, such as ease of administration and patient preference.

Health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in outpatients receiving antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse effect of cancer therapy. We aimed to determine outcomes associated with use of aprepitant in outpatients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany from a patient's and payer's perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone) to a control regimen (ondansetron/dexamethasone) over a five days period. Clinical results and resource utilisation observed in aprepitant phase III clinical trials were assigned German unit cost data. RESULTS: Complete response over one chemotherapy cycle was observed in 68% of patients in the aprepitant group (N=514) compared to 48% of patients in the control group (N=518). Patients were estimated to have gained an equivalent of 15 additional hours of perfect health per cycle (0.63 quality-adjusted life days) with aprepitant-based regimen compared to control regimen. Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with aprepitant was estimated at euro28,891. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant substantially improved CINV-related health outcomes in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Incremental benefits materialised in a cost-effective fashion.

Drug utilization review on a tertiary palliative care unit.

Drugs are indispensable for the management of symptoms in palliative care patients, and account for a significant proportion of expenditures on a Tertiary Palliative Care Unit (TPCU). Drug expenditures for Edmonton's TPCU increased by 40% in 2002 compared to 2001. Fifty-five percent of the increase was attributable to injectable fentanyl, oral and injectable ondansetron, and total parenteral nutrition (TPN). As there was no increase in the unit cost of these drugs between 2001 and 2002, the increased expenditures reflected increased utilization. The hypothesis of this study was that the increased utilization of these drugs reflected appropriate prescribing. The objective was to compare the indications for prescribing these drugs in 2002 against evidence- and consensus-based criteria. Patients who received these drugs while admitted to the TPCU from January 1 to December 31, 2002 were identified through the pharmacy database. Evidence- and consensus-based criteria for drug utilization were developed. Prescribing indications were retrospectively compared against the criteria. Drug prescriptions were categorized as follows: (1) meeting criteria, (2) not meeting criteria, or (3) uncertain. The drugs under study were prescribed during 48 out of 234 admissions to the TPCU in 2002. Prescriptions for fentanyl met criteria in 26 of 29 cases. Indications were unsuccessful therapy with morphine, hydromorphone, and oxycodone (20), requirement for rapid titration from fentanyl patch (5), renal failure (2), and sublingual administration for breakthrough pain (1). Prescriptions for ondansetron met criteria in 19 of 21 cases. Indications were nausea refractory to metoclopramide and dexamethasone (13), and nausea related to radiotherapy or chemotherapy (6). Prescriptions for TPN met criteria for initiation in only one of five cases. However, in all cases, TPN had been started prior to admission. In cases where death was considered imminent, TPN was continued pending consultation with the patient and family regarding discontinuation. These data indicate that the increased prescribing of fentanyl and ondansetron on the TPCU satisfied evidence- and consensus-based criteria in most cases, apparently justifying the associated increase in drug expenditures. This type of analysis may be useful whenever increased drug utilization requires review. A cost effectiveness analysis would be the next step in evaluating the costs vs. the benefits. The issue of discontinuing TPN in palliative care patients requires further investigation.

The use of oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: the effect on emetic symptoms and quality of recovery.

Based on comparative studies in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, it has been suggested that granisetron would be more effective than ondansetron for the prevention of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). However, there have been no direct comparisons of these two popular 5-HT3 antagonists with respect to PDNV and quality of recovery. We designed this randomized, double-blind study to compare the antiemetic efficacy of oral granisetron (1 mg) to a standard IV dose of ondansetron (4 mg) when administered for antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in a laparoscopic surgical population. A total of 220 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this prospective study at two major medical centers. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two prophylactic treatment groups: the control (ondansetron) group received an oral placebo 1 h before surgery and ondansetron, 4 mg IV, at the end of the surgery, and the granisetron group received granisetron, 1 mg per os, 1 h before surgery, and normal saline, 2 mL IV, at the end of the surgery. The early recovery profiles, requirement for rescue antiemetics, incidence of PDNV, and the side effects were recorded over the 48 h study period. In addition, nausea scores were assessed using an 11-point verbal rating scale at specific intervals in the postoperative period. The quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores were recorded at 48 h after surgery. The demographic characteristics were similar in the two prophylaxis treatment groups, as well as the recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, and hospital discharge. The incidences of PDNV, requirements for rescue antiemetics, and quality of recovery did not differ between the two study groups. The antiemetic drug acquisition costs to achieve comparable patient satisfaction with ondansetron and granisetron were US 25.65 dollars and 47.05 dollars, respectively. Therefore, ondansetron (4 mg IV) was more cost-effective than granisetron (1 mg per os) for routine antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in patients undergoing either outpatient or inpatient laparoscopic surgery.

