Clinical and economic impact of oral ondansetron for vomiting in a pediatric emergency department.

In this study, we determine the clinical impact of 1 dose of oral ondansetron for children with vomiting and evaluate the economic consequences of its use. The strategies compared were administering oral ondansetron in addition to oral rehydration therapy (group A) versus oral rehydration solution alone (group B) in children attended to for vomiting in a pediatric emergency department. The study population was 1871 children between 0 and 14 years of age treated for vomiting during a 2-year period (2009-2010). Outcome measures were need for intravenous rehydration, length of stay in the emergency department, return visits, and hospitalization. Estimates of the costs in the emergency department and hospitalization were derived from administrative databases. During the study period, 580 (31%) of 1871 patients received oral rehydration therapy. Oral ondansetron before oral rehydration solution was used in 109 (18.8%) of 580 patients. An equal number of patients not receiving ondansetron were randomized and analyzed for comparison (group B). Patients of group A had a significantly decreased risk of hospitalization (relative risk, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63) and intravenous rehydration (relative risk, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.63), but there were no differences in the length of stay or return visits to the emergency department. There were no differences in the medical costs between both groups in the emergency department (US $22,078 vs US $21,987, respectively). The hospitalization cost was US $9600 for group A and US $25,079 for group B, providing a 73.7% saving. In conclusion, the administration of oral ondansetron to children with vomiting in the emergency department is clinically effective and results in significant economic savings.

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.

Oral ondansetron administration in emergency departments to children with gastroenteritis: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of antiemetics for children with vomiting is one of the most controversial decisions in the treatment of gastroenteritis in developed countries. Ondansetron, a selective serotonin receptor antagonist, has been found to be effective in improving the success of oral rehydration therapy. However, North American and European clinical practice guidelines continue to recommend against its use, stating that evidence of cost savings would be required to support ondansetron administration. Thus, an economic analysis of the emergency department administration of ondansetron was conducted. The primary objective was to conduct a cost analysis of the routine administration of ondansetron in both the United States and Canada. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A cost analysis evaluated oral ondansetron administration to children presenting to emergency departments with vomiting and dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis from a societal and health care payer's perspective in both the US and Canada. A decision tree was developed that incorporated the frequency of vomiting, intravenous insertion, hospitalization, and emergency department revisits. Estimates of the monetary costs associated with ondansetron use, intravenous rehydration, and hospitalization were derived from administrative databases or emergency department use. The economic burden in children administered ondansetron plus oral rehydration therapy was compared to those not administered ondansetron employing deterministic and probabilistic simulations. We estimated the costs or savings to society and health care payers associated with the routine administration of ondansetron. Sensitivity analyses considered variations in costs, treatment effects, and exchange rates. In the US the administration of ondansetron to eligible children would prevent approximately 29,246 intravenous insertions and 7,220 hospitalizations annually. At the current average wholesale price, its routine administration to eligible children would annually save society US$65.6 million (US$49.1-US$81.1) and health care payers US$61.1 million (US$46.2-US$76.3). In Canada the administration of ondansetron to eligible children would prevent 4,065 intravenous insertions and 1,003 hospitalizations annually. Its routine administration would annually save society CDN$1.72 million (CDN$1.15-CDN$1.89) and the health care system CDN$1.18 million (CDN$0.88-CDN$1.41). CONCLUSIONS: In countries where intravenous rehydration is often employed, the emergency department administration of oral ondansetron to children with dehydration and vomiting secondary to gastroenteritis results in significant monetary savings compared to a no-ondansetron policy. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

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

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(AU)

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(AU)

Sub-antibiotic doses of erythromycin as a prokinetic in abdominal surgeries: reviving the old.

All patients undergoing major abdominal procedures have some degree of gastricatony in the immediate postoperative period, presenting mainly with vomiting. Many prokinetic agents have been used in the past, but none is a universal remedy. Studies showed that subantibiotic doses of erythromycin, a macrolide antibiotic and motilin agonist, accelerates gastric emptying. This study investigated whether preoperative subantibiotic dose oral erythromycin (250 mg), altered residual gastric volume and postoperative adverse effects in patients scheduled for abdominal surgeries. Erythromycin was compared with the commonly used prokinetic metoclopramide and antiemetic ondansetron, in terms of prokinetic efficacy, cost and adverse effects. In a double-blind study, eighty patients (20 each) were allocated randomly to receive orally, either erythromycin 250 mg (E250) or erythromycin 500 mg (E500), or 10 mg metoclopramide (M), or 4 mg ondansetron (Z), an hour pre-induction of anesthesia. Preoperative oral erythromycin in subantibiotic dose 250 mg elicited a significntly lower residual gastric volume (P < 0.001) and a lower VAS for vomiting, compared with ondansetron. As for metoclopramide and erythromycin 500, residual gastric volume was comparable, but E 250 had a lower VAS for vomiting than both groups. Rescue remedy for vomiting was required for groups E500, M and Z (100, 10 and 10%) compared to 0% in group E250. Ultimately, subantibiotic oral dose of erythromycin (250 mg), given 1 hr preoperatively, is an inexpensive prokinetic alternative with a promising post-operative profile which may be superior to the inexpensive prokinetic metoclopramide with known adverse effects, and the expensive antiemetic ondansetron.

