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.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) relative to aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a trial-based analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been commonly reported as one of the most distressing adverse effects among treated patients with cancer. Inadequately treated, CINV can lead to increased resource utilization and severely impair patients' daily functioning and quality of life. Direct costs include acquisition cost of antiemetic drugs and rescue medication, administration devices, add-on treatments, such as hydration, and additional patient care, that is, nursing and physician time, unscheduled office visits, emergency room admissions, and, in some cases, extended hospitalization or readmission. There are many reports on the cost-effectiveness of antiemetic drugs, but information on the total cost per patient associated with CINV is limited. The costs associated with severe CINV episodes are considered responsible for the most significant part of the expenditures. SCOPE: The aim of this study was to investigate the management of CINV episodes in three European health-care environments and to estimate direct costs associated with severe CINV episodes. METHODS: An online survey addressed to Italian, German, and French oncologists and oncology nurses was performed. The survey included 41 questions about the management and the resource utilization for patients experiencing any CINV episode during the 6-month period preceding the survey. Furthermore, the cost associated with severe CINV episode management was estimated by adopting the National Health Service's perspective. FINDINGS: A large proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy experienced a CINV episode (34.4% in Italy, 50.2% in France, and 40.4% in Germany); among those, 8.8% in Italy, 11.6% in France, and 19.2% in Germany experienced a severe CINV episode. Compared with Italy, Germany and France presented a greater hospitalization rate following an unplanned visit to the oncology ward or an emergency room access due to CINV. In Italy, the mean cost per patient with a severe CINV episode resulted in approximately €389, about half of the mean cost in France (€750) and a third of the mean cost in Germany (€1,017). CONCLUSIONS: Severe CINV episodes requiring hospitalization, day hospital, or hospitalization extension involve a significant cost for the National Health Services; additional studies should be conducted in order to evaluate potential ways to offset these expenses.

Economic burden of head and neck cancer. A literature review.

This literature review presents the economics of head and neck cancer (HNC), the world's sixth most common neoplasm. HNC economics is complicated by the involvement of multiple body sites, multiple medical specialties, and multiple treatment modalities. Economic analyses of HNC published in English between 1990 and 2002 were identified from electronic data sources. Additional studies were identified manually from bibliographies of retrieved articles. Study characteristics and findings were analyzed. We identified 51 studies that reported original cost data. Most were cost-identification or cost-comparison studies; only one evaluated cost-effectiveness. Few assessed the overall economic burden of HNC or cost effectiveness of current treatments, thus making appropriate comparisons impossible. Systematic measurement of the cost of HNC and its treatment in existing practice settings would be valuable. Inclusion of economic components in clinical trials and the conduct of retrospective or prospective observational studies, such as patient registries, would yield important new information.

Quality of life and economic considerations in the management of prostate cancer.

The purpose of this article was to provide an overview of the morbidity and mortality of prostate cancer, QOL issues and the economic impact of the disease. We searched Medline (from 1990 onwards) for all studies dealing with prostate cancer epidemiology, treatment, screening and staging, and critically reviewed the most relevant articles, focusing on pharmacoeconomic issues. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. In the US, new estimated cases of prostate cancer represented 14.8% of all new cancer cases for 2000, with estimated deaths from prostate cancer comprising 5.8% of all deaths from cancer. Current options for prostate cancer management include radical prostatectomy, cryosurgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy and watchful waiting. Many of the long-term effects of treatment, such as urinary incontinence, impotence and radiation-induced proctitis, have a large impact on patients' quality of life and, in some patients, may offset the clinical benefits. Regulatory bodies and managed care organisations are assigning increasing importance to the evaluation of QOL benefits as an independent clinical endpoint and a measure of patient satisfaction. Several screening programmes for early detection of prostate cancer, mostly based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement or digital rectal examination, have been proposed, but their routine implementation in all asymptomatic elderly men has been questioned. There is still no definite proof that patient outcomes are improved by extensive PSA screening. Furthermore, the total cost of a screening programme is difficult to define since it extends well beyond the initial test. Several instruments are used for QOL assessment in prostate cancer, some of which have been specifically developed for, or adapted to, patients with this disease, such as the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy (FACT) tool, Prostate Cancer Treatment Outcome Questionnaire (PCTO-Q) and Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI). More than 50% of treatment costs for prostate cancer are accrued during the patient's last year of life, and total initial care costs decrease with increasing age. In the US, initial average inpatient costs were estimated at $US 2253, in 1995, for men aged > or =80 years, compared with $US 4540 for men aged 35-64 years. In recent years, treatments based on combined modalities (i.e. radiotherapy/prostatectomy plus hormonal therapies) have emerged. Although cost-effectiveness analyses of various treatment options have been attempted, the strength of their conclusions appears to be limited by the lack of homogeneous literature data on the effects of such interventions on survival and morbidity.