Efficacy and costs of 3 anesthetic regimens in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy and costs associated with 3 different anesthesia regimens used in gynecologic laparoscopy. DESIGN: This was a randomized, controlled study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a university hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 150 ASA physical status I or II patients, undergoing elective gynecologic laparoscopy with general anesthesia. INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated into the following 3 groups: group P-preoperative placebo tablet, propofol induction, propofol-air/O2 maintenance; group I + O-preoperative 8-mg ondansetron tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance; group I (control)-preoperative placebo tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance. MEASUREMENTS: The frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), number needed to treat to prevent PONV, and the costs of the anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: The frequency of PONV within the 24-hour study period was lowest in group I + O (P, 38%; I + O, 33%; and I, 59%; P < 0.05 I + O vs I). The number needed to treat was 5 in group P and 4 in group I + O, compared with group I. The median costs of anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were $65 in group P and dollar 68 in group I + O, compared with group I. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in gynecologic laparoscopy, propofol-air/O2 anesthesia alone, and isoflurane-N2O anesthesia combined with an oral 8-mg dose of ondansetron had similar efficacy and costs to prevent PONV. Isoflurane-N2O anesthesia without ondansetron was less expensive, but was also less efficacious.

Economic evaluation of ondansetron vs dimenhydrinate for prevention of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although rarely life-threatening, postoperative vomiting (POV) is a distressing complication. The incidence of POV ranges from 34 to 90% in children undergoing strabismus surgery when antiemetics are not administered prophylactically. METHODS: In this study, a cost-consequence analysis (CCA) is used to estimate the economic benefit of ondansetron and dimenhydrinate as antiemetics administered prophylactically in children undergoing strabismus surgery. This retrospective study was conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children based on a review of 70 charts. RESULTS: Ondansetron was more effective with 45.3 POV-free patients (PFP) in an adjusted cohort of 100, while dimenhydrinate resulted in 38.2 PFP in an adjusted cohort of 100. The costs were significantly different between the two groups, CAD dollars 185.90 (+/-26.37, 95% CI, CAD dollars 173,89; CAD dollars 197.90) and CAD dollars 232.90 (+/-CAD dollars 66.84, 95% CI, CAD dollars 198.53; CAD dollars 267.27) per patient for ondansetron and dimenhydrinate, respectively. The length of stay in the postanesthetic care unit (PACU) represented over 97% of total costs, and the mean lengths of stay in the PACU for ondansetron and dimenhydrinate were significantly different, 3.43 and 4.41 h, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study should serve as a pilot for a large-scale investigation on the correlation between the length of stay in the PACU and the antiemetic agent used.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron and prochlorperazine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 antiemetic agents, ondansetron and prochlorperazine, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement procedures. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis model was applied to data derived from a previous clinical study conducted in 1995 and 1996. This study involved 78 adult patients (62.8% female and 37.2% male) undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement procedures. Patients were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind manner to receive either ondansetron 4 mg intrvenously (n=37) or prochlorperazine 10 mg intramuscularly (n=41) immediately upon completion of surgery and were monitored for occurrences of PONV during the subsequent 48 hours. In our analysis, we measured the cost-effectiveness ratio (C/E ratio), defined as the cost per successfully treated patient, for each antiemetic agent using the clinical data obtained from the previous study. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV and use of rescue antiemetics was significantly greater in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group. The mean total costs of PONV management per patient in the prochlorperazine and ondansetron groups were dollar 13.99 and dollar 51.98, respectively (based on 2004 average wholesale prices [AWP]). The cost of successfully treating one patient with prochlorperazine and ondansetron was dollar 31.87 and dollar 275.01, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed adjusting the percent efficacy rate of each antiemetic and the drug cost of ondansetron (up to a 50% reduction in AWP). Prochlorperazine remained the dominant strategy across each scenario. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that prochlorperazine is a more cost-effective antiemetic compared with ondansetron for the prevention of PONV in a mixed gender, adult inpatient population undergoing total joint arthroplasty.

