Cost-effectiveness analysis of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Belgium

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings.

METHODS

A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained.

RESULTS

NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125.

CONCLUSION

By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen for children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: Individual patient data analysis of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In this study, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for children receiving HEC in India, United Kingdom, and the United States.

PROCEDURE

We utilized individual patient-level outcome data from a pediatric randomized trial, which demonstrated the superiority of an aprepitant-based anti-emetic prophylaxis over standard ondansetron and dexamethasone for HEC. Health state for each day of follow-up was analyzed and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB) for each country were estimated. Sensitivity analyses by varying cost of aprepitant, hospitalization, and health state utility values by ±25% were conducted.

RESULTS

Use of the aprepitant-based regimen resulted in gain of 0.0019 QALY per chemotherapy cycle along with cost savings of $22.25, $1335.52, and $6612.10 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The cost savings per QALY was estimated to be $12,355.84 for India, $734,282.90 for the United Kingdom, and $3,567,564.11 for the United States. The cost savings for 50% gain in the percentage of days without grade 3 vomiting was $124.18 for India, $7451.63 for the United Kingdom, and $36,892.76 for the United States. The NMB for gain in QALY was $33.62, $1418.60, and $6727.01 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The estimates remained cost-effective across all scenarios of the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen is cost-effective for children receiving HEC. It results in overall cost savings and reduced healthcare-resource utilization.

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.

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.

Ultra-low doses of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 agonist, resiniferatoxin, prevents vomiting evoked by diverse emetogens in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva)

Published studies have shown that the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) receptor agonist, resiniferatoxin (RTX), has pro and antiemetic effects. RTX can suppress vomiting evoked by a variety of nonselective emetogens such as copper sulfate and cisplatin in several vomit-competent species. In the least shrew, we have already demonstrated that combinations of ultra-low doses of RTX and low doses of the cannabinoid CB1/2 receptor agonist delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ-THC) produce additive antiemetic effects against cisplatin-evoked vomiting. In the current study, we investigated the broad-spectrum antiemetic potential of very low nonemetic doses of RTX against a diverse group of specific emetogens including selective and nonselective agonists of serotonergic 5-hydroxytrptamine (5-HT3) receptor (5-HT and 2-Me-5-HT), dopaminergic D2 receptor (apomorphine and quinpirole), cholinergic M1 receptor (pilocarpine and McN-A-343), as well as the selective substance P neurokinin NK1 receptor agonist GR73632, the selective L-Type calcium channel agonist FPL64176, and the sarcoplasmic endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase (SERCA) inhibitor thapsigargin. When administered subcutaneously, ultra-low (0.01 µg/kg) to low (5.0 µg/kg) doses of RTX suppressed vomiting induced by the aforementioned emetogens in a dose-dependent fashion with 50% inhibitory dose values ranging from 0.01 to 1.26 µg/kg. This study is the first to demonstrate that low nanomolar nonemetic doses of RTX have the capacity to completely abolish vomiting caused by diverse receptor specific emetogens in the least shrew model of emesis.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with temozolomide: an audit from a tertiary care center

Background

In our previous experience, a significant proportion of patients who received 5-HT₃ antagonist monotherapy with adjuvant temozolomide (150-200 mg/m²) had chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This is an audit comparing the multiple antiemetic therapies in the prevention of temozolomide-associated CINV.

Methods

This was a retrospective audit. Adult glioma patients treated with temozolomide at a dose of 150-200 mg/m² between October 2017 and June 2018 were selected for this analysis. Three antiemetic prophylaxis were used in this time period: ondansetron (October 2017 to November 2017), ondansetron + domperidone (December 2017 to February 2018), and ondansetron + olanzapine (March 2018 to June 2018). The rates of nausea and vomiting were compared among the 3 cohorts using the chi-squared test with Bonferroni correction. A P value of less than .016 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 360 patients were selected for this analysis. There were 91 patients in the ondansetron prophylaxis group (25.3%), 113 (31.4%) in the ondansetron plus domperidone group, and 156 (43.3%) in the ondansetron plus olanzapine group. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 25.0% (n = 90) and 7.2% (n = 26). Overall the rates of nausea (P = .052) and vomiting (P = .481) were similar in all 3 cohorts. However, the rates of grade 2 and above nausea (P = .012) and vomiting (P = .015) were significantly lower in the olanzapine group.

