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.

An assessment of the effects of neurokinin1 receptor antagonism against nausea and vomiting: Relative efficacy, sites of action and lessons for future drug development.

A broad-spectrum anti-vomiting effect of neurokinin1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RA), shown in pre-clinical animal studies, has been supported by a more limited range of clinical studies in different indications. However, this review suggests that compared with vomiting, the self-reported sensation of nausea is less affected or possibly unaffected (depending on the stimulus) by NK1 receptor antagonism, a common finding for anti-emetics. The stimulus-independent effects of NK1 RAs against vomiting are explicable by actions within the central pattern generator (ventral brainstem) and the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS; dorsal brainstem), with additional effects on vagal afferent activity for certain stimuli (e.g., highly emetogenic chemotherapy). The central pattern generator and NTS neurones are multifunctional so the notable lack of obvious effects of NK1 RAs on other reflexes mediated by the same neurones suggests that their anti-vomiting action is dependent on the activation state of the pathway leading to vomiting. Nausea requires activation of cerebral pathways by projection of information from the NTS. Although NK1 receptors are present in cerebral nuclei implicated in nausea, and imaging studies show very high receptor occupancy at clinically used doses, the variable or limited ability of NK1 RAs to inhibit nausea emphasizes: (i) our inadequate understanding of the mechanisms of nausea; and (ii) that classification of a drug as an anti-emetic may give a false impression of efficacy against nausea vs. vomiting. We discuss the potential mechanisms for the differential efficacy of NK1 RA and the implications for future development of drugs that can effectively treat nausea, an area of unmet clinical need.

Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. RESULTS: NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Antiemetic use and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting related hospitalization costs after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Aim: Despite numerous available antiemetics, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still affects many patients, and CINV related hospitalizations and costs often result. Materials & methods: PrecisionQ analyzed its database to evaluate CINV related hospitalizations and costs following antiemetics use including netupitant/fosnetupitant with palonosetron (NEPA), aprepitant/fosaprepitant with ondansetron (APON) or aprepitant/fosaprepitant with palonosetron (APPA) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Results: Database analysis identified 15,583 patient records (807 NEPA, 2023 APON, 12,753 APPA) and mean CINV related hospitalization costs were lower across all patients receiving NEPA (US$301) compared with patients receiving APON ($1006, p < 0.0001) or APPA ($321, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: NEPA is associated with lower CINV related hospitalization costs compared with APON and APPA among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy patients often experience nausea and vomiting that not only has a negative impact on the patient's quality of life but can also result in unplanned hospitalizations with high associated costs. Numerous medications and specific guidelines are available to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer. Specifically, the combination of two classes of medications (serotonin inhibitors + neurokinin type 1 inhibitors) has been shown to provide the greatest benefit. However, hospitalizations due to nausea and vomiting still occur, and providers require further information to determine the best options for their patients. In this study, the combination of netupitant/fosnetupitant with palonosetron resulted in lower hospitalization costs compared with aprepitant/fosaprepitant with ondansetron or aprepitant/fosaprepitant with palonosetron in chemotherapy patients.

Assessment of chemotherapy-related educational needs of colorectal cancer patients.

AIM: Aim of our study was to evaluate cancer patients' knowledge about their chemotherapy regimens in order to assess educational needs of patients. METHODS: Study was conducted on 58 colorectal carcinoma patients who were treated in an outpatient chemotherapy unit. These patients had received a 2-page information pamphlet about their chemotherapy treatments before the commencement of treatment. During the first interview with patients, pharmacist collected demographic data and evaluated patients' knowledge about their medications using a standardized questionnaire. FINDINGS: Mean age of the patients was 59.6 ± 1.3 years; 65.5% were male. Majority (77.6%) of patients were graduates of primary school. Sixty-four percent of these had at least one comorbid disease. Median number of chemotherapy courses already received by patients was 4 (1-9). Fifty-nine percent reported that they did not receive any patient education and 43.1% reported that they did not receive any informative document. Twenty-nine percent of patients did not know what actions to take in case of nausea-vomiting; while 53.4% did not know how to react if their body temperature exceeded 38 °C and 25.9% had no idea about dietary necessities. About one-third of patients did not pay attention to oral care. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that patients did not understand (or remember) the basic points about their chemotherapy sufficiently, but remembered the adverse effects they experienced occasionally. Pharmacists will have the chance to increase the level of knowledge of the patients receiving chemotherapy by providing patient education and follow-up.

