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.

Best Practice Approach to Successful Conversion of Fosaprepitant to Aprepitant IV in a Large Multisite Community Oncology Infusion Center: A Retrospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact on cost, time, resource use, and clinic workflow of converting the route of drug administration from a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion to aprepitant IV, and more specifically to IV push, within a multicenter community oncology practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter time, motion, and resource/cost evaluation study. Conversion to aprepitant IV was determined by calculating number of doses of aprepitant IV versus fosaprepitant administered in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Operational advantages (i.e., supply costs, time saved) of switching from fosaprepitant IV infusion to aprepitant administered as a 2-min IV push were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 12,908 doses of aprepitant IV 130 mg were administered at 13 Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers clinics over an 18-month period. Conversion from fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV reached 90% after 9 months of aprepitant IV initiation. Supply costs per administration were reduced ($2.51 to $0.52) when aprepitant was prepared as an IV push versus an NK-1 RA infusion. The overall time savings per administration of aprepitant was reduced by 90% (from 36.5 to 3.5 min, 33 min saved) as an IV push rather than an infusion. Most of the time saved per administration (30 min) pertained to the infusion nurse, and 3 min was saved by the pharmacy technician. CONCLUSION: Successful conversion to aprepitant, and specifically to a 2-min IV push, provides time, cost, and resource savings, improves operational efficiency, and avoids the negative impact of potential future IV fluid shortages.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a major impact on quality of life for patients receiving chemotherapy. Intravenous (IV) aprepitant is an approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) that has been effective and safe when administered as part of a guideline-recommended regimen in patients receiving chemotherapy. In addition to being approved as a 30-min infusion, aprepitant IV is the only NK-1 RA approved for administration as a 2-min injection. These factors contributed to Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers (RMCC), which is a physician-owned community oncology practice, evaluating the impact on cost, time, and resource use of converting from a 30-min infusion of fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV, and more specifically a 2-min injection. Within 9 months of implementing aprepitant IV at RMCC, the percent utilization compared to fosaprepitant reached over 90%, signifying a successful conversion within the practice. Furthermore, a 2-min injection of aprepitant IV resulted in several operational advantages compared to a 30-min infusion. When accounting for all 13 clinics within RMCC, total monthly time savings to the practice would be over 28,000 min, or approximately 60 workdays per month of saved time. This new workflow is more efficient and allows for pharmacy technicians to complete other necessary tasks in the pharmacy such as cleaning, organizing, managing inventory, drug ordering, and charge/documentation corrections. Time saved by the nurses could be used for enhanced patient care, thoroughly reviewing chemotherapy or other orders, and assisting other nurses.

Netupitant plus palonosetron is a cost-effective treatment for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly and moderately emetogenic cancer treatment.

Introduction: The analysis was conducted to assess a cost-efficacy analysis of new antiemetic drugs (netupitant plus palonosetron (NEPA)) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer treatment. Areas covered:The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of NEPA versus (vs.) palonosetron for the prophylaxis of CINV. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in complete response (CR), for each trial. Our analysis evaluated 2 RCTs, including 1720 patients. Referring to both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, NEPA plus DEX was economic superior to palonosetron (PALO) plus DEX, with 13 312 € and 7885 € gain in medical costs every 100 patients treated, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) (€/CR) in highly emetoge nic risk were 1.24 and 13.23 for the NEPA and PALO group, respectively and 1.49 and 15.20 for the same groups in moderately emetogenic risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 1016.18 €/CR and 1024.03 €/CR in highly and moderately emetogenic risk, respectively. Expert opinion:The combination of NEPA plus DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in highly and moderately (AC-based) emetogenic cancer treatment.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and resource implications: the NVP Impact Study.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is the most prevalent medical condition associated with pregnancy. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published its first guidelines for management of NVP in 2016, although many current treatments are off label, with only one recently licensed treatment for NVP in the UK. AIM: To identify the current practices for NVP management across the patient pathway, and estimate the economic burden to NHS services. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was an observational, retrospective research study conducted in the Newcastle Gateshead Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) health economy area in England. METHOD: Data were collected from GP practices, local hospital datasets, ambulance services (April 2013-March 2016), and the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset (2006-2016). RESULTS: Eight GP practices participated in the study. In all, 15.2% of the total pregnant population presented with NVP. Treatment varied significantly between GP practices, and 33.6% of women re-presented to their GP. There was an annual increase in women admitted to hospital for NVP symptoms, with increasing length of stay per admission. Almost half (44.6%) of the calls to 999/111 from women experiencing NVP symptoms resulted in an ambulance dispatch. The annual cost of NVP to this health economy was estimated to be £199 804, which crudely extrapolates to £25 758 731 at UK level. Due to underestimations of costs, the impact to the UK NHS could be up to £62 373 961. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variation in current management practices for NVP outside of recently published guidelines, and this may result in substantial resource use and avoidable financial impact to the NHS.