Conclusion

The combination of ondansetron with olanzapine leads to a statistically significant decrease in the rate of moderate-to-severe emesis and nausea and needs to be explored in a prospective study.

Cost-utility analysis of palonosetron in the antiemetic regimen for cisplatin-containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Japan

BACKGROUND

An antiemetic triplet regimen of 5-hydrotryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is the standard prophylaxis with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). A randomized phase III trial comparing palonosetron (PALO) versus granisetron (GRA) in the triplet antiemetic regimen (The TRIPLE study) showed the superiority of PALO over GRA for delayed-phase vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. However, economic efficiency evaluations including quality of life have not been done. The present study was a cost-utility analysis of PALO within the Japanese medical insurance system.

METHODS

The data source was the results of the TRIPLE study. A decision tree was constructed to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the medical service fees and the drug price for 2018 from the perspective of the payer. A one-way sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the model. A threshold analysis was performed to determine the cost-effective price of PALO.

RESULTS

In the base case, the estimated incremental effect of PALO addition was 0.000645 QALYs, the estimated incremental cost was 10,455 JPY (93.21 USD), and the ICER was 16,204,591 JPY QALY (144,465 USD/QALY). In the PSA, the probability of superior cost-effectiveness was 3.64%. In the threshold analysis, the acceptable price of PALO was estimated to be 7,743 JPY (69.03 USD).

CONCLUSIONS

If willingness-to-pay is taken as 5,000,000 JPY/QALY (44,575 USD/QALY), the antiemetic regimen using PALO for cisplatin-containing HEC was not cost-effective at this time. The cost of drugs, with the arrival of inexpensive generic drugs, will make a major contribution to its cost-effectiveness.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis Between Aprepitant- and Fosaprepitant-containing Regimens To Prevent Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Japan

PURPOSE

Clinical trials have shown that the addition of aprepitant (APR) or a phosphorylated prodrug of aprepitant, fosaprepitant (FosAPR) as prophylactic antiemetic therapy consisting of a 5-hydrotryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is effective in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. These combination therapies have been commonly used in Japan. In the present study, we performed a cost-utility analysis of APR and FosAPR in the context of the Japanese medical insurance system, and economic efficiency was compared.

METHODS

Data from randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of APR and FosAPR in the Japanese population were used. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the effectiveness of chemotherapy for 5 days from the day of the treatment and the cost associated with outpatient chemotherapy from the perspective of a payer. Health outcome was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were estimated based on medical fees and drug prices from 2018. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each regimen containing either APR or FosAPR. The robustness of the model was assessed using 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

FINDINGS

The base-case analysis estimated that the addition of APR or FosAPR would have incremental effects of 0.00166 and 0.00143 QALY and incremental costs of 8305 and 11,348 JPY (74 and 101 USD [1 USD = 112.17 JPY]), resulting in ICERs of 4,992,172 and 7,955,560 JPY/QALY (44,505 and 70,924 USD/QALY), respectively. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of a complete response for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting had the most influence on the ICERs. Reductions in the drug costs of APR and FosAPR also had an effect on the ICERs. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, APR and FosAPR were dominant in terms of cost-effectiveness in 48.7% and 8.55% of cases, respectively.

IMPLICATIONS

The ICER of outpatient prophylactic antiemetic therapy in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy was calculated in the context of the Japanese medical insurance system. Assuming the willingness-to-pay of 5,000,000 JPY/QALY based on the calculated ICER, our findings suggest that although the addition of APR is cost-effective, FosAPR is not cost-effective.

Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) is recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC, respectively). We previously reported that aprepitant, an NK₁RA, was needed to control CINV in 43% and 12% of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively (Support Care Cancer 23:905-912, 2015). To elucidate the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in these patients, a cost-utility analysis according to the necessity of aprepitant was performed.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed according to the necessity of aprepitant and CINV responses in both acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy. Probabilities of health states and medical costs were derived from the results of the abovementioned trial.

RESULT

In patients who received HEC and needed aprepitant, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the regimen with no aprepitant, was 7912 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which was far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. The ICER was 27,457 USD/QALY in patients who received MEC and needed aprepitant. In contrast, in patients who received HEC or MEC but did not need aprepitant, the ICER was 175,959 or 478,844 USD/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of whether a patient received HEC or MEC, aprepitant use was highly cost-effective for patients who truly needed it. These results warrant further research to predict the necessity of NK₁RA treatment before initiating emetogenic chemotherapies.

