Objective To examine the economic impact of a home chemotherapy program (HCP) for pediatric oncology patients. Rationale Factors that led to initiation of an HCP included availability of specially trained nurses and programmable ambulatory infusion devices at local home care agencies, routine central venous catheter placement, inpatient bed space shortages, and the availability of ondansetron. Setting Chemotherapy delivery in the home setting from June 1991 through June 1994. Design Charge data and nausea and vomiting severity data were collected for patients treated through the HCP. Methods Economic impact was calculated by incorporating and summing all charge categories associated with hospital admission for chemotherapy (HAC) versus delivery by the HCP. All data were adjusted for 1993 dollars, and reflect charges for the average patient size (1 m2). Charge data for each chemotherapy protocol delivered in the home were analyzed by calculating the differences between HAC and HCP charges using the following formula: charge difference (HAC - HCP) per protocol times the number of courses. Total economic impact was calculated by summing the differences in charges for each protocol. Results A total of 262 chemotherapy courses were given to 44 patients (mean age 9.5 ± 5.1 y) through the HCP, which represented 1012 patient care days and 24 different chemotherapy protocols. Monetary savings from the HCP ranged from $5180 per course of ifosfamide plus etoposide to $367 per course for high-dose methotrexate. Total monetary savings from the HCP during the 3-year period was $640 793. Successful control of nausea and vomiting with a combination of ondansetron plus methylprednisolone was achieved in approximately 80% of the patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy protocols. Conclusions HCP for pediatric oncology patients results in substantial monetary savings to payors. Effective control of nausea and vomiting can be accomplished at home in the majority of patients with an ondansetron-based antiemetic regimen.
The article reports a study comparing the cost-effectiveness of ondansetron tablets and prochlorperazine capsules in preventing nausea and vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in an outpatient setting. A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two antiemetics from the perspective of third party health care payers. Probability estimates of the model were derived from a reanalysis of data obtained from a clinical trial directly comparing the two antiemetics. Effectiveness was defined as the number of patients with no emetic episodes and no drug-related adverse events during the 3-day period after receiving chemotherapy. Cost-estimates were based on Average Wholesale Price for medications and national average for hospital services adjusted to 1996 U.S. dollars. Cost-effectiveness ratios for ondansetron and prochlorperazine were $261 and $268 per effectively treated patient, respectively. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the limits of generalizability of study results. Despite the initial price differential between the two antiemetics, ondansetron was more cost effective than prochlorperazine when the duration of therapy was shorter than 3 days, the total cost of rescue therapy per patient was more than $71, the treatment cost of adverse events was less than $24, the complete relief rate for ondansetron was greater than 58.9 percent, and the complete relief rate for prochlorperazine was less than 26.5 percent.
This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg to 4 mg intravenously) compared with placebo in the prevention of postoperative vomiting in 429 ASA status I-III children 1-12 yr old undergoing outpatient surgery under nitrous oxide- and halothane-based general anesthesia. The results show that during both the 2-h and the 24-h evaluation periods after discontinuation of nitrous oxide, a significantly greater percentage of ondansetron-treated patients (2 h 89%, 24 h 68%) compared with placebo-treated patients (2 h 71%, 24 h 40%) experienced complete response (i.e., no emetic episodes, not rescued, and not withdrawn; P < 0.001 at both time points). Ondansetron-treated patients reached criteria for home readiness one-half hour sooner than placebo-treated patients (P < 0.05). The age of the child, use of intraoperative opioids, type of surgery, and requirement to tolerate fluids before discharge may also have affected the incidence of postoperative emesis during the 0- to 24-h observation period. Use of postoperative opioids did not have any effect on complete response rates in this patient population. We conclude that the prophylactic use of ondansetron reduces postoperative emesis in pediatric patients, regardless of the operant influential factors. Implications: Postoperative nausea and vomiting often occur after surgery and general anesthesia in children and are the major reason for unexpected hospital admission after ambulatory surgery. Our study demonstrates that the prophylactic use of a small dose of ondansetron reduces postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients. (Anesth Analg 1997;85:538-45)
This is the first double-blind clinical trial in a homogenous group of patients to compare the recommended dosing schedules of ondansetron and granisetron in the control of prolonged emesis after cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (48% CMF, 35% EC) for breast cancer. A total of 514 patients were recruited. Of the 488 patients included in the intent-to-treat analyses, 167 were randomised to group A [8 mg ondansetron intravenously (i.v.) + placebo by mouth (p.o.) before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. twice daily (b.d.) until day 5], 155 to group B (placebo i,.v. + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. b.d. until day 5) and 166 to group C (3 mg granisetron i.v. + placebo p.o. before chemotherapy + placebo p.o. b.d. until day 5). On study day 1, the groups were comparable with respect to the proportion of patients experiencing up to 2 emetic episodes (group A: 89%; B: 86%; C: 91%) and in the severity of nausea (no nausea; group A: 51%; B: 55%; C: 54%). Over the 5-day study period significantly more patients were rescued or withdrawn due to lack of response after the granisetron regimen (26%) than after the i.v. + p.o. ondansetron regimen (11%; p < 0.001). Since there was no difference in these parameters on day 1, this reflects differences on days 2-5 and was also reflected in the all-oral ondansetron group over this period (group B: 12%; C: 22% on days 2-5). A significant difference in the severity of nausea after i.v. and p.o. ondansetron compared with granisetron was also observed over the 5-day study period (p = 0.009). This was reflected in a numerical difference in favour of the all-p.o. ondansetron regimen compared with the granisetron regimen (no nausea; group A: 33%; B: 34%; C: 25%). Again these differences reflected differences in nausea control on days 2-5, since no differences were observed on day 1. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for prognostic factors also revealed a significant difference (p = 0.011) in favour of the i.v. + ondansetron group compared with the granisetron group when complete plus major response was compared over days 2–5. No significant differences in the safety profiles of the three treatment groups were observed. There were no severe or unexpected drug-related adverse events and as is well established for the serotonin receptor antagonists, mild constipation (mean 8%) and mild headache (mean 8%) were most commonly reported.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)