Emergency Department Burden of Nausea and Vomiting Associated With Cannabis Use Disorder: US Trends From 2006 to 2013.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic cannabis use is associated with nausea and vomiting that may lead to emergency department (ED) visits, multiple diagnostic tests, and procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze recent trends in ED visits for vomiting associated with cannabis use disorder between 2006 and 2013. METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Emergency Department Sample records in which vomiting (ICD-9-CM codes 787.01, 787.03, and 536.2) was a primary diagnosis in combination with cannabis abuse or dependence (304.3, 304.30, 304.31, 304.32, 304.33, 305.2, 305.20, 305.21, 305.22, and 305.23) and were seen in the ED between 2006 and 2013. The National Emergency Department Sample collects data from more than 25 million visits in over 950 EDs and is weighted to provide national estimates. RESULTS: The rate of ED visits for vomiting with cannabis use disorder from 2006 compared with 2013 increased from 2.3 to 13.3 per 100,000 ED visits, while the mean inflation-adjusted costs increased 68.5% from $2758.43 to $4647.62, respectively. Men between the ages of 20 and 29 were the most common group to present to the ED for vomiting with cannabis use disorder. The Midwest and West had the higher rates of ED visits for vomiting with cannabis use disorder compared with the Northeast and South. CONCLUSIONS: ED visits for vomiting associated with cannabis use disorder is common and is associated with significant medical costs. Further research on the role of cannabis use in nausea and vomiting is warranted.

Clinical Characteristics, Comorbidities and Hospital Outcomes in Hospitalizations with Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) are limited to studies from tertiary care centers. There is a paucity of information about CVS on a national scale. AIM: To study the clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and hospital outcomes in patients hospitalized with CVS using a nationwide database. METHODS: We identified all hospitalizations associated with a primary diagnosis of CVS in 2010 and 2011 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample with an age category of 18-55 years. A 1:2 random sample of non-CVS hospitalizations with the same age category was obtained, and comparisons between groups were made. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine comorbidities independently associated with CVS. RESULTS: Our study included 20,952 CVS and 44,262 non-CVS patients. CVS patients tended to be younger, male, and white compared to non-CVS patients. On multivariate analysis, CVS was significantly associated with comorbidities including dysautonomia, migraine, anxiety, marijuana use, irritable bowel syndrome, gastroparesis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, asthma, cigarette smoking, and hypertension. CVS patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and gastric emptying tests more frequently. They had more favorable hospital outcomes like more routine discharges (discharge to home/self-care), lower mortality, and shorter length of stay but tended to leave against medical advice more frequently. CVS patients incurred total hospital charges of about $400 million over the 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that CVS is associated with several comorbidities and incurred substantial health care costs despite benign outcomes. Efforts to optimize therapy of CVS, manage comorbid conditions and reduce healthcare utilization are warranted.

Quantifying the incidence and cost of acute gastrointestinal illness in Sweden, 2013-2014.