Economic analysis of palonosetron versus granisetron in the standard triplet regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Japan (TRIPLE phase III trial)

Background

We conducted an economic assessment using test data from the phase III TRIPLE study, which examined the efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist as part of a standard triplet antiemetic regimen including aprepitant and dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Methods

We retrospectively investigated all medicines prescribed for antiemetic purposes within 120 h after the initiation of cisplatin administration during hospitalization. In the TRIPLE study, patients were assigned to treatment with granisetron (GRA) 1 mg (n = 413) or palonosetron (PALO) 0.75 mg (n = 414). The evaluation measure was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) assessed as the cost per complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching and no rescue medication). The analysis was conducted from the public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Results

The CR rates were 59.1% in the GRA group and 65.7% in the PALO group (P = 0.0539), and the total frequencies of rescue medication use for these groups were 717 (153/413 patients) and 573 (123/414 patients), respectively. In both groups, drugs with antidopaminergic effects were chosen as rescue medication in 86% of patients. The costs of including GRA and PALO in the standard triplet antiemetic regimen were 15,342.8 and 27,863.8 Japanese yen (JPY), respectively. In addition, the total costs of rescue medication use were 73,883.8 (range, 71,106.4–79,017.1) JPY for the GRA group and 59,292.7 (range, 57,707.5–60,972.8) JPY for the PALO group. The CERs (JPY/CR) were 26,263.4 and 42,628.6 for the GRA and PALO groups, respectively, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 189,171.6 (189,044.8–189,215.5) JPY/CR.

Conclusions

We found that PALO was more expensive than GRA in patients who received a cisplatin-based HEC regimen.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40780-018-0128-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in Japanese patients treated with cisplatin-containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse event in cancer chemotherapy. Although aprepitant is effective in preventing CINV, an increment in financial burden for uniform use of aprepitant is a concern. The aim of the present study was to define the cost‐effectiveness of aprepitant from the perspective of the Japanese National Health Insurance system. Based on the results of a randomized phase II trial comparing an aprepitant‐containing regimen versus a nonaprepitant regimen in Japanese patients who received cisplatin‐containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy, a decision analytic model was developed. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated both in the outpatient care setting (OCS) and in the inpatient care setting (ICS). The use of the aprepitant‐containing regimen was associated with improved quality of life compared with the nonaprepitant regimen, with an increment in quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) of 0.0016. The incremental total medical costs associated with the use of the aprepitant regimen were lower in the OCS than in the ICS, 6192 JPY (56.92 USD) and 9820 JPY (90.27 USD), respectively. The ICER was calculated as 3 906 698 JPY (35 910 USD) per QALY gained in the OCS and 6 195 781 JPY (56 952 USD) per QALY gained in the ICS. Cost‐effectiveness of the aprepitant‐containing antiemetic therapy was limited to the OCS, considering the threshold of willingness‐to‐pay commonly accepted (5 million JPY [45 960 USD] in Japan and 50 000 USD in the USA). The efficacy of aprepitant offsets the costs for revisiting clinics or rehospitalization added with rescue medications in the OCS.

Phase II open label pilot trial of aprepitant and palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic FOLFOX chemotherapy for the treatment of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) causes significant morbidity among colorectal cancer patients, receiving fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy even with standard antiemetic prophylaxis. The purpose of this study is to determine if the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves CINV in these patients.

METHODS

Patients receiving FOLFOX for colorectal cancer were given antiemetic prophylaxis with aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Palonosetron 0.25 mg was given IV push on day 1 only. Dexamethasone 12 mg was administered orally on day 1 and 8 mg each morning on days 2 through 4. Assessments including emetic events, rescue doses, nutritional intake, and appetite were recorded in a patient diary which was returned to study personnel in the following cycle.

RESULTS

Of the 53 patients screened, 50 were evaluable and had a complete dataset for cycle 1. For the first cycle, 74% of patients achieved a complete response (CR), 22% achieved a major response and 4% experienced treatment failure. The percentage of patients achieving a CR remained high throughout each cycle at 83, 83, and 86% for cycles 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Appetite and nutritional status remained largely unchanged throughout treatment. Adverse events occurring in more than 10% of patients included diarrhea (13.6%), fatigue (12.6%), and neutropenia (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant added to standard antiemetic therapy appears to be an effective and safe regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving FOLFOX.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

SETTING

Oncology hospital department in Italy.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered.

