Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 60–68 | Cite as

Cost‐effectiveness analysis of tropisetron vs. chlorpromazine‐dexamethasone in the control of acute emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy in children

  • I. Tejedor
  • A. Idoate
  • J. Giraldez
  • M. Jimenez
  • L. Sierrasesumaga


Objective. To perform a cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) between a standard antiemetic regimen ‐chlorpromazine + dexamethasone (CPM‐DEX)‐ and a 5‐HT3 receptor antagonist ‐tropisetron (TROP)‐ in the control of acute emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy in children, considering two analytic perspectives: hospital and patients. Methods. The CEA was performed by constructing a decision tree, for both analytic perspectives, of the possible outcomes of treatment with TROP (single 0.2 mg/kg i.v.) or CPM (5‐15 mg i.v. infusion for 3 doses) plus DEX (2 mg/m2 i.v. bolus i.v. × 2). The patients were stratified by age in two groups (2‐12 and 13‐17). To estimate the probability of each endpoint at the decision tree we have taken as a base a trial developed in the Department of Pediatrics. Direct medical cost of primary therapy, failure, complications and side effects were included in the cost calculations. Results. From patients' analytic perspective, TROP was more cost‐effective than CPM‐DEX for both groups of patients. Discrepancy between both analytic perspectives in 13‐17 year‐old patient's group was resolved in favour of the option chosen from the patients' analytic perspective (TROP). Sensitivity analysis showed the reliability of the results. Conclusions. 1. TROP was more cost‐effective than CPM‐DEX. 2. Taking into account the patients' analytic perspective is essential when we compare antiemetics pharmacoeconomically. 3. It seems necessary to increase the effectiveness of TROP in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy with strategies such as the addition of a steroid.

Acute emesis Antiemetics Cancer chemotherapy Chlorpromazine Cost‐effectiveness analysis Dexamethasone Pediatric Tropisetron 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Van Hoff J, Hockenberry-Eaton MJ, Patterson K, Hutter JJ. A survey of antiemetic use in children with cancer. AJDC 1991; 145:773-8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinkerton DR, Williams D, Wootton C, Meller T, McElwain TJ. 5-HT3 antagonist ondansetron-an effective outpatient antiemetic in cancer treatment. Arch Dis Child 1990;65:822-5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carden PA, Mitchell SL, Waters KD, Tiedemann K, Ekert H. Prevention of cyclophosphamide/cytarabine-induced emesis with ondansetron in children with leukemia. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1531-5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sullivan MJ, Abbot GD, Robinson BA. Ondansetron antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy and radiotherapy induced vomiting in children. NZ Med J 1992;105:369-71.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hachimi-Idrissi S, De Schepper J, Maurus R, Otten J. Prevention of emesis by ICS 205-930 in children receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:854-6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benoit Y. Navoban® in the prevention of nausea and vomiting in children receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Proceedings of the 19th Congress of the European Society of Medical Oncology; 1994 Nov 19-22; Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holdsworth MT, Raisch DW, Duncan MH, Chavez CM, Leasure MM. Assessment of chemotherapy-induced emesis and evaluation of a reduced-dose intravenous ondansetron regimen in pediatric outpatients with leukemia. Ann Pharmacother 1995;29:16-21.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gershanovich M, Kolygin B, Pirgach N. Tropisetron in the control of nausea and vomiting induced by combined cancer chemotherapy in children. Ann Oncol 1993;4(3):S35-S37.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foot ABM, Hayes C. Audit of guidelines for effective control of chemotherapy and radiotherapy induced emesis. Arch Dis Child 1994;71:475-80.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Graham-Pole J, Weare J, Engel S, Gardner R, Mehta P, Gross S. Antiemetics in children receiving cancer chemotherapy: a double-blind prospective randomised study comparing metoclopramide with chlorpromazine. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:110-3.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan AB, Bucklew CA, Levanthal BG. Effectiveness of decadran and thorazine in prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy in pediatric patients (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1983;2:78.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madero L, Perez L, Martín N, Contra T, Ruiz MJ, Robles P. Control de la emesis inducida por quimioterapia antineoplásica en la infancia. An Esp Pedia 1991;34(3):207-10.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hählen K, Quintana E, Pinkerton R, Cedar E. A randomized comparison of intravenously administered granisetron versus chlorpromazine plus dexamethasone in the prevention of ifosfamide-induced emesis in children. J Pediatr 1995;26(2): 309-13.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tyc VL, Mulhern RK, Fairclough D, Ward PM, Relling MV, Congmire W. Chemotherapy induced nausea and emesis in pediatric cancer patients: external validity of child and parent emesis ratings. Abstract. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1993;14(4): 236-41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reeder CE. Overview of pharmacoeconomics and pharmaceutical outcomes evaluations. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 1995;52(Suppl 4):S5-8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Tejedor
  • A. Idoate
  • J. Giraldez
  • M. Jimenez
  • L. Sierrasesumaga

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations