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.
AIM OF THE STUDY: Our study focuses on previously unreported anti-depressant activity of E. variegata bark ethanolic extract (EBE) and determination of its mechanism of action possibly through regulation of monoamine oxidase activity in mouse brain homogenates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: EBE was characterized using standard protocols for phytochemical analysis, followed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis. Anti-depressant activity of EBE (50, 100, 200 and 500 mg/kg) was evaluated in Swiss white albino mice using acute and chronic forced swim test (FST) models. Furthermore, the potential use of the extract as an adjunct to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), escitalopram, was evaluated using the chronic unpredictable mild stress test model wherein inhibitory effects on monoamine oxidase (MAO) A and B were assessed by spectrophotometric-chemical analysis in mouse whole brain homogenates.
RESULTS: The extract showed significant reduction in immobility time periods in both acute (200 mg/kg) and chronic (100, 200 and 500 mg/kg) FST models. When used as an adjunct with escitalopram (15 mg/kg), the extract (100, 200 and 500 mg/kg) showed significantly greater inhibition of MAO-A and B activities when compared to escitalopram alone (30 mg/kg). Phytochemical analysis of EBE revealed presence of sugars, steroids, glycosides, alkaloids and tannins. LC-MS and GC-MS analysis identified components such as 2-amino-3-methyl-1-butanol, phenylethylamine, eriodictyol, daidzein and pomiferin, N-ethyl arachidonoyl amine, inosine diphosphate, trimipramine, granisetron, 3,4-dihydroxymandelic acid, ethyl ester, tri-TMS and dodecane, previously reported for their anti-depressant activity.
CONCLUSIONS: The study thus demonstrated potential for use of the E. variegata bark ethanolic extract as an adjunct to currently available SSRI treatment. The study also identified components present in E. variegata bark ethanolic extract that may be responsible for its anti-depressant activity. Furthermore, the study thus confirms the traditional use of E. variegata barks in improving CNS function through its anti-depressant like activity.