An assessment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting direct costs in three EU countries

Effectivity of oral ginger supplementation for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children: A systematic review of clinical trials

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) affects over 50% of pediatric patients undergoing chemotherapy, a higher proportion than in adults. CINV often occurs despite adequate antiemetic prophylaxis, hampering patients' willingness to continue the chemotherapy regimen. As an ayurvedic medicine, ginger (Zingiber officinale) has an antiemetic effect by inhibiting serotonin in gastrointestinal nerves and as an NK1 antagonist. Therefore, we aimed to review oral ginger supplementation in children with CINV systematically. Systematic searching was performed in June 2023 from Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and hand searching. The search consisted of PICO "children chemotherapy", "ginger", and "CINV incidence". We limited the search to only human studies. Studies that meet inclusion and exclusion criteria were included for analysis. Out of 116 studies found with our selection criteria, four were compatible with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two studies had a small Risk of Bias (RoB), while the others had a high RoB. All studies statistically significantly reduced acute and delayed CINV with the number needed to treat (NNT) 2-4. No adverse effects were reported. However, these studies still had high heterogeneity based on cancer treatment, chemotherapy regimen, ginger dosing, and ginger processing. Ginger has the potential to reduce both the acute and delayed phases of CINV in children. Additional research employing standardized methodologies is recommended to validate this effect.

Portuguese consensus on the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatments

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) strongly affect the quality of life of patients with cancer. Inadequate antiemetic control leads to the decline of patients' quality of life, increases rescue interventions, and may even compromise adherence to cancer treatment. Although there are international recommendations for controlling CINV and RINV, these recommendations focus mainly on pharmacological management, with scarce information on additional measures that patients may adopt. Moreover, the prophylaxis and management of CINV/RINV are not always applied. Thus, we identified the need to systematize the strategies for preventing and managing CINV/RINV and the associated risk factors to implement and promote effective prophylactic antiemetic regimens therapy in patients with cancer. This review sought to create a set of practical recommendations for managing and controlling CINV/RINV, according to the current international recommendations for antiemetic therapy and the main risk factors. Conclusively, we intended to produce a patient-centered guidance document for health care professionals focused on the awareness, monitoring, and treatment of CINV/RINV.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and the subsequent vomiting (CINV) are adverse effects of cancer treatment associated with considerable burden for the patient. CINV has a significant negative impact on quality of life. The consequent loss of fluids and electrolytes can lead to impaired renal function or weight loss, which may lead to hospitalization. If CINV later results in anticipatory vomiting, this complicates both CINV prophylaxis and further chemotherapy, which can endanger the continuation of cancer treatment. The introduction of high-dose dexamethasone as well as 5‑HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists has led to a significant improvement of CINV prophylaxis since the 1990s. Recommendations on CINV prophylaxis are in available in guidelines. Adherence to these guidelines results in better outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings.

METHODS

A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained.

RESULTS

NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125.

CONCLUSION

By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

Assessing the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' quality of life: An Arabic version of the Functional Living Index-Emesis

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a serious complication of cancer treatment that compromises patients' quality of life and treatment adherence, which necessitates regular assessment. Therefore, there is a need to assess patient-reported nausea and vomiting using a validated scale among Arabic speaking cancer patient population. The objective of this study was to translate and validate the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument in Arabic, a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the influence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients' quality of life.

METHODS

Linguistic validation of an Arabic-language version was performed. The instrument was administered to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in a tertiary hospital's cancer center in Saudi Arabia.

RESULTS

One-hundred cancer patients who received chemotherapy were enrolled. The participants' mean age was 53.3 ± 14.9 years, and 50% were female. Half of the participants had a history of nausea and vomiting with previous chemotherapy. The Cronbach coefficient alpha for the FLIE was 0.9606 and 0.9736 for nausea and vomiting domains, respectively, which indicated an excellent reliability for the Arabic FLIE. The mean FLIE score was 110.9 ± 23.5, indicating no or minimal impact on daily life (NIDL).

CONCLUSIONS

The Arabic FLIE is a valid and reliable tool among the Arabic-speaking cancer population. Thus, the Arabic version of the FLIE will be a useful tool to assess the quality of life among Arabic speaking patients receiving chemotherapy. Additionally, the translated instrument will be a useful tool for future research studies to explore new antiemetic treatments among cancer patients.

Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scientific evidence proves its detrimental impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL), treatment compliance, and overall healthcare cost. Despite the CINV-management landscape witnessing a radical shift with the introduction of novel, receptor-targeting antiemetic agents, this side effect remains a chink in the armor of a treating oncologist. Though global guidelines acknowledge patient-specific risk factors and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenic potential in CINV control, a "one-fit-for-all" approach cannot be followed across all geographies. Hence, in a pioneering attempt, India-based oncologists conveyed easily implementable, region-specific, consensus-based statements on CINV prevention and management. These statements resulted from integrating the analysis of scientific evidence and guidelines on CINV by the experts, with their clinical experience. The statements will strengthen decision-making abilities of Indian oncologists/clinicians and help in achieving consistency in CINV prevention and management in the country. Furthermore, this document shall lay the foundation for developing robust Indian guidelines for CINV prevention and control.

