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
METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were approached when intravenous antiemetic therapy was needed. They were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg promethazine or 10 mg metoclopramide every 8 hours for 24 hours in a double-blind study. Primary outcomes were vomiting episodes by diary and well-being visual numerical rating scale score (10-point scale) in the 24-hour main study period. Participants also filled out an adverse-effects questionnaire at 24 hours and a nausea visual numerical rating scale score at recruitment and at 8, 16, and 24 hours.
RESULTS: A total of 73 and 76 women, randomized to metoclopramide and promethazine, respectively, were analyzed. Median vomiting episodes were one (range 0-26) compared with two (range 0-26) (P=.81), and well-being visual numerical rating scale scores were 8 (range 1-10) compared with 7 (range 2-10) (P=.24) for metoclopramide and promethazine, respectively. Repeat-measures analysis of variance of the nausea visual numerical rating scale scores showed no significant difference between study drugs (F score=0.842, P=.47). Reported drowsiness (58.6% compared with 83.6%, P=.001, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTb] 5), dizziness (34.3% compared with 71.2%, 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.
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.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of CINV (i.e., acute and delayed) on breast cancer patients QOL and to discern opinions related with antiemetic guidelines used dependent on the three main races in Malaysia (Malay, Chinese, Indian).
METHODS: In this longitudinal prospective observational study, 158 breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy were interviewed and valid questionnaires (MANE and ONEM) were used to report the impact of CINV on their QOL within the first 24 hours and after 3 to 5 days of chemotherapy treatment.
RESULTS: The main result was that delayed CINV has an impact on QOL greater than acute CINV. The impact of nausea was reportedly higher than that of vomiting. Also differences in race i.e., genetic polymorphisms (pharmacogenomics) influenced the utility of antiemetic treatments and patients opinions.
CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our study a new guideline for antiemetic treatment should be used to reduce the impact of CINV on QOL, taking into account variation in genetic polymorphisms among the three races in Malaysia.
AIMS: To investigate the effect of intraperitoneal administration of ondansetron for postoperative pain management as an adjuvant to intravenous acetaminophen in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (n = 25 each) to receive either intraperitoneal ondansetron or saline injected in the gall bladder bed at the end of the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in pain from baseline to 24-h post-operative assessed by comparing the area under the curve of visual analog score between the two groups.
RESULTS: The derived area under response curve of visual analog scores in the ondansetron group (735.8 ± 418.3) was 33.97% lower than (p = 0.005) that calculated for the control group (1114.4 ± 423.9). The need for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the ondansetron (16%) versus in the control group (54.17%) (p = 0.005), indicating better pain control. The correlation between the time for unassisted mobilization and the area under response curve of visual analog scores signified the positive analgesic influence of ondansetron (rs =0.315, p = 0.028). The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in patients who received ondansetron than that reported in the control group (p = 0.023 (8 h), and 0.016 (24 h) respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The added positive impact of ondansetron on postoperative pain control alongside its anti-emetic effect made it a unique novel option for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Plasma SPM were measured in samples obtained from two double-blind controlled interventions. The first, included 51 women mean age 53 ± 1.5 years, undergoing breast surgery allocated to either intravenous saline, or dexamethasone (4 mg or 8 mg) after induction of anaesthesia. The second study included 31 women of mean age 44 ± 0.5 years undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery that were allocated to either saline, or dexamethasone (4 mg). SPM (18-HEPE, 17-HDHA, RvE2, RvD1 17R-RvD1 and RvD2) were measured in plasma collected prior to induction of anaesthesia and at 24 h, and 6 weeks post-surgery. Pain was assessed using a verbal analogue scale at discharge from the post-anaesthesia recovery unit. The data from each study was combined to examine the effect of dexamethasone on plasma SPM. The relationship between pain score and SPM was examined using ordinal logistic regression.
RESULTS: The SPM 18-HEPE, 17-HDHA, RvE2, RvD1 17R-RvD1 and RvD2 were detectable in all plasma samples. There was no significant difference in any SPM due to dexamethasone over the duration of the study. There was a fall in 17-HDHA between baseline and 24 h in both the dexamethasone and saline groups (P = 0.003) but no change in the downstream SPM (RvD1, 17R-RvD1 and RvD2) or 18-HEPE and RvE2. Pain score was negatively related to levels of RvE2 measured prior to induction of anaesthesia (rho = -0.2991, P = 0.006) and positively related to BMI (rho = 0.279, P = 0.011). In ordinal logistic regression the odds ratio for RvE2 was 0.931 (CI 0.880, 0.986; P = 0.014); after adjusting for the effect of BMI indicating that an increase in RvE2 of 1 pg/ml would result in a 6.9 % fall in pain score. Allocation to a dexamethasone group did not influence the pain score or the relationship between RvE2 and pain score.
CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone administered as an anti-emetic does not affect plasma SPM levels. An elevated RvE2 level prior to surgery is predictive of a lower perceived pain score post-anaesthesia.