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.

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.

Timing is everything: The importance of patient-reported outcome assessment frequency when characterizing symptomatic adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: Although patient-reported symptoms and side effects are increasingly measured in cancer clinical trials, an appropriate assessment frequency has not yet been established. To determine whether differences in assessment frequency affect the apparent incidence and severity of patient-reported symptoms using two well-established patient-reported outcome measures used within the same clinical trial. METHODS: We examined patient-reported outcome results from AURA3 (NCT02151981), a randomized open-label study comparing Tagrisso (osimertinib) with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously treated estimated glomerular filtration rate/T790M mutation-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients in each arm that reported worsening of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, and appetite loss from baseline measured using the patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event (weekly) or European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (every 6 weeks). RESULTS: Similar trends were observed for all six symptoms investigated. Using nausea in the chemotherapy arm as an example, 76% of patients reported any worsening from baseline based on weekly patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event assessments. When using an every 6-week assessment of Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 nausea and restricting analysis to an every 6-week assessment for patient-reported outcome-common terminology criteria for adverse event nausea, the proportion of chemotherapy arm patients reporting any worsening of nausea was 40% for both measures. Across the six patient-reported symptomatic adverse events, we observed differential proportions when comparing frequent versus sparse assessment. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that more frequent assessment of patient-reported symptomatic adverse events will lead to improved detection, and therefore a more complete understanding of the tolerability of experimental anti-cancer therapies.

Cost-effectiveness of palonosetron and dexamethasone-based triple and quadruple regimens in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analyses that consider all currently used antiemetics in the case of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been performed yet. We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine (OLA), or/and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1-RAs), in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) in preventing highly emetogenic CINV. METHODS: Two decision analytic models were constructed. The first model was based on overall complete response (CR); the second model was based on rate of absence of nausea. Four antiemetic regimens PAL + DEX, NK-1-RAs + PAL + DEX, OLA + PAL + DEX, and PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA were compared in terms of cost, overall CR and rate of absence of nausea. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were calculated. The study was from the US payer perspective. RESULTS: In terms of CR, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest gains in the percentage of CR among all treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $4220 versus PAL + DEX, $4656 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $16,471 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. In term of rate of absence of nausea, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest rate of absence of nausea among all the treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $2291 versus PAL + DEX, $1304 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $2657 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. CONCLUSION: from an economic perspective, our study revealed that whether to use overall CR or/and rate of absence of nausea as determinants in the antiemetic decision for the CINV patients, the CR-based-, and rate of absence of nausea-based cost-effectiveness analyses, showed negotiable ICER estimates for the treatment PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA over the combinations PAL + DEX, NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, and OLA + PAL + DEX regimens.

A Smartphone-Based Decision Support Tool for Predicting Patients at Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Retrospective Study on App Development Using Decision Tree Induction.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are the two most frightful and unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy. CINV is accountable for poor treatment outcomes, treatment failure, or even death. It can affect patients' overall quality of life, leading to many social, economic, and clinical consequences. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the performances of different data mining models for predicting the risk of CINV among the patients and developed a smartphone app for clinical decision support to recommend the risk of CINV at the point of care. METHODS: Data were collected by retrospective record review from the electronic medical records used at the University of Missouri Ellis Fischel Cancer Center. Patients who received chemotherapy and standard antiemetics at the oncology outpatient service from June 1, 2010, to July 31, 2012, were included in the study. There were six independent data sets of patients based on emetogenicity (low, moderate, and high) and two phases of CINV (acute and delayed). A total of 14 risk factors of CINV were chosen for data mining. For our study, we used five popular data mining algorithms: (1) naive Bayes algorithm, (2) logistic regression classifier, (3) neural network, (4) support vector machine (using sequential minimal optimization), and (5) decision tree. Performance measures, such as accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity with 10-fold cross-validation, were used for model comparisons. A smartphone app called CINV Risk Prediction Application was developed using the ResearchKit in iOS utilizing the decision tree algorithm, which conforms to the criteria of explainable, usable, and actionable artificial intelligence. The app was created using both the bulk questionnaire approach and the adaptive approach. RESULTS: The decision tree performed well in both phases of high emetogenic chemotherapies, with a significant margin compared to the other algorithms. The accuracy measure for the six patient groups ranged from 79.3% to 94.8%. The app was developed using the results from the decision tree because of its consistent performance and simple, explainable nature. The bulk questionnaire approach asks 14 questions in the smartphone app, while the adaptive approach can determine questions based on the previous questions' answers. The adaptive approach saves time and can be beneficial when used at the point of care. CONCLUSIONS: This study solved a real clinical problem, and the solution can be used for personalized and precise evidence-based CINV management, leading to a better life quality for patients and reduced health care costs.