In Sweden, acute gastrointestinal illness (AGI) incidence, severity, impact on productivity, related healthcare usage and associated costs are not ascertained. We measured these in 2013-2014 using a population-based cohort reporting weekly. We defined AGI as ⩾3 episodes of loose stools or vomiting/24 h; or loose stools or vomiting with ⩾2 other gastrointestinal symptoms. After each AGI episode, we collected information about perceived severity, healthcare use and absenteeism. We calculated incidence rates, AGI absenteeism and costs comprising direct healthcare costs and productivity loss due to work/school absenteeism. A total of 3241 participants reported 1696 AGI episodes [incidence 360/1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval (CI) 326-395; highest in the <5 years age group]. In the <5 years age group, 31% of episodes were perceived as mild, 61% as moderate and 8% as severe; 9·4% led to primary-care consultations, and 1·4% to hospital admissions. In the ⩾5 years age group, 18% of episodes were perceived as mild, 64% as moderate and 18% as severe; 6·4% led to primary-care consultations, and 1·9% to hospital admissions. AGI caused 8 891 000 days of absenteeism (95% CI 6 009 000-12 780 000). AGI cost €1 005 885 000 (95% CI 754 309 000-1 257 195 000) nationally for the year. In Sweden, a minority of cases perceive AGI as a mild illness. AGI is a burden on the healthcare system and causes productivity loss, with high costs. Countries may consider these estimates when prioritizing health interventions.

Impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life and resource utilization: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a particularly distressing event for oncology patients. This review aims at analyzing the impact of CINV on Health-Related Quality of Life (QoL) and on the use of healthcare resources. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted according to the PRISMA statement on MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies were included in the final selection. Despite the availability of numerous treatment options, CINV was found to have a strong impact on HRQoL of patients. Direct costs are particularly affected, but this result could be due to scarcity of studies assessing indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the notion that CINV continues to have a negative impact on HRQoL of patients, even for those receiving moderately emetic chemotherapy. Further studies need also to collect data on the cost of CINV, particularly indirect costs, to ensure that decisions on use of healthcare resources are better supported.

Day care versus inpatient management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: cost utility analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative cost effectiveness of day care over inpatient management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). STUDY DESIGN: A cost utility analysis was performed using a decision analytical model in which a Markov model was constructed. The Markov model was primarily populated with data from a recently published randomised controlled trial. Which included pregnant women presenting to Cork University Maternity Hospital, a tertiary referral maternity hospital, seeking treatment for NVP. Costs and outcomes were estimated from the perspective of the Irish health service (HSE) and patients. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using a Monte Carlo simulation, was also performed. A Bayesian Value of Information analysis was used to estimate the value of collecting additional information. RESULTS: When both the healthcare provider and patient's perspective was considered, day care management of NVP remained less costly (mean €985; 95% C.I. 705-1456 vs. €3837 (2124-8466)) and more effective (9.42; 4.19-12.25 vs. 9.49; 4.32-12.39 quality adjusted life years) compared with inpatient management. The Cost Effectiveness Acceptability Curve indicates the probability that day care management is 70% more cost effective compared to inpatient management at a ceiling ratio of €45,000 per QALY, indicating little decision uncertainty. The Bayesian Value of Information analysis indicates there is value in collecting further information; the Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) is estimated to be €5.4 million. CONCLUSION: Day care management of NVP is cost effective compared to inpatient management.

Activity-based cost analysis of opioid-related nausea and vomiting among inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: Nausea and/or vomiting (N/V) are frequent side effects of opioid drugs. These are of major concerns to patients and caregivers and only few studies have focused on their economical costs. DESIGN: This is a prospective, nonproduct-related, activity-based evaluation of personnel and material costs of opioid-related N/V among inpatients. SETTING: Data were obtained from surgical, general medicine, and palliative care wards at 16 German hospitals of different size, healthcare mandate, and ownership. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: According to predefined criteria, of 462 documented N/V events, 340 were diagnosed as opioid related. INTERVENTIONS: Elicited activities and pharmacological interventions for N/V episodes followed local standards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Both materials used and the time engaged to treat patients with N/V were documented on an "ad hoc" activity recording form. The total cost of an opioid-related N/V episode was calculated based on standard wages of the involved personnel and standard costs of the inherent materials used. RESULTS: Mean staff tenure time for handling an episode of N/V was 26.2 ± 19.8 minutes (nausea 16.9 ± 28.7 minutes; nausea + vomiting: 33.4 ± 26.8 minutes). In the German context, this corresponds to average personnel costs of €18.06 ± 13.64. Material cost contributes to another €13.49 ±13.38 of costs mainly depending on acquisition costs of antiemetic drugs. CONCLUSIONS: N/V showed to have impact on workload of nurses and (to lesser extent) physicians and economic burden of €31 ± 22 for each N/V episode. In view of these results, the potential costs of strategies to minimize the incidence of N/V (use of antiemetics and/or the use of new analgesics) should be outweighed against the incurred costs of N/V.

