Literature DB >> 11057402

Using a multihospital systems framework to evaluate and establish drug use policy.

L C Vermeulen1, P A Windisch, R J Rydman, R H Bruskiewitz, D I Brixner, P H Vlasses.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In order to develop rational drug purchasing and use policy for a class of pharmaceuticals used in a consortium system of 14 university based hospitals, the antiemetic use patterns of inpatients receiving cancer chemotherapy were evaluated to assess the comparative effectiveness of granisetron, ondansetron, and conventional antiemetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted in 14 academic health centers linked under research and purchasing consortium arrangements from October to December 1994. The use of antiemetics was evaluated in hospitalized patients receiving cancer chemotherapy agents with a known propensity for causing, alone or in combination, varying degrees of nausea or vomiting. Clinical outcomes measured were the impact of chemotherapy administration on the functional status of patients, and the occurrence of post-treatment vomiting.
RESULTS: The most often prescribed cancer chemotherapy regimens consisted of cisplatin, paclitaxel, etoposide and cyclophosphamide, and the most often prescribed antiemetics were the 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype-3 antagonists (5-HT3 antagonists, granisetron and ondansetron), dexamethasone and lorazepam. Of the 439 patients studied, 329 (75%) reported no episodes of emesis. Of the patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, those receiving 5-HT3 antagonists experienced better overall outcomes (as measured by functional health status and the absence of vomiting) than patients receiving conventional (non-5-HT3 antagonist) antiemetics. In contrast, patients receiving chemotherapy associated with moderate or low emetogenicity experienced similar outcomes, regardless of the antiemetic regimen selected. No statistical difference was seen between granisetron and ondansetron in achieving positive patient outcomes.
CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that 5-HT3 antagonists are associated with better clinical outcomes than other antiemetics in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Less costly conventional antiemetic therapy (or, in some cases, no antiemetic therapy) provide comparable outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy associated with moderate or low emetogenic potential. Granisetron and ondansetron were found to be clinically comparable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11057402     DOI: 10.1023/a:1005501914725

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Syst        ISSN: 0148-5598            Impact factor:   4.460


  11 in total

1.  An open randomised cross-over study on granisetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderate dose cisplatin-containing regimens.

Authors:  A Martoni; B Angelelli; M Guaraldi; E Strocchi; F Pannuti
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Efficacy and tolerability of oral ondansetron versus prochlorperazine in the prevention of emesis associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy and maintenance of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  M A Crucitt; W Hyman; T Grote; W Tester; S Madajewicz; S Yee; A Wentz; D Griffin; T V Parasuraman; J Bryson
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  1996 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.393

Review 3.  Rationale for combination antiemetic therapy and strategies for the use of ondansetron in combinations.

Authors:  M G Kris
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 4.929

4.  5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prophylaxis of acute vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy--a randomised study.

Authors:  I T Jantunen; T T Muhonen; V V Kataja; M K Flander; L Teerenhovi
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 5.  The management of nausea and vomiting in clinical oncology.

Authors:  J B Craig; B L Powell
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 2.378

6.  Evaluation of ondansetron prescribing in US academic medical centers.

Authors:  L C Vermeulen; K A Matuszewski; T A Ratko; C D Butler; D A Burnett; P H Vlasses
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1994-08-08

7.  Ondansetron compared with granisetron in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced acute emesis: a multicentre double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study. The Ondansetron and Granisetron Emesis Study Group.

Authors:  P Ruff; W Paska; L Goedhals; P Pouillart; A Rivière; D Vorobiof; B Bloch; A Jones; C Martin; R Brunet
Journal:  Oncology       Date:  1994 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.935

8.  Comparative clinical trial of granisetron and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis. The Granisetron Study Group.

Authors:  R Navari; D Gandara; P Hesketh; S Hall; J Mailliard; H Ritter; C Friedman; D Fitts
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  A double-blind, randomised, crossover comparison of granisetron and ondansetron in 5-day fractionated chemotherapy: assessment of efficacy, safety and patient preference. The Granisetron Study Group.

Authors:  A Noble; K Bremer; L Goedhals; D Cupissol; S G Dilly
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  Quality of life consequences of chemotherapy-induced emesis.

Authors:  C M Lindley; J D Hirsch; C V O'Neill; M C Transau; C S Gilbert; J T Osterhaus
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.