A prospective randomized trial of the antiemetic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intravenous and orally disintegrating tablet of ondansetron in children with cancer.

Orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) of ondansetron is a new formulation, which instantaneously disintegrates and disperses in the saliva without need for ingestion of a liquid. This makes the formulation suitable for administration in children. The objective of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and cost of ODT and intravenous (IV) formulation of ondansetron in controlling nausea and vomiting in children receiving chemotherapy regimens without cisplatin. This prospective randomized trial was performed in a single institution to compare ODT and IV formulation of ondansetron for the prevention of acute emesis in a group of 22 children. Study agents were administered 30 min before chemotherapy and 12 hourly after chemotherapy (5 mg/m2 IV or 4-8 mg oral according to body surface area in 56 and 39 courses, respectively). After randomization, IV formulation was administered to some children instead of ODT due to unavailability of this formulation. Complete and major control of emesis was obtained in 92% of patients in the IV group and 93% of patients in the ODT group. In 56 courses with grade III-IV emetogenicity, complete response rates were not different between the two treatment arms. In the courses without corticosteroids complete response rates were not also different between the two arms. The mean costs per successfully controlled courses were 121.3 USD for the IV formulation whereas 63.2 USD for the ODT formulation. The results of this study confirmed that ODT formulation of ondansetron is a safe, well-tolerated, and cost-effective antiemetic for children during non-cisplatin-containing moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Dolasetron versus ondansetron for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

The management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a persistent problem. Despite the use of prophylactic antiemetics, breakthrough nausea and vomiting still frequently occur. There have been no published studies comparing dolasetron and ondansetron for the treatment of PONV. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult outpatient surgery patients. We screened 559 consecutive adult surgery patients, with 92 patients randomized to either ondansetron or dolasetron. The objectives of the study were 1) to determine whether treatment of PONV with ondansetron 4 mg IV or dolasetron 12.5 mg IV would result in better outcomes in patients undergoing day surgery and 2) to compare the cost of drugs used for treating PONV. Thirty-three (70%) of 47 patients given ondansetron required rescue medication, compared with 18 (40%) of 45 patients given dolasetron (P < 0.004). Dolasetron was approximately 40% less expensive than ondansetron, and the costs of the study drug plus rescue antiemetics were 30% less in the dolasetron group than in the ondansetron group. Dolasetron provided greater efficacy for antiemetic treatment because of the need for less rescue therapy. Because of the decreased use of rescue antiemetics and acquisition cost at our hospital, costs in the dolasetron group were less than costs in the ondansetron group.

Single-dose oral granisetron versus multidose intravenous ondansetron for moderately emetogenic cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in pediatric outpatients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

This prospective study was designed to compare the efficacy of ondansetron with granisetron in terms of complete emesis control and time spent in an ambulatory care setting in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing moderately emetogenic cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. The costs for both treatments are also examined. A total of 33 children (mean age: 7.8 +/- 4.9 year) were studied during 66 chemotherapy cycles. Analysis was based on 33 courses of a single oral dose of granisetron and 33 courses of ondansetron incorporating 2 intravenous doses of ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg followed by 1 dose of the same dosage orally. There was no significant difference between the 2 treatments in terms of overall efficacy (McNemar's chi-square test). Twenty of 33 patients (60.6%) receiving granisetron and 15 of 33 patients (45.5%) receiving ondansetron experienced no emesis 24 h after chemotherapy (p = .227). Boys experienced greater rates of vomiting than did girls despite antiemetic treatment; however, no apparent reason for the gender discrepancy was noted. Both antiemetic regimens have similar antiemetic efficacy for treating the moderately emetogenic effects associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. It is possible that the granisetron regimen may be preferable because it is simpler to administer and more cost-effective.

