Análisis de costo-efectividad de ondansetrón, alizaprida, domperidona, granisetrón, aprepitant, propofol, dexametasona, dimenhidrinato, metoclopramida y haloperidol para la profilaxis y/o tratamiento de pacientes con náusea y vómito en Colombia / Cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron, alizapride, domperidone, granisetron, aprepitant, propofol, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, metoclopramide, and haloperidol for the prophylaxis and/or treatment of patients with nausea and vomiting in Colombia

INTRODUCCIÓN: El análisis de costo-efectividad de ondansetrón, alizaprida, domperidona, granisetrón, aprepitant, propofol, dexametasona, dimenhidrinato, metoclopramida y haloperidol para la profilaxis y/o tratamiento de pacientes con náusea y vómito en Colombia, se desarrolla en el marco del mecanismo técnico-científico para la ampliación progresiva del plan de beneficios y la definición de la lista de exclusiones, establecido en el artículo 15 de la Ley 1751 de 2015. Estas tecnologías fueron seleccionadas por la Dirección de Beneficios, Costos y Tarifas del Aseguramiento en Salud del Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social (MSPS), y remitidas al Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (IETS) para su evaluación. La náusea es una sensación desagradable, de asco intenso a los alimentos, o de vómito inminente, y está asociada a la disminución de la actividad motora gástrica, el incremento del tono de la pared duodenal y reflujo de su contenido al estómago, lo que causa su distensión. Ésta, se acompaña de manifestaciones del sistema nervioso autónomo como hiper-salivación, palidez, sudación, taquicardia y taquipnea El vómito, por su parte, es la expulsión fo

[Treatment costs of otogenic vertigo]. / Die Kosten der Behandlung des otogenen Schwindels. Therapie mit einem Kombinationspräparat (Cinnarizin 20 mg und Dimenhydrinat 40 mg) im Vergleich zur Therapie mit Betahistin (12 mg).

PURPOSE: In this decision-tree analysis, the costs of otogenic vertigo treatment were investigated from the third-party payer's perspective. Either the combination preparation, with cinnarizine 20 mg and dimenhydrinate 40 mg as active substances, or betahistine (12 mg betahistinedimesilate) was administered. METHODS: A core model, based on clinical studies, was developed and a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. Both differences in effectiveness of the alternative treatments and adverse reactions and side effects were included. The number of cases, in which no more symptoms of dizziness were detected after 4 weeks of therapy, served as the effectiveness parameter. RESULTS: The effectiveness-adjusted costs amounted to 130.11 Euros for patients treated with the combination preparation and 629.28 Euros for treatment with betahistine. CONCLUSION: From the third-party payer's perspective, therapy of otogenic vertigo with the combination preparation is more cost-effective than a treatment with betahistine. From the patient's perspective, the higher effectiveness and the superior profile of side effects militate in favor of a therapy with the combination preparation.

Ondansetron for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting following pediatric strabismus surgery.

BACKGROUND: Neither droperidol nor ondansetron has been proven completely effective, and there are conflicting data comparing the efficacy of the two agents. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and cost of a combination of ondansetron administered intravenously in the operating room followed by oral ondansetron treatment at home with the more commonly used treatment of intravenous droperidol therapy and oral dimenhydrinate therapy, for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery. METHODS: Double-blind randomized clinical trial with parallel comparison groups. All patients aged 6 months to 18 years who underwent strabismus surgery at a pediatric hospital in Montreal between Nov. 13, 2000, and June 12, 2001, were included. The exclusion criteria were nausea or vomiting, or use of antiemetics or narcotics in the 24 hours preceding surgery, and past history of hepatic, gastric or renal disease. The outcome measures were frequency of nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea and adverse effects in hospital, during transportation home and during the first 24 hours at home. Data were obtained through nursing notes and through a telephone interview conducted 24 to 48 hours after discharge. RESULTS: Of the 208 eligible patients, 172 were randomly assigned to the study groups (88 to the ondansetron group and 84 to the droperidol/dimenhydrinate group). We found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting in hospital or at home between the two groups (25.3% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.371). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the rate of vomiting during transportation home (3.6% vs. 12.6%, p = 0.044). The incidence of severe nausea was 14.4% with ondansetron and 15.4% with droperidol, a nonsignificant difference (p = 1.00). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in the incidence of any nausea (p = 0.434) or adverse effects (p = 0.220). We calculated that the combination of droperidol and dimenhydrinate was seven times less costly than the ondansetron regimen. INTERPRETATION: In this study, the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of droperidol followed by oral use of dimenhydrinate did not differ from that of intravenous followed by oral use of ondansetron in children undergoing strabismus surgery. Since treatment with ondansetron is much more costly than the combination of droperidol and dimenhydrinate, at this time the use of ondansetron in the prevention and treatment of vomiting and nausea in this population may not be beneficial on a cost basis if all other variables are considered.

The search for cost-effective prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the child undergoing reconstructive burn surgery: ondansetron versus dimenhydrinate.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and unpleasant problem for children with burns who are undergoing reconstructive burn surgery. Ondansetron and dimenhydrinate have been found to be effective for the prevention of PONV in other patient populations, but they have not been directly compared in the pediatric population. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of ondansetron and dimenhydrinate was performed. One hundred patients with a mean age of 11.8 years who were undergoing reconstructive burn surgery with general anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo, 0.1 mg/kg of ondansetron, or 0.5 mg/kg of dimenhydrinate. The 3 groups were well matched for all demographic and procedural variables. The study drugs were given twice, first at the end of surgery and again 4 hours later, to ensure adequate blood levels during the 8-hour study period. Postoperatively, on the basis of the presence and amount of PONV experienced, all patients were assigned a PONV score by a blinded investigator. Statistically significant reductions in the incidence of PONV in the patients who received ondansetron or dimenhydrinate were found, as compared with the results of patients who received placebo. Postoperative vomiting was reduced from 61% in the placebo group to 29% and 40% in the ondansetron and dimenhydrinate groups, respectively, and PONV was similarly reduced from 69% to 47% and 40%, respectively. The differences between ondansetron and dimenhydrinate were not significant. The average cost to our pharmacy for the prescribed dose of ondansetron was $19.34; the cost for dimenhydrinate was $0.90. In this patient population, dimenhydrinate was as effective as ondansetron for the prevention of PONV and postoperative vomiting, and it was much less expensive.