Search

With limited financial resources available, it is now becoming more acceptable to evaluate medical innovations in terms of incremental economic value. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of enteroviral meningitis and to summarise the economic literature to identify relevant costs and outcomes. Enteroviral meningitis is the most common cause of aseptic meningitis, and occurs in 4.5 to 30 per 100,000 population annually with a duration of illness lasting between 1 and 2 weeks after onset of initial symptoms. The major resource categories that contribute to the overall direct costs of management of enteroviral meningitis include physician visits, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, medications, procedures such as lumbar puncture and computed tomography scans, re-hospitalizations and follow-up physician visits. Indirect costs are incurred in terms of school or work days missed or restrictions in daily activities. The total direct costs of an episode of enteroviral meningitis range from $US450 for outpatients to $US5093 for inpatient management (1996 values). The total indirect costs of an episode of enteroviral meningitis are estimated to be equivalent to 5 to 7 activity-restricted days. Interventions that improve early diagnosis or decrease the duration and need for hospitalisation will significantly affect the cost of managing enteroviral meningitis. Additional prospective studies are needed to study the impact of interventions on the burden of enteroviral meningitis.

Purpose: This study involved identifying resource use and assigning monetary value to the diagnostic work-up and management of viral meningitis., Methodology: Using a previously established decision analytic framework, various resources were identified as part of routine management of viral meningitis. Secondary database analyses were used to quantify resources and assign a monetary value as a part of routine management of viral meningitis requiring use of the resource units identified in the decision analytic framework. Discharge data sources from the states of California, Florida, and Illinois, and Medicaid data sources from the state of Pennsylvania, were used for the purpose of analysis., Principal Findings: Physician visits, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, procedures, and medications were identified as the major resource used. Lumbar punctures, CT scans, and antibiotics were identified as the major procedures and medications utilized. No significant difference was found in the major resources used between the states' discharge data and the Medicaid data sources. The mean total charges for patient admissions with CT scans were significantly higher than for patient admissions without CT scans ($11,531.80 vs $7,841.30, P < 0.05). The mean lengths of stay for patients with CT scan were significantly higher than for patient admissions without CT scans (4.71 days vs. 3.88 days, P < 0.05). The patient readmission rate was 10.7 percent, while the readmission rate for episodes with more than one hospitalization was 11.1 percent. The mean charge associated with readmission was $12,200.

There is very little information in the medical literature regarding opioid-induced emesis and its relationship to patient outcomes. Two-hundred and six nonsurgical patients in a 400-bed teaching hospital with minimal known risks of disease-associated emesis were interviewed to examine emesis and associated outcomes following the administration of opioids for acute pain management. The mean age, weight, and height of the study group were 54.4 (+/- 19.6) years, 175.8 (+/- 45.7) pounds, and 67.1 (+/- 4.4) inches, respectively. Seventy-three (35.4%) patients experienced nausea; 28 (13.6%) patients vomited; and 15 (7.3%) patients retched following the opioid therapy. These symptoms were mild and discomforting for relatively short periods of time. The patients' ability to concentrate and eat was affected by the incidence of nausea/vomiting. The intensity, duration, and severity of nausea were positively associated with the magnitude of the functional limitations. The symptoms also influenced patients' ratings of various hospital satisfaction measures. In conclusion, emesis due to opioids represents a notable burden on nonsurgical patients. Successful therapies that prevent opioid-induced emesis are likely to positively influence patient outcomes by reducing adverse effects, improving functional outcomes, and enhancing quality of life.

The article reports a study comparing the cost-effectiveness of ondansetron tablets and prochlorperazine capsules in preventing nausea and vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in an outpatient setting. A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two antiemetics from the perspective of third party health care payers. Probability estimates of the model were derived from a reanalysis of data obtained from a clinical trial directly comparing the two antiemetics. Effectiveness was defined as the number of patients with no emetic episodes and no drug-related adverse events during the 3-day period after receiving chemotherapy. Cost-estimates were based on Average Wholesale Price for medications and national average for hospital services adjusted to 1996 U.S. dollars. Cost-effectiveness ratios for ondansetron and prochlorperazine were $261 and $268 per effectively treated patient, respectively. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the limits of generalizability of study results. Despite the initial price differential between the two antiemetics, ondansetron was more cost effective than prochlorperazine when the duration of therapy was shorter than 3 days, the total cost of rescue therapy per patient was more than $71, the treatment cost of adverse events was less than $24, the complete relief rate for ondansetron was greater than 58.9 percent, and the complete relief rate for prochlorperazine was less than 26.5 percent.