Antiemetic therapy for nausea and vomiting in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic agents are among the most frequently prescribed medications in the emergency department (ED). Nevertheless, there are no widely accepted evidence-based guidelines to optimize the use of these medications for nausea or vomiting in this setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to briefly review the evidence supporting the use of antiemetic agents for the treatment of nausea or vomiting for adults in the ED, and to provide recommendations to help guide therapy. DISCUSSION: The antiemetic agents studied include droperidol, promethazine, prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, and ondansetron. Droperidol was commonly used in the past, and is more effective than prochlorperazine or metoclopramide, but due to the US Food and Drug Administration black box warning regarding the potential for QT prolongation with this drug, its use is limited to refractory cases. Promethazine is more sedating than other comparative agents, and also has the potential for vascular damage upon intravenous administration. It may be a suitable option when sedation is desirable. Patients given prochlorperazine or metoclopramide must be monitored for akathisia that can develop at any time over 48 h post administration. Decreasing the infusion rate can reduce the incidence of this adverse effect, and the effect can be treated with intravenous diphenhydramine. Ondansetron is as effective as promethazine, and is not associated with sedation or akathisia. CONCLUSION: Based on the safety and efficacy of ondansetron, it may be used as a first-line agent for relief of nausea or vomiting for most patient populations in the ED.

[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.

Are newer, more expensive pharmacotherapy options associated with superior symptom control compared to less costly agents used in a collaborative practice setting?

Innovative approaches to care may be necessary to provide the most effective symptom management to hospice patients. One approach is prescribing newer pharmacotherapy options with the potential to improve symptom management in hospice. Such therapies are sometimes prescribed outside of Food and Drug Administration indications and are typically more costly than older agents used for the same symptoms. Another approach is the collaborative practice (CP) care model, whereby clinical pharmacists are given prescriptive authority according to evidence-based protocols and algorithms within boundaries approved by a physician. The agents typically included in CP protocols are those with wide therapeutic indices and with substantial evidence to support their use. The purpose of this study was to examine both approaches to management of pain, insomnia, and nausea, comparing symptom scores for those patients who received noncollaborative drug therapies (transdermal fentanyl, zolpidem, and ondansetron) to those who received agents under CP (oral sustained-release opioids, temazepam, and prochlorperazine). The object of the study was to investigate outcomes associated with newer drug therapy options as compared to older agents for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea. A secondary goal is to compare symptom outcomes for patients receiving pharmaceutical care under CP and non-CP models. The study design was retrospective with a cohort. A total of 50 patients were randomly selected for each cohort of the pain and insomnia study arms. Only 45 patients prescribed oral ondansetron met inclusion criteria for the nausea group; 45 patients prescribed prochlorperazine were randomly selected as the comparator group. Patients were compared on their degree of response to the prescribed therapy. Response was classified as complete, partial, no improvement from baseline, worsened, or unknown. A complete response was defined as the symptom score improving to a 0 of 10, regardless of the previous value documented. A partial response was defined as any improvement in score that did not result in a 0 of 10. No improvement from baseline reflected a lack of overall change in score throughout the series of data points collected. A worsened response was any score found to be higher than the score documented at the time of dispense. The unknown category reflects any set of scores that had an "N/A " documented at the time of medication dispense or when documented for both attempts subsequent to dispensing the medication. A complete response was present in 14 of 50 (28 [corrected] percent) of the patients prescribed oral therapy [corrected] as compared with 12 of 50 (24 [corrected] percent) of those prescribed fentanyl [corrected] (p = .82). Responses defined as partial, no improvement over baseline, worsened, and unknown were also comparable between the two cohorts. A complete response was seen in 26 patients prescribed temazepam (52 percent), whereas only 11 (22 percent) of patients initially prescribed zolpidem achieved the same response (p = .0037). Both groups had a similar distribution of partial, no improvement over baseline, and worsened responses. For the nausea arm of the study, a difference was found in the number of complete responses, favoring prochlorperazine (22 of 45, 48.9 percent for prochlorperazine, 12 of 45, 26.7 percent for ondansetron, p = .0504), as well as an increased number of worse responses seen with ondansetron patients (p = .0513); however, neither difference was statistically significant. Newer pharmacotherapy options for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea were not found to be superior when compared to older agents prescribed under CP.

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.