RESULTS

NEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC).

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.

NEPA, a new fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, is a cost-effective intervention for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the UK

Background

The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with aprepitant and palonosetron (APPA) or palonosetron (PA) alone, to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing treatment with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) in the UK.

Scope

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to compare NEPA with currently recommended anti-emetics. Relative effectiveness was estimated over the acute (day 1) and overall treatment (days 1–5) phases, taking complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue medication) and complete protection (CP, CR and no more than mild nausea [VAS scale <25 mm]) as primary efficacy outcomes. A three-health-state Markov cohort model, including CP, CR and incomplete response (no CR) for HEC and MEC, was constructed. A five-day time horizon and UK NHS perspective were adopted. Transition probabilities were obtained by combining the response rates of CR and CP from NEPA trials and odds ratios from the meta-analysis. Utilities of 0.90, 0.70 and 0.24 were defined for CP, CR and incomplete response, respectively. Costs included medications and management of CINV-related events and were obtained from the British National Formulary and NHS Reference Costs. The expected budgetary impact of NEPA was also evaluated.

Findings

In HEC patients, the NEPA strategy was more effective than APPA (quality-adjusted life days [QALDs] of 4.263 versus 4.053; incremental emesis-free and CINV-free days of +0.354 and +0.237, respectively) and was less costly (£80 versus £124), resulting in NEPA being the dominant strategy. In MEC patients, NEPA was cost effective, cumulating in an estimated 0.182 extra QALDs at an incremental cost of £6.65 compared with PA.

Conclusion

Despite study limitations (study setting, time horizon, utility measure), the results suggest NEPA is cost effective for preventing CINV associated with HEC and MEC in the UK.

Therapeutic and preventive antiemetic effect of aprepitant in Japanese patients with thoracic malignancies who truly need it

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist is recommended for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and has recently been introduced to oncology practice in Japan. However, whether all patients undergoing HEC truly need NK-1 receptor antagonist remains unknown, and increasing medical costs due to uniform use of NK-1 receptor antagonist are a concern. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of patients who needed aprepitant at the time of its introduction in Japan, and therapeutic and preventive effects of aprepitant on HEC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with thoracic malignancies who were to undergo HEC or MEC received 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to prevent CINV. Aprepitant was administered to treat CINV occurring in the first course, or to prevent CINV in the second course. Frequency of vomiting, degree of nausea, and quality of life with respect to CINV were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 96 patients were enrolled. Aprepitant was not administered in 57 and 88 % of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively. In patients treated with aprepitant (n = 18), therapeutic use of aprepitant after occurrence of CINV (n = 9) decreased average scores in numerical rating scale for nausea from 7.44 to 5.44 (p = 0.10), and average frequency of vomiting per day from 2.11 to 0.11 (p = 0.03). Prophylactic use of aprepitant in the second course (n = 18) increased the proportion of patients with no significant nausea from 6 % (first course) to 50 % (second course; p = 0.007), and those with no vomiting from 33 to 89 % (p = 0.002). Aprepitant use also significantly improved quality of life with respect to CINV in the second course.

CONCLUSION

More than half of patients receiving HEC and 88 % of patients receiving MEC did not use aprepitant. Aprepitant showed significant therapeutic and preventive effects on CINV in patients who truly needed it.

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.

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.

Efficacy of a triple antiemetic regimen with aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: effects of gender, age, and region

OBJECTIVE

To determine the variability in treatment responses to antiemetic therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone vs ondansetron and dexamethasone plus aprepitant) given with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Post hoc subgroup analysis of data from a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trial evaluated whether the efficacy of aprepitant triple therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone plus aprepitant) versus control (ondansetron and dexamethasone) varies by gender, age, or region in 848 men and women ≥18 years old with histologically confirmed malignancies and who were naïve to moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents. Endpoints compared were the incidences of no vomiting, complete response, and no use of rescue therapy, all during the overall period (0-120 h).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Regardless of age, gender, or region, the aprepitant regimen provided better control for the no-vomiting and complete-response (no vomiting, no rescue therapy) endpoints.

