Plosker G L, Benfield P
Adis International Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1996 Apr;9(4):357-74. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199609040-00009.
The efficacy of granisetron in preventing acute nausea and vomiting during the 24 hours following chemotherapy in patients with cancer is equivalent to that of other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (ondansetron and tropisetron) and similar to or greater than that of conventional antiemetic regimens such as metoclopramide plus dexamethasone. Like other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, granisetron is generally well tolerated by most patients and its antiemetic efficacy is enhanced when used concomitantly with dexamethasone. To date, pharmacoeconomic evaluations of granisetron have involved intravenous administration of the drug to adult patients with cancer receiving single-dose or fractionated chemotherapy of moderate to high emetogenic potential. In economic analyses conducted in France, a single dose of granisetron 3mg was associated with a mean direct treatment cost per patient (or per well-controlled patient) approximately 50% lower than that for ondansetron 8mg intravenously followed by 8mg orally every 8 hours for 3 days, in patients receiving single-dose chemotherapy. Direct costs per patient were approximately 20 to 30% lower with granisetron (usually 3 mg/day) than ondansetron (usually 24 to 32 mg/day intravenously) in patients receiving chemotherapy fractionated over several days. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results, were robust to variations in the acquisition costs of the antiemetics. Granisetron also remained more cost effective than ondansetron with variations in the antiemetic dosage regimens, except when the granisetron dosage remained unchanged while the ondansetron dosage was reduced to a single 8mg intravenous dose on each day prior to chemotherapy (and no change in efficacy was assumed). Other economic evaluations suggest that granisetron may be more cost effective than a combined antiemetic regimen of high dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone, and selected use of granisetron or ondansetron in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy can be implemented with relatively small incremental increases to the total cancer treatment budget, albeit with a marked increase in antiemetic acquisition costs. In conclusion, granisetron is an effective and well tolerated agent for the prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and its selective use in this clinical setting can provide cost-effective antiemetic therapy.
格拉司琼在预防癌症患者化疗后24小时内急性恶心和呕吐方面的疗效,与其他5-羟色胺5-HT3受体拮抗剂(昂丹司琼和托烷司琼)相当,且与甲氧氯普胺加地塞米松等传统止吐方案相似或更优。与其他5-HT3受体拮抗剂一样,大多数患者对格拉司琼的耐受性通常良好,且与地塞米松合用时其止吐疗效会增强。迄今为止,格拉司琼的药物经济学评估涉及对接受中度至高致吐性单剂量或分次化疗的成年癌症患者静脉给药。在法国进行的经济分析中,对于接受单剂量化疗的患者,单剂量3mg格拉司琼使每位患者(或每位病情得到良好控制的患者)的平均直接治疗成本,比静脉注射8mg昂丹司琼后每8小时口服8mg、持续3天的成本低约50%。在接受数天分次化疗的患者中,格拉司琼(通常为3mg/天)使每位患者的直接成本比昂丹司琼(通常静脉注射24至32mg/天)低约20%至30%。敏感性分析表明,结果对于止吐药采购成本的变化具有稳健性。除了在化疗前将格拉司琼剂量保持不变而将昂丹司琼剂量减至每天单次静脉注射8mg(且假设疗效无变化)的情况外,在止吐剂量方案有所变化时,格拉司琼的成本效益也始终高于昂丹司琼。其他经济评估表明,格拉司琼可能比高剂量甲氧氯普胺加地塞米松的联合止吐方案更具成本效益,并且在接受致吐性化疗的患者中选择性使用格拉司琼或昂丹司琼,尽管止吐药采购成本会显著增加,但只需对癌症治疗总预算进行相对较小的增量增加即可实施。总之,格拉司琼是预防急性化疗引起的恶心和呕吐的有效且耐受性良好的药物,在这种临床情况下选择性使用它可提供具有成本效益的止吐治疗。