The antiemetic efficacy and the cost-benefit ratio of ondansetron calculated with a new approach to health technology assessment (real cost-benefit index)

Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: a methodological and empirical review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluation as an integral part of health technology assessment is today mostly applied to established technologies. Evaluating healthcare innovations in their early states of development has recently attracted attention. Although it offers several benefits, it also holds methodological challenges.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to investigate the possible contributions of economic evaluation to industry's decision making early in product development and to confront the results with the actual use of early data in economic assessments.

METHODS

We conducted a literature research to detect methodological contributions as well as economic evaluations that used data from early phases of product development.

RESULTS

Economic analysis can be beneficially used in early phases of product development for various purposes including early market assessment, R&D portfolio management, and first estimations of pricing and reimbursement scenarios. Analytical tools available for these purposes have been identified. Numerous empirical works were detected, but most do not disclose any concrete decision context and could not be directly matched with the suggested applications.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry can benefit from starting economic evaluation early in product development in several ways. Empirical evidence suggests that there is still potential left unused.

Stratified administration of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (setrons) for chemotherapy-induced emesis. Economic implications

The serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or 'setrons' have become the standard of care for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis (CIE) and are first-line therapy for acute CIE in healthcare organisations worldwide. However, their superior efficacy versus standard antiemetics comes at a significant cost. Currently, 3 agents are available in the US: ondansetron, granisetron and dolasetron. The most important treatment-related factor contributing to CIE is the emetogenicity of chemotherapy. The ability to customise, or stratify, the setron dose to match the emetogenic challenge of the chemotherapy administered has potential benefits, both clinically and economically. In adults, there is an appreciable amount of clinical literature addressing stratified administration; however, the amount of 'hard' economic data is rather limited. Intuitively, if clinical outcomes are equivalent, then stratified administration should be associated with economic benefits, as it generally promotes the use of doses lower than those recommended by the manufacturer. The literature strongly substantiates this for ondansetron, but is not as favourable for granisetron or dolasetron. As the rationale and justification for dose stratification is contained in the clinical literature, the authors have reviewed the pertinent literature supporting the clinical and economic benefits of dose stratification in both adult and paediatric patients. The authors also provide a discussion of various additional strategies that can be employed to ensure the appropriate and cost-effective use of setrons in real-world practice settings. These strategies include the use of lower doses than recommended by manufacturers, use for acute versus delayed phase emesis, enhancing the antiemetic efficacy by the addition of a corticosteroid, use of oral versus injectable formulations (when appropriate) and the implementation and use of local, national and international drug use guidelines.

The antiemetic efficacy of oral ondansetron plus intravenous dexamethasone in patients with gynecologic malignancies receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop a cost-effective prophylactic antiemetic regimen for the prevention of carboplatin-induced emesis.

METHODS

Patients being treated in the Gynecologic Cancer Program of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center with a carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimen received a prophylactic antiemetic program consisting of a single dose of oral ondansetron (16 mg) plus intravenous dexamethasone (20 mg) approximately 30 min prior to chemotherapy. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this antiemetic regimen was performed during a single treatment course.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (median age, 62; range, 41-83) participated in this phase 2 trial. Three patients received single-agent carboplatin, and 24 were treated with either a carboplatin/paclitaxel or carboplatin/docetaxel regimen. The carboplatin AUC dosing level was 4, 5, or 6 in 6, 5, and 16 individuals, respectively. No patient developed vomiting; 2 (7%) individuals experienced nausea during the 24-h period following chemotherapy administration.

CONCLUSION

The combination of a single dose of oral ondansetron (16 mg) plus intravenous dexamethasone (20 mg) is an effective prophylactic antiemetic regimen for patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Reduced resource utilization in patients treated for postoperative nausea and vomiting with dolasetron mesylate. MCPR44 Study Group

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of four different increasing increasing intravenous (i.v.) doses of dolasetron mesylate (12.5 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg) versus placebo on resource utilization in patients who experienced and were treated for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter study.

PATIENTS

620 ASA physical status I, II, and III male and female outpatients scheduled for surgery with general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients who experienced postoperative nausea (duration > or = 5 min, self-reported as moderate to severe) or vomiting (> or = 1 emetic episode) within 2 hours of arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were given a single i.v. dose of dolasetron mesylate (12.5 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg) or placebo infused for at least 30 seconds.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Resource utilization in the PACU was assessed by time spent by nurses and/or doctors with patients for PONV and the use of hospital resources such as patient/bed linens and staff/emesis supplies. A significantly (p < 0.05) lower proportion of dolasetron-treated patients compared to placebo-treated patients required new patient/bed linens and staff/emesis supplies. Patients in the placebo group required the greatest amount of care from nurses and/or doctors compared to patients receiving dolasetron.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with dolasetron can significantly decrease the utilization of emesis supplies and other hospital resources, including staff/emesis supplies and patient/bed linens. In addition, patients receiving dolasetron used fewer health care resources in time spent by hospital personnel than patients who were not treated with dolasetron.

Costs of treating and preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of ondansetron availability on the costs of managing nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed antiemetic costs (drug costs, nursing time, pharmacy time, physician's time, supplies, and facility "hotel" costs, in 1991 Canadian dollars) for all patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy from 6 months before to 6 months after ondansetron became commercially available in September 1991. We compared the costs for treating patients who received ondansetron versus those who received other antiemetic regimens, the costs for treating patients in the 6 months before versus the 6 months after ondansetron commercial availability, and the costs for treating patients in the first 4 months versus the last 4 months of the study period.

RESULTS

We found no cost differences for patients treated with ondansetron versus other antiemetic regimens. However, there was a significant reduction in emesis management costs for patients treated after versus before the availability of ondansetron: for patients treated in the last third versus first third of the study period, there was a decrease in cost per patient per month of treatment of $374 (95% confidence interval, $243 to $505). These savings were achieved through a reduction in hospital bed days and other costs associated with the prevention and more effective management of nausea and vomiting. At the same time, the number of patients who received emetogenic chemotherapy and their average age increased, presumably because of the better control of gastrointestinal toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Ondansetron availability has been associated with changes in the clinical management of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and with overall cost savings compared with previously available antiemetic therapy.

Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies

A structured methodological review of journal articles published in 1992 was undertaken to determine whether recently published economic evaluation studies deal systematically and comprehensively with uncertainty. Ninety three journal articles were identified from a range of searches including a computerised search of the MEDLINE CD-Rom database. Articles were reviewed to determine how they had handled uncertainty in: a) data sources; b) generalisability; c) extrapolation; and d) analytic method. Articles were subsequently assessed to determine how they had represented this uncertainty in terms of the overall results of their analysis. Finally, studies were rated on the basis of their overall performance with respect to dealing systematically and comprehensively with uncertainty. Despite the numerous books and articles devoted to the appropriate methods to be employed by analysts conducting economic evaluation, 22 (24%) studies failed to consider uncertainty at all and 35 (38%) studies employed sensitivity analysis in a manner judged as inadequate. In all, 36 (39%) studies were judged to have given at least an adequate account of uncertainty with 13 (14%) of those judged to have provided a good account of uncertainty. Such disappointing results may reflect a general lack of detail in much of the methods literature concerning how sensitivity analysis should be applied and how results should be presented. Journal editors and readers of economic evaluation articles should acquaint themselves with the methods for handling uncertainty in order that they can critically evaluate the extent to which authors have allowed for uncertainties inherent in their analysis.