Ondansetron versus dolasetron: a comparison study in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecological procedures.

The purpose of this study was to determine if 4 mg of ondansetron and 12.5 mg of dolasetron were equally effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing gynecological procedures. While the overall incidence of PONV appears to be 25% to 35%, the incidence among this patient population is considerably higher. Patients were assigned to 1 of 2 antiemetic treatment groups. Patients in group 1 received 4 mg of ondansetron at the end of surgery, while patients in group 2 received 12.5 mg of dolasetron at the end of surgery. Data collection occurred perioperatively and in the 24 hours following surgery. chi 2 determined there was no statistical difference between groups related to emesis in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), emesis in the 24 hours following surgery, and side effects. Results of this study showed there was no statistically significant difference between 4 mg of ondansetron or 12.5 mg of dolasetron when administered at the end of surgery for preventing PONV in patients undergoing gynecological procedures. Given the cost difference between these 2 antiemetics, there is a potential for significant cost savings in this high-risk patient population.

Cost-effectiveness of three combinations of antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the cost-effectiveness of three combinations of antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind study. Ninety ASA I-II females, 18-65 yr, undergoing general anaesthesia for major gynaecological surgery, with standardized postoperative analgesia (intrathecal 0.2 mg plus i.v. PCA morphine), were randomly assigned to receive: ondansetron 4 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after induction and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 1); dexamethasone 8 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after induction and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 2); ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg after induction and placebo 12 h later (Group 3). A decision analysis tree was used to divide each group into nine mutually exclusive subgroups, depending on the incidence of PONV, need for rescue therapy, side effects and their treatment. Direct cost and probabilities were calculated for each subgroup, then a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the hospital point of view. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 3 were more effective (80 and 70%) than Group 2 (40%, P=0.004) in preventing PONV but also more expensive. Compared with Group 2, the incremental cost per extra patient without PONV was euro;6.99 (95% CI, -1.26 to 36.57) for Group 1 and euro;13.55 (95% CI, 0.89-132.90) for Group 3. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron+droperidol is cheaper and at least as effective as ondansetron+ dexamethasone, and it is more effective than dexamethasone+droperidol with a reasonable extra cost.

A comparison of the costs and efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron in the prophylaxis of postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.

UNLABELLED: Postoperative vomiting (POV) after ambulatory surgery remains a major problem. We designed this study to determine the smallest dose of dolasetron equivalent to the Food and Drug Administration approved dose of ondansetron 100 micro g/kg IV, for the prophylaxis of POV in children undergoing surgery. In this double-blinded controlled study, 204 healthy ASA I-II children aged 2-12 yr, undergoing superficial ambulatory (day-case) surgery, were randomized to receive either ondansetron 100 micro g/kg IV, or dolasetron 45, 175, 350, or 700 micro g/kg IV during a standardized perioperative regimen. The primary end-point was the incidence of complete response, defined as the absence of POV symptoms. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the hospital using a previously described model. The incidence of early (0-6 h) and 24-h emesis was more frequent in the dolasetron 45 micro g/kg group compared with the dolasetron 350 and 700 micro g/kg groups and with the ondansetron group. Repeated POV occurred more often when dolasetron was used in a dose <350 micro g/kg. There were no significant differences in emesis rates between the dolasetron 175, 350, and 700 micro g/kg groups or between these groups and the ondansetron 100 micro g/kg group. The smallest dose of dolasetron with acceptable equivalent efficacy and patient satisfaction scores to ondansetron 100 micro g/kg was 350 micro g/kg. Institutional costs for managing POV were less with dolasetron 350 micro g/kg than with ondansetron. IMPLICATIONS: This randomized double-blinded dose-ranging study concluded that dolasetron, 350 micro g/kg IV, was the smallest dose that provided acceptable equivalent efficacy and patient satisfaction scores to ondansetron, 100 micro g/kg IV, for the prophylaxis of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing outpatient surgery. However, with this dose, the costs to the institution for managing postoperative vomiting were less.