+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron versus metoclopramide regimens: a hospital perspective from Italy



Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron versus metoclopramide regimens: a hospital perspective from Italy



Pharmacoeconomics 5(3): 227-237



In a large double-blind study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Italy, 289 patients underwent 3 consecutive cycles of cisplatin chemotherapy. Antiemetic treatment with ondansetron plus dexamethasone was more efficacious and better tolerated, but also more expensive, than treatment with metoclopramide plus both dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. To evaluate the different costs of the 2 antiemetic regimens, we conducted a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. Direct costs of antiemetic therapy (acquisition cost of drugs, materials and time spent by nurses to prepare and administer therapies), cleanup after emesis, rescue medication and adverse events were evaluated. Antiemetic drug acquisition costs per patient were 5.23-fold higher for the ondansetron regimen than for the metoclopramide regimen. However, when the costs of materials and nursing time required to prepare and administer the antiemetic regimens were included, this ratio was 3.77. Furthermore, including the cost of emesis, rescue antiemetic treatments and medication used to treat adverse events, hospital costs per patient were 3.21-fold higher with the ondansetron regimen during the first cycle, 3.08-fold higher during second cycle and 2.89-fold higher during third cycle of chemotherapy. Complete protection from vomiting and from both vomiting and nausea with ondansetron occurred, respectively, in 78.7 and 69.1% of patients in the first cycle, 73.8 and 57.3% in the second cycle, and 74.2 and 58.1% in third cycle of chemotherapy. Corresponding figures for the metoclopramide regimen were 59.5 and 50.4%, 53.6 and 37.1%, and 46.8 and 27.3%, respectively. Thus, the cost per successfully treated (completely protected) patient was 2.43- and 2.34-fold higher, respectively, for ondansetron at the first cycle, 2.23- and 1.99-fold higher, respectively, at second cycle, and 1.82- and 1.36-fold higher, respectively, at third cycle. In conclusion, the study demonstrates that, while ondansetron has a greater acquisition cost than metoclopramide, the ondansetron regimen costs per successfully-treated patient substantially decrease when all direct hospital costs are taken into account.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 045660086

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 10146897


Related references

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ondansetron Versus Metoclopramide Regimens. PharmacoEconomics 5(3): 227-237, 1994

Cost-effectiveness and quality of life evaluation of ondansetron and metoclopramide for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 32(2): 105-112, 1999

Cost-effectiveness analysis of granisetron-based versus standard antiemetic regimens in low-emetogenic chemotherapy: a hospital-based perspective from Malaysia. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 14(12): 7701-7706, 2014

Cost-effectiveness analysis of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for acute coronary syndromes. A Canadian hospital perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 16(5 Pt 2): 533-542, 2000

Cost-effectiveness analysis of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome in Poland: modelling study from the hospital perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 21(10): 737-748, 2003

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin in renal transplantation in Italy: cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analyses. Journal of Nephrology 15(5): 580-588, 2002

Long-term cost-effectiveness of Oncotype DX® versus current clinical practice from a Dutch cost perspective. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 4(5): 433-445, 2016

The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration-A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective. Plos One 13(5): E0197670, 2018

Bedaquiline- versus injectable-containing drug-resistant tuberculosis regimens: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 18(6): 677-689, 2018

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abciximab: a Canadian hospital perspective. Annals of PharmacoTherapy 32(5): 536-542, 1998

National cost study versus hospital cost accounting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 16: 34, 2018

Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus late total hip replacement in Italy. Value in Health 16(2): 267-279, 2013

The effect of timing of ondansetron administration on its efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting. Anesthesia and Analgesia 86(2): 274-282, 1998

Is the routine use of abciximab in percutaneous coronary intervention with stents cost-effective? A cost-effectiveness analysis from a Canadian perspective. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 16(Suppl. F): 120F, 2000

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab versus pemetrexed for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Italy. Lung Cancer 69 Suppl 1: S11-S17, 2010