Olanzapine cost-effectiveness in vomiting and nausea from highly emetogenic chemotherapy in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of addition of olanzapine to a prophylactic antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron among children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. METHODS: Health states were estimated using individual patient-level outcome data from a randomised trial. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated from the patient perspective for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. One-way sensitivity analysis was done by varying the cost of olanzapine, cost of hospitalisation and utility values by ±25%. RESULTS: The olanzapine arm had an increment of 0.0018 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the control arm. The mean total expenditure in the olanzapine arm was greater by US$0.51, US$0.43, US$6.73, US$11.05 and US$12.35 in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR($/QALY) was US$282.60 in India, US$241.42 in Bangladesh, US$3755.93 in Indonesia, US$6161.83 in the UK and US$6887.41 in the USA. The NMB was US$9.86, US$10.12, US$14.08, US$44.74 and US$98.79 for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR estimates of the base case and sensitivity analysis were below the willingness-to-pay threshold in all scenarios. CONCLUSION: The addition of olanzapine as a fourth agent for antiemetic prophylaxis is cost-effective despite an increase in overall expenditure. Olanzapine should be uniformly considered for children receiving HEC.

Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Hindi Language Version of the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT) in the Indian Population.

OBJECTIVES: To translate the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT) into Hindi and validate it in Indian pediatric cancer patients and survivors. METHODS: The PeNAT-Hindi was finalized by forward and backward translations, and pilot testing. The PeNAT-Hindi was administered to 200 Hindi-speaking pediatric (4-18 y) cancer patients/survivors, in three groups. These included pediatric cancer patients who had recently received chemotherapy (n = 150); who received no chemotherapy within 5 d (n = 25) and survivors (n = 25). Construct validity was tested by comparing scores among the three groups. Test-retest reliability and criterion validity were estimated by the correlation of the first PeNAT score with the second (taken 1 h later) PeNAT score and the number of vomiting/retching episodes, respectively. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were estimated by correlating PeNAT scores with parent-assessed nausea severity, and pain, respectively. The responsiveness was tested by comparing second PeNAT scores with subsequent divergent PeNAT scores among patients reporting subjective change (improvement and worsening, respectively) in nausea severity. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of PeNAT-Hindi was good (intraclass correlation = 0.791). The initial PeNAT score had moderate correlation with the number of vomiting/retching episodes (Spearman ρ = 0.401). Median PeNAT scores in group 1 versus groups 2 and 3 were significantly different (p < 0.001). Initial PeNAT scores showed a moderate correlation with parent-assessed nausea (Spearman ρ = 0.657) and a weak correlation with parent-assessed pain (Spearman ρ = 0.319). The responsiveness (standardized response mean) of PeNAT-Hindi to the change in nausea severity was -1.79 (improvement) and 2.19 (worsening), respectively. CONCLUSION: PeNAT-Hindi showed good reliability and acceptable validity. It may be used among Hindi-speaking children for measuring nausea. The responsiveness of PeNAT-Hindi needs further evaluation.

Formulation and validation of a baseline prognostic score for osteosarcoma treated uniformly with a non-high dose methotrexate-based protocol from a low middle income healthcare setting: a single centre analysis of 594 patients.

Introduction: The outcomes of osteosarcoma in low middle income countries (LMICs) are different due to patients presenting in advanced stages, resource constraints and the use of non-high-dose-methotrexate (HDMTX)-based regimens. This study derived and validated a prognostic score for osteosarcoma that integrates biologic and social factors and is tailored for patients from an LMIC setting using a non-HDMTX-based protocol. Materials and methods: A retrospective study including osteosarcoma patients enrolled for treatment at a single tertiary care centre in India between 2003-19 was conducted. Baseline biologic and social characteristics were extracted from medical records and survival outcomes were noted. The cohort was randomised into a derivation and validation cohort. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify baseline characteristics that were independently prognostic for survival outcomes in the derivation cohort. A score was derived from the prognostic factors identified in the derivation cohort and further validated in the validation cohort with estimation of its predictive ability. Results: 594 patients with osteosarcoma were eligible for inclusion in the study. Around one-third of the cohort had metastatic disease with 59% of the patients residing in rural areas. The presence of metastases at baseline (HR 3.39; p<0.001; score=3), elevated serum alkaline phosphatase (SAP) >450 IU/L (HR 1.57; p=0.001; score=1) and baseline tumour size > 10 cm (HR 1.68; p<0.001; score=1) were identified to be independent factors predicting inferior event free survival (EFS) and were included in development of the prognostic score. Patients were categorized as low risk (score 0), intermediate risk (score 1-3) and high risk (4-5). Harrell's c-indices for the score were 0.682, 0.608 and 0.657 respectively for EFS in the derivation, validation and whole cohort respectively. The timed AUC of ROC was 0.67 for predicting 18-month EFS in the derivation, validation and whole cohorts while that for 36-month EFS were 0.68, 0.66 and 0.68 respectively. Conclusions: The study describes the outcomes among osteosarcoma patients from an LMIC treated uniformly with a non-HDMTX-based protocol. Tumor size, baseline metastases and SAP were prognostic factors used to derive a score with good predictive value for survival outcomes. Social factors did not emerge as determinants of survival.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen for children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: Individual patient data analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In this study, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for children receiving HEC in India, United Kingdom, and the United States. PROCEDURE: We utilized individual patient-level outcome data from a pediatric randomized trial, which demonstrated the superiority of an aprepitant-based anti-emetic prophylaxis over standard ondansetron and dexamethasone for HEC. Health state for each day of follow-up was analyzed and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB) for each country were estimated. Sensitivity analyses by varying cost of aprepitant, hospitalization, and health state utility values by ±25% were conducted. RESULTS: Use of the aprepitant-based regimen resulted in gain of 0.0019 QALY per chemotherapy cycle along with cost savings of $22.25, $1335.52, and $6612.10 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The cost savings per QALY was estimated to be $12,355.84 for India, $734,282.90 for the United Kingdom, and $3,567,564.11 for the United States. The cost savings for 50% gain in the percentage of days without grade 3 vomiting was $124.18 for India, $7451.63 for the United Kingdom, and $36,892.76 for the United States. The NMB for gain in QALY was $33.62, $1418.60, and $6727.01 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The estimates remained cost-effective across all scenarios of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen is cost-effective for children receiving HEC. It results in overall cost savings and reduced healthcare-resource utilization.