Addressing the value of novel therapies in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troubling side effect of cancer treatment and is often poorly controlled. As a consequence, CINV is associated with substantially increased costs of care and significant interference with patients' lives. Inadequate control over CINV results from factors that include failure to provide guideline-adherent prophylactic medication and limitations in available therapies. Newer serotonin receptor antagonists, such as palonosetron, and addition of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists to treatment have significantly decreased both acute and delayed CINV. A fixed-dose combination of palonosetron and a new NK-1 receptor, netupitant, is significantly superior to palonosetron alone and has small, but consistent, numerical advantages over aprepitant plus palonosetron for prevention of CINV. The combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist plus an NK-1 receptor antagonist has been shown to be cost-effective for prevention of CINV and the availability of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron may enhance this benefit.

The cost of opioid-related adverse drug events.

Opioids are the cornerstone of pain management; however, their use is associated with a variety of adverse drug events (ADEs) ranging from nausea and vomiting to urinary retention and respiratory depression. The purpose of this review is to describe the frequency and cost associated with different types of opioid-related ADEs to better understand their economic impact. A search of studies published in journals from 1946 to December, 2013, was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE. A total of 20 articles were reviewed. Data reflect a substantial economic burden of opioid-related ADEs resulting in high hospital costs, prolonged hospital stays, and substantial health care resource usage. Nausea, vomiting, and constipation are frequent and increased costs occur in all types of pain (surgical, nonsurgical, cancer, noncancer) in both inpatients and outpatients. Given the large economic burden of opioid-related ADEs, prevention rather than treatment may be the most effective strategy.

The economic burden of toxicities associated with cancer treatment: review of the literature and analysis of nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, oral mucositis and fatigue.

Side effects or toxicities are frequent, undesirable companions of almost all forms of non-surgical cancer therapy. It is unusual for patients to complete treatment with radiation or chemotherapy without experiencing at least one form of therapy-associated tissue injury or systemic side effect. Often, toxicities do not occur as solitary events; rather, they result in clusters of symptoms that share a common biological aetiology. Like any disease, cancer treatment-related toxicities (CTRTs) vary in their severity. But, in contrast to most diseases in which incidence is described as being present or absent, the current approach to CTRT typically limits reporting to severe cases only. Not only does this dilute the frequency with which CTRTs occur, but it also undermines our ability to determine the full burden of their impact and to accurately assess the cost effectiveness of potential toxicity interventions. In this article, we report the results of a directed literature review for the years 2000-2012, in which we studied and compared three tissue-based toxicities (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, and oral mucositis) and one systemic toxicity (fatigue). Our results confirm the heavy burden of resource use and cost associated with CTRTs. The inclusion of fatigue in our analysis provided an opportunity to compare and contrast a toxicity in which there are both acute and chronic consequences. Our findings also demonstrate a number of challenges to, and opportunities for, future study. Among the most obvious are the lack of provider consistency in diagnosis and grading, especially when there is no global agreement on severity scales. Compounding this inconsistency is the disconnect between healthcare providers and patients that exists when describing toxicity severity and impact. In many cases, cancer can be thought of as a chronic disease that requires prolonged but episodic treatment once the acute disease is eradicated. This change reflects increasing treatment successes, but it also implies that the burden of CTRTs will be expanded and prolonged. Creation of hierarchical attribution of costs in the presence of simultaneous CTRTs, accurate coding, and consistent tracking tools for toxicities will be imperative for effective appraisal of the costs associated with cancer treatment regimen toxicities.

