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.

Oncologist perspectives on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) management and outcomes: A quantitative market research-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing side effect that can negatively impact patients' quality of life and could discourage completion of chemotherapy, thereby affecting overall treatment outcomes. Although adherence to antiemetic guidelines can reduce CINV incidence in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, CINV control remains inadequate. AIMS: The objectives of this survey were to determine oncologists' practice patterns in CINV management, identify factors that contribute to antiemetic treatment failure, and determine the outcomes of uncontrolled CINV on health care resource utilisation and on patients' attitude towards chemotherapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Quantitative market research was performed using an online questionnaire. Responses from 300 European oncologists who prescribe antiemetics and see ≥50 patients/month were analysed. Results showed that the main reasons reported by oncologists for antiemetic treatment failure were underestimating the emetogenic potential of chemotherapy, utilising weaker antiemetic regimens than required, and patient non-adherence because of administration mistakes or missed/delayed doses. Educational initiatives for the oncology multidisciplinary team may help improve guideline-consistent prescribing. Also, the availability of simpler, more convenient antiemetic therapies may improve guideline adherence and patient compliance during home administration. CONCLUSION: Achieving effective CINV control is a crucial goal to improve patients' quality of life, which should optimise chemotherapy outcomes, and would ultimately reduce health care costs.

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.