RESULTS

The aprepitant regimen provided better control for the no-vomiting and complete-response (no vomiting, no rescue therapy) endpoints. Overall response rates were higher in men and in older (≥55 y) patients, but treatment differences were greater among women and younger patients, known to be at increased chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk. Aprepitant showed a benefit versus control across regions, although the between-treatment difference appeared to be smaller for patients in Central/South America versus North America or international regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we acknowledge that subset numbers in this post hoc analysis may be too small to allow definitive conclusions, the data suggest that aprepitant triple therapy provides a benefit over control therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC)- or non-AC-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy across age, gender, and region. (Original trial results available at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00337727.).

Efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant in children with cyclical vomiting syndrome

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant (Emend, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd, Haarlem, the Netherlands), a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, prevents vomiting in a range of conditions. No data are available on its use in children with cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS).

AIM

We investigated the efficacy of aprepitant as prophylactic treatment or acute intervention in CVS children refractory to conventional therapies.

METHODS

Forty-one children (median age: 8 years) fulfilling NASPGHAN criteria treated acutely (RegA) or prophylactically (RegP) with aprepitant were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcome was the clinical response (decrease in frequency and intensity of CVS episodes). Secondary outcomes were: number of CVS episodes/year, number of hospital admissions/year, CVS episode duration, number of vomits/h, symptom-free interval length (days), and school attendance percentage. The follow-up period was 18-60 months.

RESULTS

Sixteen children received RegP and 25 RegA. One child on RegP stopped treatment due to severe migraine. At 12-months on intention-to-treat analysis, 13 children on RegP (81%) achieved either complete (3/16, 19%) or partial (10/16, 62%) clinical response. On RegA, 19 children (76%) had either complete (3/25, 12%) or partial (16/25, 64%) response (P = 0.8 vs. RegP). In both RegP and RegA, there was a significant decrease in CVS episodes/year, hospital admission number/year, CVS episode length, number of vomits/h, as well as an increase in symptom-free interval duration and school attendance percentage. Side effects were reported only in RegP (5/16, 31%) including hiccough (3/16, 19%), asthenia/fatigue (2/16, 12.5%), increased appetite (2/16, 12.5%), mild headache (1/16, 6%) and severe migraine (1/16, 6%).

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant appears effective for both acute and prophylactic management of paediatric cyclical vomiting syndrome refractory to conventional therapies.

Are the true impacts of adverse events considered in economic models of antineoplastic drugs? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Antineoplastic drugs for cancer are often associated with adverse events, which influence patients' physical health, quality of life and survival. However, the modelling of adverse events in cost-effectiveness analyses of antineoplastic drugs has not been examined.

AIMS

This article reviews published economic evaluations that include a calculated cost for adverse events of antineoplastic drugs. The aim is to identify how existing models manage four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events: the selection of adverse events for inclusion in models, the influence of dose modifications on drug quantity and survival outcomes, the influence of adverse events on quality of life and the consideration of multiple simultaneous or recurring adverse events.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using MESH headings and key words in multiple electronic databases, covering the years 1999-2009. Inclusion criteria for eligibility were papers covering a population of adults with solid tumour cancers, the inclusion of at least one adverse event and the resource use and/or costs of adverse event treatment.

RESULTS

From 4,985 citations, 26 eligible articles were identified. Studies were generally of moderate quality and addressed a range of cancers and treatment types. While the four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events were addressed by some studies, no study addressed all of the issues in the same model.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that current modelling assumptions may restrict our understanding of the true impact of adverse events on cost effectiveness of antineoplastic drugs. This understanding could be improved through consideration of the selection of adverse events, dose modifications, multiple events and quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies.

Cost-effectiveness of an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer in the UK

Purpose

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important goal for patients receiving chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to define, from the UK payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of an antiemetic regimen using aprepitant, a selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, for patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Methods

A decision-analytic model was developed to compare an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone) with a standard UK antiemetic regimen (ondansetron, dexamethasone, and metoclopramide) for expected costs and health outcomes after single-day adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The model was populated with results from patients with breast cancer participating in a randomized trial of CINV preventative therapy for cycle 1 of single-day chemotherapy.

Results

During 5 days after chemotherapy, 64% of patients receiving the aprepitant regimen and 47% of those receiving the UK comparator regimen had a complete response to antiemetic therapy (no emesis and no rescue antiemetic therapy). A mean of £37.11 (78%) of the cost of aprepitant was offset by reduced health care resource utilization costs. The predicted gain in quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) with the aprepitant regimen was 0.0048. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the UK comparator, was £10,847/QALY, which is well below the threshold commonly accepted in the UK of £20,000–£30,000/QALY.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that aprepitant is cost-effective for preventing CINV associated with chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer in the UK health care setting.

Safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of single-dose fosaprepitant regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a crucial factor in ensuring that patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy can get the full benefit of therapy. Current antiemetic guidelines recommend that the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonist aprepitant should be used as part of a combination regimen with dexamethasone and a serotonin receptor antagonist for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Fosaprepitant is a water-soluble N-phosphoryl derivative of aprepitant that, when infused, is rapidly metabolized back to an active aprepitant. The existing literature in PubMed about fosaprepitant was screened and selected in order to address the emerging data from two randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen. These phase III trials demonstrated that fosaprepitant given as a single intravenous dose of 150 mg was either noninferior to the conventional 3-day aprepitant or significantly superior to placebo for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. In both trials, fosaprepitant was well tolerated although more frequent infusion-site adverse events were observed with fosaprepitant. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant, therefore, would be an option for CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The clinical efficacy is consistent with the findings from a time-on-target, positron-emission tomography study evaluating the NK-1R occupancy in the central nervous system (CNS) over 5 days after a single-dose infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant in healthy participants. The single-dose regimen is capable of blocking more than 90% of the NK-1Rs in the CNS for at least 48 hours after infusion, which is sufficient to control delayed CINV for 2 to 5 days after HEC. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant can provide a simplified treatment option that maintains high protection while ensuring adherence to scheduled antiemetic medication throughout most of the 5-day period encompassing the major risk for CINV.

Aprepitant for Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: An Economic Analysis for Singapore

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant (a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist), in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) and dexamethasone, has demonstrated superior efficacy on end points related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with standard care (combination 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of an aprepitant-containing regimen compared with current clinical practice for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in Singapore.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess the costs and outcomes associated with an aprepitant-containing regimen compared with standard care in the prevention of CINV following HEC. Three scenarios were modeled on the basis of results of four double-blind randomized clinical trials of aprepitant. CINV event probabilities were calculated on the basis of the occurrence of nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue medication in the 5 days following a single cycle of HEC. The analysis was conducted from the Singapore health care system perspective.

RESULTS

Aprepitant reduced emesis and nausea, resulting in small but clinically important improvements when measured in quality-adjusted life-years. The aprepitant-containing regimen was associated with higher acquisition costs but lower costs relating to patient management, hospitalization, and use of rescue medication. Across the scenarios, the incremental cost per emetic event avoided ranged from cost saving to Singapore $63 (US $51). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from cost saving to Singapore $49,800 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (US $40,600). The analysis was relatively insensitive to changes in the inputs.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant is a clinically important and cost-effective therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients treated with HEC in Singapore.

Use of high-dose cisplatin with aprepitant in an outpatient setting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and nephrotoxicity are adverse events induced by cisplatin administration. These effects can be reduced by treatment regimens with low-dose cisplatin, but high-dose cisplatin is still used. In Japan, high-dose cisplatin is usually administered in an inpatient setting to permit management of CINV. However, with use of new-generation antiemetic agents such as aprepitant, CINV and nephrotoxicity are controllable in an outpatient setting. Here, we discuss issues related to the management of high-dose cisplatin administration in outpatients. Grade 2 or worse CINV induced by high-dose cisplatin occurs in more than 40% of patients without treatment with aprepitant, but is controllable by administration of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, steroids and aprepitant. Moreover, prevention of CINV using these drugs is cost-effective, since outpatient settings have advantages with regard to health economics and patient quality of life. These findings suggest that shifting high-dose cisplatin administration to the outpatient setting may be achieved with co-administration of aprepitant. Available facilities and the status of the patient should be considered when selecting whether an outpatient setting is suitable for administration of cisplatin, but the use of aprepitant and adequate oral hydration should allow use of cisplatin in this setting.

