METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was carried out in a university hospital in Malaysia. Women with lifestyle-controlled gestational diabetes scheduled to receive clinically indicated antenatal corticosteroids (dexamethasone) were randomized to 12-mg 12 hourly for one day (2 × 12-mg) or 6-mg 12-hourly for two days (4 × 6-mg). 6-point (pre and 2-h postprandial) daily self-monitoring of capillary blood sugar profile for up to 3 consecutive days was started after the first dexamethasone injection. Hyperglycemia is defined as blood glucose pre-meal ≥ 5.3 or 2 h postprandial ≥ 6.7 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a number of hyperglycemic episodes in Day-1 (first 6 BSP points). A sample size of 30 per group (N = 60) was planned.
RESULTS: Median [interquartile range] hyperglycemic episodes 4 [2.5-5] vs. 4 [3-5] p = 0.3 in the first day, 3 [2-4] vs. 1 [0-3] p = 0.01 on the second day, 0 [0-1] vs. 0 [0-1] p = 0.6 on the third day and over the entire 3 trial days 7 [6-9] vs. 6 [4-8] p = 0.17 for 6-mg vs. 12-mg arms, respectively. 2/30 (7%) in each arm received an anti-glycemic agent during the 3-day trial period (capillary glucose exceeded 11 mmol/L). Mean birth weight (2.89 vs. 2.49 kg p
METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.