METHODS: We enrolled 160 women with hyperemesis gravidarum in a double-blind randomized trial. Participants were randomized to intravenous 4 mg ondansetron or 10 mg metoclopramide every 8 hours for 24 hours. Participants kept an emesis diary for 24 hours; at 24 hours, they expressed their well-being using a 10-point visual numeric rating scale and answered an adverse effects questionnaire. Nausea intensity was evaluated using a 10-point visual numeric rating scale at enrollment and at 8, 16, and 24 hours. Primary analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis.
RESULTS: Eighty women each were randomized to ondansetron or metoclopramide. Median well-being visual numeric rating scale scores were 9 (range, 5-10) compared with 9 (range, 4-10) (P=.33) and vomiting episodes in the first 24 hours were 1 (range, 0-9) compared with 2 (range, 0-23) (P=.38) for ondansetron compared with metoclopramide, respectively. Repeat-measures analysis of variance of nausea visual numeric rating scale showed no difference between study drugs (P=.22). Reported rates of drowsiness (12.5% compared with 30%; P=.01; number needed to treat to benefit, 6), xerostomia (10.0% compared with 23.8%; P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.
RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study. A total of 96 patients receiving LEC (52 with and 42 without granisetron) were randomly selected from the full patient list generated using the e-Hospital Information System (e-His). The rates of complete control (no CINV from days 1 to 5) and complete response (no nausea or vomiting in both acute and delayed phases) were identified through patient diaries which were adapted from the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Selected covariates including gender, age, active alcohol consumption, morning sickness and previous chemotherapy history were controlled using the multiple logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant difference with LEC regimens (p<0.001). No differences were found in age, gender, ethnic group and other baseline characteristics. The granisetron group indicated a higher complete response rate in acute emesis (adjusted OR: 0.1; 95%CI 0.02-0.85; p=0.034) than did the non-granisetron group. Both groups showed similar complete control and complete response rates for acute nausea, delayed nausea and delayed emesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron injection used as the primary prophylaxis in LEC demonstrated limited roles in CINV control. Optimization of the guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens may serve as a less costly alternative to protect patients from uncontrolled acute emesis.