Willingness to pay to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the value patients place on avoiding various aspects of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can help medical professionals assess whether current and emerging treatments are acceptable based on their costs and expected effects. Little is known, however, about the value patients place on avoiding various aspects of CINV. The current study helps fill this gap in the literature. METHODS: 301 patients completed a discrete-choice conjoint survey. Patients viewed 25 conjoint tasks, each containing two descriptions of CINV, and indicated which they preferred. The descriptions combined levels from eight CINV attributes (likelihood of nausea, duration of nausea, severity of nausea, likelihood of vomiting, duration of vomiting, severity of vomiting, need to seek treatment for dehydration, and out-of-pocket treatment costs). RESULTS: Cost contributed more to patient choices than any other single attribute. The combined effect of the likelihood, duration, and severity attributes for nausea, however, was a stronger driver of patient choices than cost, as was the combined effect of the likelihood, duration, and severity attributes for vomiting. The nausea attributes also were a stronger driver of patient choices than the vomiting attributes. Patients were willing to pay to avoid increases in all attributes, except likelihood of vomiting, where the result was not statistically different from zero. Willingness-to-pay varied by income, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, chemotherapy status, and whether patients worked while on chemotherapy. LIMITATIONS: Although the study used a convenience sample, data were collected from several geographically dispersed U.S. oncology clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Several antiemetics are now available at different price points. This study assesses the value patients place on their benefits and may be used to inform decisions about the management of CINV.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupressure for the control and management of chemotherapy-related acute and delayed nausea: Assessment of Nausea in Chemotherapy Research (ANCHoR), a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain difficult symptoms to manage in clinical practice. As standard antiemetic drugs do not fully eliminate these symptoms, it is important to explore the adjuvant role of non-pharmacological and complementary therapies in antiemetic management approaches. Acupressure is one such treatment showing highly suggestive evidence so far of a positive effect, meriting further investigation. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-acupressure using wristbands compared with sham acupressure wristbands and standard care alone in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea. Secondary objectives included assessment of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the wristbands in relation to vomiting and quality of life and exploration of any age, gender and emetogenic risk effects. DESIGN: Randomised three-arm sham-controlled trial (Assessment of Nausea in Chemotherapy Research or ANCHoR) with an economic evaluation. Arms include the wristband arm, the sham wristband arm and the standard care only arm. Randomisation consisted of minimisation with a random element balancing for gender, age (16-24, > 24-50, >50 years) and three levels of emetogenic chemotherapy (low, moderate and high). Qualitative interviews were incorporated to shed more light on the quantitative findings. SETTING: Outpatient chemotherapy clinics in three regions in the UK involving 14 different cancer units/centres. PARTICIPANTS: Chemotherapy-naive cancer patients receiving chemotherapy of low, moderate and high emetogenic risk. INTERVENTION: The intervention was acupressure wristbands pressing the P6 point (anterior surface of the forearm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Rhodes Index for Nausea/Vomiting, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). At baseline participants completed measures of anxiety/depression, nausea/vomiting expectation and expectations from using the wristbands. RESULTS: In total, 500 patients were randomised in the study arms (166 standard care, 166 sham acupressure and 168 acupressure) and data were available for 361 participants for the primary outcome. The primary outcome analysis (nausea in cycle 1) revealed no statistically significant differences between the three arms, although the median nausea experience in patients using wristbands (both real and sham ones) was somewhat lower than that in the antiemetics only group (median nausea experience scores for the four cycles: standard care arm 1.43, 1.71, 1.14, 1.14; sham acupressure arm 0.57, 0.71, 0.71, 0.43; acupressure arm 1.00, 0.93, 0.43, 0). A gender effect was evident (p= 0.002), with women responding more favourably to the use of sham acupressure wristbands than men (odds ratio 0.35 for men and 2.02 for women in the sham acupressure group; 1.27 for men and 1.17 for women in the acupressure group). This suggests a placebo effect. No significant differences were detected in relation to vomiting outcomes, anxiety and quality of life. Some transient adverse effects were reported, including tightness in the area of the wristbands, feeling uncomfortable when wearing them and minor swelling in the wristband area (n= 6).There were no statistically significant cost differences associated with the use of real acupressure bands (£70.66 for the acupressure group, £111.13 for the standard care group and £161.92 for the sham acupressure group). In total, 26 subjects took part in qualitative interviews. The qualitative data suggested that participants perceived the wristbands (both real and sham) as effective and helpful in managing their nausea during chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences between the three arms in terms of nausea, vomiting and quality of life, although apparent resource use was less in both the real acupressure arm and the sham acupressure arm compared with standard care only; therefore; no clear conclusions can be drawn about the use of acupressure wristbands in the management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. However, the study provided encouraging evidence in relation to an improved nausea experience and some indications of possible cost savings to warrant further consideration of acupressure both in practice and in further clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN87604299. SOURCE OF FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 26. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of granisetron-based versus standard antiemetic regimens in low-emetogenic chemotherapy: a hospital-based perspective from Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: In a prospective cohort study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Malaysia, a total of 94 patients received low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with or without granisetron injections as the primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study is a retrospective cost analysis of two antiemetic regimens from the payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness. RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen. CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.