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. RESULTS: Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy cause physical and emotional distress, and up to 30% of affected women require medical treatment. Guidelines on the use of anti-sickness drugs exist, but evidence is limited about which drugs work the best. The EMPOWER (EMesis in Pregnancy ­ Ondansetron With mEtoClopRamide) trial aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two anti-sickness drugs [metoclopramide (metoclopramide hydrochloride, Actavis UK Ltd, Barnstable, UK; IV Ratiopharm GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride dehydrate, Wockhardt UK Ltd, Wrexham, UK; IV Hameln Pharma plus GmbH, Hameln)] for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Women who were < 17 weeks pregnant with severe nausea and vomiting who attended hospital because their first anti-sickness drug had failed to improve their symptoms were asked to take part in the trial. Participants received fluids and, with consent, were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron or (4) double dummy. Trial drugs were administered into a vein and then by tablet for 10 days. On advice from sufferers, the trial focused on treatment failure, but other outcomes, including drug side effects, costs and pregnancy outcome, were collected. The trial was unable to recruit enough women and, therefore, did not progress. Nearly 600 women at 11 hospitals were screened, of whom 122 (21%) were eligible and 33 were recruited. The main reason for ineligibility (68%) was prior use of trial drug (mostly ondansetron). Overall, 15 out of 30 evaluable women experienced treatment failure. Interviews with 21 women who were approached about the trial and 22 research staff identified complex hurdles to and enablers of recruitment. The main hurdles were the requirements of the study protocol in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs and the diversity of pathways to care. The role of research staff was a key enabler. The trial was too small to draw useful conclusions and it highlights the challenges of conducting complex studies on sick pregnant women. Subsequent concerns about the safety of ondansetron highlight the need for further studies to help inform women and the NHS about the best care for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles.

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the published cost-effectiveness analyses of aprepitant for patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and CBM database. The date of publication is up to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved and reviewers reached a consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS). The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2019 using the CCEMG-EPPI-Certer Cost Converter. Results: Thirteen articles were included based on the inclusion criteria for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis. Twelve studies were rated as good quality and one as a moderate quality based on the CHEERS checklist. Eight studies compared aprepitant plus 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) and dexamethasone with the standard regimen (5-HT3RA and dexamethasone). It was concluded that aprepitant plus standard regimen was a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV. Only one study that compared aprepitant plus 5-HT3RA with 5-HT3RA, concluded that the addition of aprepitant reduced the incidence of severe nausea, and it might also provide an economic benefit in the overall management. Four studies that compared aprepitant with other antiemetic drugs concluded that aprepitant is a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV compared with metoclopramide. However, netupitan + palonosetron and olanzapine are cost-effective compared with aprepitant. Conclusion: This study is the first systematic evaluation of adding aprepitant to standard regimens for patients with CINV. Most economic evaluations of antiemetic medications are reported to be of good quality. Adding aprepitant to standard regimens is found to be a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV.

The preferences of women with ovarian cancer for oral versus intravenous recurrence regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To assess preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding features of available anti-cancer regimens for platinum-resistant, biomarker-positive disease, with an emphasis on oral PARP inhibitor and standard intravenous (IV) chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A discrete-choice-experiment preferences survey was designed, tested, and administered to women with ovarian cancer, with 11 pairs of treatment profiles defined using seven attributes (levels/ranges): regimen (oral daily, IV weekly, IV monthly); probability of progression-free (PFS) at 6 months (40%-60%); probability of PFS at 2 years (10%-20%); nausea (none, moderate); peripheral neuropathy (none, mild, moderate); memory problems (none, mild); and total out-of-pocket cost ($0 to $10,000). RESULTS: Of 123 participants, 38% had experienced recurrence, 25% were currently receiving chemotherapy, and 18% were currently taking a PARP inhibitor. Given attributes and levels, the relative importance weights (sum 100) were: 2-year PFS, 28; cost, 27; 6-month PFS, 19; neuropathy,14; memory problems, nausea, and regimen, all ≤5. To accept moderate neuropathy, participants required a 49% (versus 40%) chance of PFS at 6 months or 14% (versus 10%) chance at 2 years. Given a 3-way choice where PFS and cost were equal, 49% preferred a monthly IV regimen causing mild memory problems, 47% preferred an oral regimen causing moderate nausea, and 4% preferred a weekly IV regimen causing mild memory and mild neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings challenge the assumption that oral anti-cancer therapies are universally preferred by patients and demonstrate that there is no "one size fits all" regimen that is preferable to women with ovarian cancer when considering recurrence treatment regimens.