Epilepsy is a significant comorbid condition in institutionalized persons with developmental disabilities and may contribute significant additional costs. This study was conducted to provide an estimate of the costs of epilepsy from the institutional perspective. Costs were measured retrospectively for 50 persons with epilepsy and 50 persons without epilepsy matched by severity of developmental disability. A time and motion study was employed to assign opportunity costs to documented nursing and physician activities. Two separate methods of attribution were used and incremental costs attributable to epilepsy were found to be approximately $825 and $918 per person over a 6-month period. The following categories accounted for costs: personnel (47.0%), drug (39.6%), hospitalization (9.4%), and laboratories/procedures (4.0%). Results are useful for describing the economic burden of epilepsy.

Research shows that chemotherapy for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves survival. The economic implications of this treatment choice may be substantial. This paper reviews studies examining the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy in this setting. MEDLINE, PDQ, Cancerlit, EMBASE, and the Nursing & Allied Health databases were searched using the terms cost, cost-effectiveness, chemotherapy, and non-small-cell lung cancer. The search identified 17 studies. Most of these studies utilized data from various sources to model the impact and cost of chemotherapy. The remaining studies were concurrent or retrospective analyses of individual clinical trials. Findings suggest that chemotherapy for stages IIIb and IV non-small-cell lung cancer can be cost-effective and, in some cases, may actually be less expensive than supportive care alone. Economic analyses also indicate that allocating resources for chemotherapy in this setting can be justified relative to many treatment expenditures for other types of cancer and other disease. Application of these findings may be hindered by the wide variety of techniques used and by several methodologic issues, including the failure to address patients' treatment preferences. Yet, economic analyses of inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer can provide important information to complement survival and quality-of-life data in resource allocation decisions.

Unlabelled: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg to 4 mg intravenously) compared with placebo in the prevention of postoperative vomiting in 429 ASA status I-III children 1-12 yr old undergoing outpatient surgery under nitrous oxide- and halothane-based general anesthesia. The results show that during both the 2-h and the 24-h evaluation periods after discontinuation of nitrous oxide, a significantly greater percentage of ondansetron-treated patients (2 h 89%, 24 h 68%) compared with placebo-treated patients (2 h 71%, 24 h 40%) experienced complete response (i.e., no emetic episodes, not rescued, and not withdrawn; P < 0.001 at both time points). Ondansetron-treated patients reached criteria for home readiness one-half hour sooner than placebo-treated patients (P < 0.05). The age of the child, use of intraoperative opioids, type of surgery, and requirement to tolerate fluids before discharge may also have affected the incidence of postoperative emesis during the 0- to 24-h observation period. Use of postoperative opioids did not have any effect on complete response rates in this patient population. We conclude that the prophylactic use of ondansetron reduces postoperative emesis in pediatric patients, regardless of the operant influential factors., Implications: Postoperative nausea and vomiting often occur after surgery and general anesthesia in children and are the major reason for unexpected hospital admission after ambulatory surgery. Our study demonstrates that the prophylactic use of a small dose of ondansetron reduces postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients.

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of oral ondansetron (8 mg twice daily [BID] for up to 3 days) with those of phenothiazine prochlorperazine (10 mg BID for up to 3 days) in 133 cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. In addition, the study evaluated the impact of these treatments on patients' health-related quality of life, measured with both the Functional Living Index-Cancer and the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaires. The first dose of study drug was administered 30 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy. Patients received a rescue antiemetic at their request or if the investigator deemed it necessary. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of patients with no emetic episodes over the 3-day study period: 60% in the ondansetron group compared with 21% in the prochlorperazine group. Twenty-five percent of ondansetron-treated patients compared with 68% of prochlorperazine-treated patients experienced three or more emetic episodes, rescue medication use, or withdrawal from the study due to emesis or adverse events. Among patients with at least one emetic episode, the mean time to emesis was significantly longer (13 hours and 37 minutes) in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group (9 hours and 30 minutes). Nausea and appetite scores did not differ significantly between groups. The score on the vomiting subscale of the Functional Living Index-Emesis was significantly more favorable in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group, indicating better maintenance of health-related quality of life in ondansetron-treated patients. Both treatments were well tolerated. The most common potentially drug-related adverse event was headache, which occurred in significantly more (16%) ondansetron-treated patients compared with prochlorperazine-treated patients (3%). The results of this study demonstrate that oral ondansetron 8 mg BID for up to 3 days is more effective than prochlorperazine 10 mg BID for up to 3 days in the prevention of emesis associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.