Economic Value of Fosaprepitant-Containing Regimen in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in China: Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of fosaprepitant (FosAPR)-containing regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) from the Chinese payer's perspective. Methods: A decision tree model was established to measure the 5-day costs and health outcomes between the APR-containing regimen (aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone) and FosAPR-containing regimen (fosaprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone). Clinical data were derived from a randomized, double-blind controlled trial on Chinese inpatients who received HEC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to estimate the utility outcomes and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to assess the economics of FosAPR. A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of FosAPR as a new addition to the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) on the medical insurance fund within 3 years in Nanjing, China. Results: Compared with APR, FosAPR had a mean health-care savings of ¥121.56 but got a reduction of 0.0001815 QALY, resulting in an ICER of ¥669926.19 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of APR was the most influential factor to the ICER. The cost of FosAPR and the complete control rate of the delayed period also had a high impact on the results. According to the probabilistic analysis, the acceptability of FosAPR was more than 80% when the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) was ¥215,999. FosAPR would lead to a 3-year medical insurance payment increase of ¥1.84 million compared with ¥1.49 million before FosAPR entered NRDL in Nanjing. The total budget increased with a cumulative cost of ¥694,829 and covered an additional 341 patients who benefited from FosAPR in Nanjing. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the model of budget impact analysis was stable. Conclusion: FosAPR had a similar treatment effect to APR but was cost-effective in China at the current WTP threshold. The total budget of medical insurance payments of Nanjing slightly increased year by year after the inclusion of FosAPR. Its inclusion in the NRDL would be acceptable and also expand the coverage of patients who benefited from FosAPR.

Clinical Impact of Aprepitant in Patients Receiving High-Dose Chemotherapy prior to Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost benefits of the administration of aprepitant for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who received HDCT at our institution between January 2009 and December 2013. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using direct medical costs. RESULTS: We identified a total of 38 patients (27 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and 11 with multiple myeloma). Thirteen patients received aprepitant and granisetron (aprepitant group) for CINV prophylaxis, whereas 25 patients received granisetron only (non-aprepitant group). The incidence of severe nausea (≥grade 3) was significantly lower in the aprepitant group than in the non-aprepitant group (p = 0.039). The total mean cost per patient during hospitalization, excluding the cost of HDCT and transplantation, was USD 10,941.8 in the aprepitant group and USD 14,577.2 in the non-aprepitant group (p = 0.041). This cost benefit reflected reductions in the costs of hospitalization, transfusion, and infection treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicated that the addition of aprepitant for CINV prophylaxis during HDCT reduced the incidence of severe nausea and might also provide economic benefit in the overall management of HDCT prior to autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.

Tropisetron, ondansetron, and granisetron for control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in Turkish cancer patients: a comparison of efficacy, side-effect profile, and cost.

BACKGROUND: Tropisetron, ondansetron, and granisetron are considered equally efficacious, supported by several international studies. However, there are interindividual variations in their metabolism that could affect efficacy. The clustering of such variations may change from one to another nation. Therefore, their equality must be validated in Turkish patients. The aim of this study was to compare their efficacies, side-effect profiles, and costs in the prophylaxis of emesis induced by moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapies. METHODS: A total of 158 patients with a median age of 48 years, 115 (72.8 percent) female and 43 (27.2 percent) male, were included, respectively. Fifty-one, 61, and 46 patients were allocated to tropisetron (5 mg), ondansetron (8 mg), and granisetron (3 mg IV) in combination with 8 mg dexamethasone, which were continued 5 mg once a day, 8 mg b.i.d. and 1 mg b.i.d. PO for 5 days, respectively. RESULTS: The complete response (CR) rates in the control of acute emesis were 80.4 percent with tropisetron, 72.1 percent with ondansetron, and 71.7 percent granisetron (p = 0.877). CR rates in delayed emesis (Days 2-5) were 68.6 percent, 68.9 percent, and 76.1 percent, respectively (p = 0.527). Rates of freedom from nausea in the same period were 37.3 percent, 35.9 percent, and 33.9 percent (p = 0.949). Nausea control rates, side-effect profile did not differ. However, headache seemed to be encountered higher (45.6 percent) in Turkish patients than others (3.9-9 percent). Tropisetron is the least expensive one ($95.3 per cycle) according to current prices in Turkey. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences among the 3 serotonin antagonists with respect to efficacy and frequency of side-effects in our patients. Tropisetron is the least expensive at current prices. The choice may be based on other parameters, such as ease of administration and patient preference.