A framework for assessing therapeutic innovation.

M S Aapro

doi:10.1097/00001813-199312003-00006

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8136516

A framework for assessing therapeutic innovation.

M S Aapro

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Budgetary restraints have been used to limit the freedom of medical prescription. This paper proposes a simple approach to the evaluation of costs and benefits. First the efficacy of a new approach is defined and compared with the best care with existing means. The incremental gain is then compared with the true cost of both procedures. The innovation should be adopted only where the gain is high and the cost low (or at least only minimally increased). In cases of debatable gain and costs, detailed cost-benefit analysis and quality of life studies are needed. We conclude that at present, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists should only be used to control the acute phase of emesis.

Explore related subjects

Antiemetics Budgets Cost-Benefit Analysis Europe Humans Models, Theoretical Ondansetron Serotonin Antagonists Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

M S Aapro. 1993. A framework for assessing therapeutic innovation.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001813-199312003-00006

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of four 5-HT3-receptor antagonists for acute chemotherapy-induced emesis.

GOALS OF WORK: Comparing antiemetic efficacy of different 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)RAs) is difficult due to inter-study variability. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to comparatively evaluate dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron and tropisetron for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Comparisons between 5-HT(3)RAs were based on 44 randomized studies (including 12,343 patients) identified by MEDLINE, CANCERLIT or EMBASE searches and subcategorized by chemotherapy type (cisplatin- or non-cisplatin-based). MAIN RESULTS: When all studies were combined, granisetron was equivalent to ondansetron (n = 27), and showed an advantage vs tropisetron (p = 0.018; n = 12). Ondansetron vs tropisetron (n = 11) and ondansetron vs dolasetron (n = 3) revealed equivalence in each comparison. An advantage for 3 mg granisetron vs 8 mg ondansetron was found in non-cisplatin-based studies (p = 0.015; n = 6). Overall equivalence was seen between ondansetron, 24 or 32 mg, and granisetron, 2 or 3 mg, for all studies (n = 13). There was a possible advantage for higher (24 or 32 mg) vs lower (8 mg) ondansetron dose regimens with cisplatin-based trials (n = 6). No differences were seen between 3 and 1 mg granisetron doses (n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of 5-HT(3)RAs for preventing CINV following cisplatin- and non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy is comparable, with the exception of granisetron vs tropisetron. Some differences were noted in dosing subanalyses.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2007

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in adults. DATA SOURCES: Literature retrieval was accessed through MEDLINE (1966-December 2006) using the terms postoperative nausea and vomiting, prevention and treatment. Article references were hand-searched for additional relevant articles and abstracts. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All studies published in English were evaluated. Those dealing with prevention and treatment of PONV in adults were included in the review. DATA SYNTHESIS: Evidence suggests that providing prophylactic antiemetic medications in high-risk surgical patients is warranted. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are widely used, with no one agent being clearly superior. However, studies have shown other types of agents to be more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The first step in the prevention of PONV is assessment and reduction of risk factors. Although nonpharmacologic therapies may play a role in the treatment of PONV, the mainstay of therapy for PONV is pharmacologic modalities. Patients at moderate to high risk for PONV need prophylactic antiemetic therapy. High-risk patients may require combination therapy with 2 or 3 agents from different antiemetic classes. Rescue antiemetic therapy is needed by patients who actually develop PONV. The agents of choice in such cases should be from antiemetic classes different from those used for prophylaxis of PONV.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2007

Comparative activity of antiemetic drugs.

Nausea and vomiting continues to be an important problem for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are classified as acute, occurring within the first 24h, or delayed, occurring after the first 24h. A number of antiemetic agents are available for the management of nausea and vomiting, including 5-HT3-receptor-antagonists, corticosteroids, NK-1-receptor-antagonists, dopamine-receptor antagonists, benzodiazepines, neuroleptics and cannabinoids. With modern antiemetic therapy, vomiting can be prevented in 70-80% of patients, whereas the control of nausea remains suboptimal. The development of acute emesis is known to depend on serotonin. The pathophysiology of delayed emesis is less well understood, and multiple mechanisms may contribute, including substance P. Here, the most recent developments in the antiemetic therapy, including new antiemetic drugs and the latest guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis, are reviewed.

Antiemetics↗