Burden of acute gastroenteritis among children younger than 5 years of age--a survey among parents in the United Arab Emirates.

BACKGROUND: Despite its high incidence among children under the age of five, little is known about the burden of pediatric gastroenteritis outside the medical setting. The objective of this study was to describe the burden of acute gastroenteritis among children residing in the United Arab Emirates, including those not receiving medical care. METHODS: A quantitative cross-sectional survey of 500 parents of children under 5 years of age who had suffered from acute gastroenteritis the preceding three months was conducted in the cities of Abu Dhabi and Al Ain. Data collected included respondent characteristics, disease symptoms, medical care sought, and parental expenditures and work loss. Data were analyzed using parametric and non-parametric statistical methods. RESULTS: Vomiting and diarrhea episodes lasted on average between 3 and 4 days. Overall, 87% of parents sought medical care for their children; 10% of these cases required hospitalization with an average length of stay of 2.6 days. When medical care was sought, the average parental cost per gastroenteritis episode was US$64, 4.5 times higher than with home care only (US$14). Nearly 60% of this difference was attributable to co-payments and medication use: 69% of children used oral rehydration solution, 68% antiemetics, 65% antibiotics and 64% antidiarrheals. Overall, 38 parents missed work per 100 gastroenteritis episodes for an average of 1.4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Given its high incidence, pediatric gastroenteritis has an important financial and productivity impact on parents in the United Arab Emirates. To reduce this impact, efforts should be made both to prevent acute gastroenteritis and to optimize its treatment.

Communicating about chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a comparison of patient and provider perspectives.

Despite recent progress, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), especially delayed CINV, continues to be a problem. Delayed CINV is underestimated and perceived differently by providers and patients. Communication between providers and patients about this side effect may help improve outcomes. This study identifies patients' and providers' perceptions of management and barriers to quality CINV care. Provider and patient versions of a Nausea and Vomiting Management Barriers Questionnaire were developed to address potential barriers. Providers and patients were given opportunities to add detail in open-ended questions. Providers were recruited through the NCCN and the Oncology Nursing Society mailing lists. Patients who received at least 2 cycles of chemotherapy and experienced CINV were recruited through a consortium of advocacy groups. Both providers (n = 141) and patients (n = 299) completed the survey. Providers (41%) and patients (42%) agreed medication side effects were a concern, but more patients (63%) than providers (36%) tried to limit the number of medications taken (P < .0001). Many providers (67%) spontaneously reported barriers to managing CINV, with financial and patient-related factors among the most common. Few patients (10%) reported cost as a barrier, but 37% endorsed the desire "to be strong by not complaining." Barriers to communication and quality care of CINV differ between caregivers and patients. Addressing misconceptions and establishing mutually consistent goals will lead to more effective overall care.

The cost of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving platinum-containing regimens in daily practice in Japan: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in daily practice in Japan. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study using medical records. Eligible patients were those with bladder or testicular cancer receiving platinum-containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The incidence of CINV on days 1-5 in single-day chemotherapy and on days 1-9 in multiple-day chemotherapy, and the costs of antiemetic therapy directly associated with the administration of antiemetics were estimated. The analysis of costs was performed from a hospital perspective. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients or 169 chemotherapy courses were included. In all chemotherapy courses 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists were used on the day(s) that platinum-containing agents were administered and frequently used on subsequent days. In contrast, the use of corticosteroids was infrequent. Acute CINV in single-day chemotherapy was well controlled, but the incidences of delayed CINV in single-day chemotherapy and CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy were relatively high. The costs for antiemetic therapy were $484.65 in courses with CINV and $318.56 in courses without CINV, and the difference was approximately $170 per chemotherapy course, which was considered to be mainly imputable to the prevalence of CINV. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of antiemetic therapy for CINV is substantial in Japan as well as in other countries, and it is suggested that the onset of CINV is a possible cost driver. The improvements in antiemetic therapy may contribute not only to improved patient well-being but also to a reduction of economic burden.