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70-80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact. Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT₃ RA + NK₁ RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care. Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.

Cost-minimization analysis of GSTP1c.313A>G genotyping for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: A Bayesian inference approach

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are concerning adverse events resulting from cancer treatment, and current guidelines recommend the use of neurokinin-1-selective antagonists, such as fosaprepitant, in highly emetogenic schemes. However, the implementation of this strategy may be limited by the cost of treatment. GSTP1 c.313A>G genotype was recently described as a predictor of vomiting related to high-dose cisplatin. We hypothesized that the inclusion of routine GSTP1 c.313A>G screening may be promising in financial terms, in contrast to the wide-spread use of fosaprepitant.

Methods

A cost-minimization analysis was planned to compare GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping versus overall fosaprepitant implementation for patients with head and neck cancer under chemoradiation therapy with high-dose cisplatin. A decision analytic tree was designed, and conditional probabilities were calculated under Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. The observed data included patients under treatment without fosaprepitant, while priors were derived from published studies.

Results

To introduce screening with real-time polymerase chain reaction, an initial investment of U$ 39,379.97 would be required, with an amortization cost of U$ 7,272.97 per year. The mean cost of standard therapy with fosaprepitant is U$ 243.24 per patient, and although the initial cost of routine genotyping is higher, there is a tendency of progressive minimization at a threshold of 155 patients (Credible interval–CI: 119 to 216), provided more than one sample is incorporated for simultaneous analysis. A resulting reduction of 35.83% (CI: 30.31 to 41.74%) in fosaprepitant expenditures is then expected with the implementation of GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping.

Conclusion

GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping may reduce the use of preventive support for chemotherapy induced nausea and lower the overall cost of treatment. Despite the results of this simulation, randomized, interventional studies are required to control for known and unknown confounders as well as unexpected expenses.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialist oncology centers in France

BACKGROUND

Evidence from clinical trials suggests that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer improves progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS). However, a retrospective analysis of real-world data from the French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (FCCC) through the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) Research Program, suggested that in this setting, the addition of bevacizumab may confer a significant benefit in terms of both PFS and OS. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer at specialist oncology centers in France.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using a three-state Markov model and clinical input data from N = 3426 HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. The analysis was performed from a third party payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel led to incremental gain of 0.72 life years and 0.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to paclitaxel alone. The incremental lifetime cost of the addition of bevacizumab was EUR 27,390, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 56,721 per QALY gained for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone. In a subgroup of triple negative patients the ICER was EUR 66,874 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis indicated that the combination of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is likely to be cost-effective compared with paclitaxel alone for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialized oncology centers in France.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

SETTING

Oncology hospital department in Italy.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered.

RESULTS

NEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC).

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.

NEPA, a new fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, is a cost-effective intervention for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the UK

Background

The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with aprepitant and palonosetron (APPA) or palonosetron (PA) alone, to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing treatment with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) in the UK.

Scope

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to compare NEPA with currently recommended anti-emetics. Relative effectiveness was estimated over the acute (day 1) and overall treatment (days 1–5) phases, taking complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue medication) and complete protection (CP, CR and no more than mild nausea [VAS scale <25 mm]) as primary efficacy outcomes. A three-health-state Markov cohort model, including CP, CR and incomplete response (no CR) for HEC and MEC, was constructed. A five-day time horizon and UK NHS perspective were adopted. Transition probabilities were obtained by combining the response rates of CR and CP from NEPA trials and odds ratios from the meta-analysis. Utilities of 0.90, 0.70 and 0.24 were defined for CP, CR and incomplete response, respectively. Costs included medications and management of CINV-related events and were obtained from the British National Formulary and NHS Reference Costs. The expected budgetary impact of NEPA was also evaluated.

Findings

In HEC patients, the NEPA strategy was more effective than APPA (quality-adjusted life days [QALDs] of 4.263 versus 4.053; incremental emesis-free and CINV-free days of +0.354 and +0.237, respectively) and was less costly (£80 versus £124), resulting in NEPA being the dominant strategy. In MEC patients, NEPA was cost effective, cumulating in an estimated 0.182 extra QALDs at an incremental cost of £6.65 compared with PA.

Conclusion

Despite study limitations (study setting, time horizon, utility measure), the results suggest NEPA is cost effective for preventing CINV associated with HEC and MEC in the UK.