Randomised double blind crossover study comparing ondansetron, granisetron and tropisetron.: A cost-benefit analysis

被引:15
作者
Barrajon, E [1 ]
de las Peñas, R
机构
[1] Univ Elche, Gen Hosp, S Oncol Med, Elche 03202, Spain
[2] Hosp Gen Castellon, S Oncol, Castellon de La Plana, Spain
关键词
antiemetics; cost-benefit analysis; emesis; randomised controlled clinical trial;
D O I
10.1007/s005209900120
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The goals of this work were to compare the relative efficacy of ondansetron, granisetron and tropisetron in a randomised double blind crossover trial, evaluating objective, subjective and pharmacoeconomic parameters. To this end, 136 patients were enrolled, 120 of whom were eligible and evaluable. Each patient received three identical chemotherapy cycles with an antiemetic protocol which consisted in dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. and a tapering dose schedule for 4 days, and a single i.v. dose of an antiserotoninergic drug in each cycle. Arm A patients received tropisetron 5 mg; arm B patients, granisetron 3 mg; and arm C patients, ondansetron 24 mg. Numbers of patients and days with emetic episodes, grade of nausea, patient preference, headaches, need for metoclopramide, nursing or medical consultation, or admission to emergency room or ward were evaluated. There was no difference in the percentage incidence of acute or delayed nausea and vomiting. Twenty-five per cent of patients preferred tropisetron, 30% preferred granisetron, and 45% preferred ondansetron (P < 0.01). Toxicity was mild in less than 10% of patients. Direct and indirect costs of treatment varied from 19.74 to 28.53 euros for tropisetron, 31.07-46.51 euros for granisetron and 22.76-62.61 euros for ondansetron. There was no difference in objective activity. In the schedules studied, patients preferred ondansetron. Indirect costs amount to less than 10% of the total antiemetic cost. Direct costs varied widely and should be considered whenever an antiemetic drug is selected.
引用
收藏
页码:323 / 333
页数:11
相关论文
共 111 条
[1]  
AAPRO M, 1993, J CANCER RES CLIN, V119, P555
[2]   DELIVERING THE BENEFITS OF ANTIEMETIC INNOVATION - INTRODUCTION [J].
AAPRO, MS .
ANTI-CANCER DRUGS, 1993, 4 :3-3
[3]   CONTROLLING EMESIS RELATED TO CANCER-THERAPY [J].
AAPRO, MS .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1991, 27 (03) :356-361
[4]   5-HT3 RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS - AN OVERVIEW OF THEIR PRESENT STATUS AND FUTURE POTENTIAL IN CANCER THERAPY-INDUCED EMESIS [J].
AAPRO, MS .
DRUGS, 1991, 42 (04) :551-568
[5]   A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND TRIAL OF ONDANSETRON ALONE VERSUS IN COMBINATION WITH DEXAMETHASONE VERSUS IN COMBINATION WITH DEXAMETHASONE AND LORAZEPAM IN THE PREVENTION OF EMESIS DUE TO CISPLATIN-BASED CHEMOTHERAPY [J].
AHN, MJ ;
LEE, JS ;
LEE, KH ;
SUH, CW ;
CHOI, SS ;
KIM, SHB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 1994, 17 (02) :150-156
[6]  
ANDREWS PL, 1992, EJC SUPPL, V28, P2
[7]  
Armitage P., 1992, ESTADISTICA INVESTIG
[8]   COST AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF ONDANSETRON VERSUS METOCLOPRAMIDE REGIMENS - A HOSPITAL PERSPECTIVE FROM ITALY [J].
BALLATORI, E ;
ROILA, F ;
BERTO, P ;
DEANGELIS, V ;
NERI, C ;
OLIVIERI, A ;
TONATO, M ;
DELFAVERO, A .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1994, 5 (03) :227-237
[9]  
BALLATORI E, 1995, J CLIN ONCOL, V13, P2417
[10]  
Basurto C, 1995, ANN ONCOL, V6, P805