Cost-effective use of antiemetics.
Direct comparison of intravenous and oral 5-HT3 antagonists has shown equivalent efficacy if appropriate doses are given, thus allowing widespread use of the more convenient and economical oral route. Effective antiemesis generates additional cost savings by decreasing the resources necessary for salvage antiemetic preparation and administration, additional physician and nursing evaluation, clean-up and maintenance of the patient area, and possible additional hospitalization necessitated by uncontrolled emesis. If ondansetron and metoclopramide are compared strictly on an acquisition cost basis, ondansetron is 4 to 15 times more expensive. However, if the additional savings attributable to better antiemetic control are taken into account, ondansetron is only 2 to 3 times more expensive and quality of life is markedly improved. In cost-utility analysis such improvement in quality of life is taken into account through the use of a utility score. Utility scores for antiemetic protection, however, have not been well defined. We recently performed a pilot study asking patients receiving chemotherapy to rate globally their quality of life (utility score) over the preceding chemotherapy cycle, assuming that a small amount of nausea and vomiting either had or had not occurred. An incremental utility score of 0.52 based solely on the presence or absence of nausea and vomiting was identified. Further careful investigations to identify the incremental utility resulting from use of various modes of oncologic supportive care are required.
Grunberg
S M
SM
Hematology/Oncology Unit, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, USA.
D000932:Antiemetics / Q000191:economics*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006801:Humans; D010865:Pilot Projects; D012702:Serotonin Antagonists / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics*; D014840:Vomiting, Anticipatory / Q000517:prevention & control
D000932:Antiemetics; D012702:Serotonin Antagonists