Chemotherapy Remote Care Monitoring Program: Integration of SMS Text Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Electronic Health Record and Pharmacist Intervention for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common cause of unplanned healthcare utilization. The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center initiated the chemotherapy remote care monitoring program (CRCMP) to proactively identify patients experiencing CINV and intervene before the need for urgent evaluation. METHODS: High-risk patients for CINV are identified by neurokinin-1 (NK-1) antagonist administration, enrolled in the CRCMP, and received a daily text message survey for 7 days after chemotherapy administration to report symptoms. Responses above a set threshold trigger a message to the team pharmacist for intervention. The primary outcome of 14-day unplanned healthcare use was evaluated before and after CRCMP implementation. RESULTS: In 8 months, 652 patients received an NK-1 antagonist (2,244 cycles) and 387 patients were enrolled in the CRCMP (59%). Text message response rate was 94%. Clinical pharmacists provided 248 interventions in 121 patient episodes meeting threshold criteria. Fourteen-day unplanned healthcare use was decreased in the CRCMP-enrolled NK-1 episodes (6.68% v 4.53%, P = .02). Admissions were numerically lower for those enrolling in CRCMP when only admissions for nausea were considered (0.63% v 0.35%, P = .33). CONCLUSION: The CRCMP allowed for real-time management of patient-reported CINV symptom burden based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and an electronic medical record-integrated SMS text questionnaire. Clinical pharmacists were key team members to manage patient symptoms. Enrollment in CRCMP significantly reduced overall unplanned healthcare utilization. Although these changes were numerically small, any reduction in unnecessary care utilizing PROs can contribute to high-value care for patients with cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients.

PURPOSE: Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV. RESULTS: Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review, meta-analysis, cumulative meta-analysis and fragility assessment of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model. RESULTS: Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Avoidable Acute Care Use Associated with Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy or Oxaliplatin.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. RESULTS: Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Cost-effectiveness of newer regimens for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: review of the literature and real-world data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To investigate the cost of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for cancer treatment in real life. RECENT FINDINGS: A retrospective analysis of all consecutives patients with advanced lung cancer treated in platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) chemotherapy and with breast cancer treated with anthracycline and cyclophosphamide -based chemotherapy at our Medical Oncology Unit during 4 years was performed. The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital (&OV0556;). SUMMARY: We evaluated 110 patients with lung cancer and 55 patients with breast cancer. Concerning lung cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 133 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and dexamethasone (DEX) vs. the combination of palonosetron (PALO) and DEX for each patient. Concerning breast cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 78 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and DEX vs. the combination of PALO and DEX for each patient. Combining the medical costs of antiemetic therapy with the measure of efficacy represented by the complete response, the combination of NEPA and DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in HEC and MEC cancer treatment.

Long-Term (3 Years) Outcomes of Ranolazine Therapy for Refractory Angina Pectoris (from the Ranolazine Refractory Registry).

Ranolazine is approved for patients with chronic stable angina but has not been formally studied in patients with refractory angina pectoris (RAP). Patients with RAP have limited therapeutic options and significant limitations in their quality of life. The Ranolazine Refractory Angina Registry was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of ranolazine in RAP patients in order to expand treatment options for this challenging patient population. Using an extensive prospective database, we enrolled 158 consecutive patients evaluated in a dedicated RAP clinic. Angina class, medications, major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization were obtained at 12, 24, and 36 months. At 3 years, 95 (60%) patients remained on ranolazine. A ≥2 class improvement in angina was seen in 48% (38 of 80 patients with known Canadian Cardiovascular Society class) of those who remained on ranolazine. Discontinuation due to side effects, ineffectiveness, cost, and progression of disease were the principle reasons for discontinuation, but primarily occurred within the first year. In conclusion, ranolazine is an effective antianginal therapy at 3-year follow-up in patients with RAP and may reduce cardiac readmission.