Health resource consumption and costs attributable to chemotherapy-induced toxicity in German routine hospital care in lymphoproliferative disorder and NSCLC patients

BACKGROUND

Multidrug chemotherapy (CT) is still associated with relevant side-effects. We assessed, under current practice patterns, frequency and severity of CT-induced toxicity and its economic consequences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective, multicentre, longitudinal, observational cohort study with lymphoproliferative disorder (LPD) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, receiving first- or second-line (immuno-) CT (excluding myeloablative CT). Data were collected from patient interviews and preplanned chart reviews. Costs in 2007 euros are presented from the provider perspective.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-three patients (n = 153 LPD; n = 120 NSCLC) undergoing a total of 1004 CT cycles were assessable (age ≥65 years, 40%; female, 36%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, 11%; tumour stage ≥III, 56%; history of comorbidity, 80%). Fifty percent of cycles were associated with grade 3/4 toxicity and 37% (n = 371) with at least one hospital stay (outpatient/day care n = 154; intensive care n = 19). Mean (median) toxicity-related costs amounted to €1032 (€86) per cycle. Costs rose exponentially with the number of grade 3/4 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and were highest in cycles affected by more than four ADRs, €10 881 (€5455); in cycles with intensive care, €14 121 (€8833); and in cycles affected by grade 3/4 infections and febrile neutropenia/leukopenia, €7093 (€4531) and €5170 (€2899), respectively. Five percent of CT cycles accounted for 56% of total expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Individualised supportive care strategies are needed. Future research should focus on identifying toxicity clusters and patient characteristics predictive for high costs.

Clinical and economic burden of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with cancer in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the overall burden of illness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and associated all-cause costs from a hospital's perspective (costs to the hospital) in patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy (CT) in the US hospital outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients with a cancer diagnosis aged ≥18 years initiating CT in a hospital outpatient setting for the first time between April 1 2007 and March 31 2009 were extracted from the Premier Perspective Database. Patients were followed through eight CT cycles or 6 months post-index date, whichever occurred first. Within each CT cycle, the follow-up time for CINV event estimation was from day 1 (except rescue medication use that was identified from day 2) to cycle end. A multivariate regression model was developed to predict the CINV event rate per CT cycle in the study follow-up period. Associated total all-cause costs of managing CINV from a hospital's perspective were analyzed descriptively. Event rate and associated costs were estimated in the entire hospital setting (outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room). All-cause costs included inpatient, hospital outpatient, and ER visit costs (identified through a primary or secondary diagnosis code for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion) and pharmacy cost (rescue medications for CINV treatment). All physician costs and non CINV-related treatment (pharmacy) costs were excluded from the analyses.

RESULTS

Among 11,495 study patients, 8,806 patients (76.6%) received prophylaxis for all cycles in the follow-up period. The overall base population had an average age of 63.3 years, was 51.0% female, and 72.7% White. The distribution of emetogenicity for cycle 1 CT cycle was 26.0% HEC, 46.1% MEC, and 26.4% LEC/MinEC combined. In the follow-up period, a total of 47,988 CINV events with an associated total all-cause treatment cost of $89 million were observed. Average daily treatment cost for all care settings was $1854.7. The regression model predicted a 20% CINV event rate per CT cycle in the follow-up period. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizibility, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, lack of a control analysis group to estimate incremental use of resource utilization and associated costs, and a potential for cost under-estimation.

CONCLUSION

In the current study analysis, a 20% CINV event rate per CT cycle per patient was predicted with an associated all-cause average daily total cost of approximately $1850. Further studies on early and appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis on CINV rates and economic outcomes are warranted.

Fosaprepitant and aprepitant: an update of the evidence for their place in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

The selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant is effective in the treatment of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Fosaprepitant has been developed as an intravenous prodrug of aprepitant.

AIMS

To update the evidence underlying the use of fosaprepitant to prevent CINV.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Aprepitant in combination with a serotonin antagonist and a corticosteroid controls acute and delayed symptoms of CINV in patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Bioequivalence of fosaprepitant with aprepitant has recently been demonstrated, which has led to its inclusion in clinical guidelines for treatment of acute CINV with highly, and some regimens of moderately, emetogenic chemotherapy. Early studies of the clinical efficacy of fosaprepitant have shown improvement over treatment with ondansetron. Both aprepitant and fosaprepitant are well tolerated with most adverse events observed of mild or moderate intensity. Conflicting economic evidence has shown that whilst aprepitant provides an increased quality of life in patients treated for CINV, there are differing views over its absolute cost in relation to standard therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of aprepitant, however, appears to lie within acceptable bounds.

PLACE IN THERAPY

Fosaprepitant and aprepitant are recommended in guidelines for preventing CINV due to moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Fosaprepitant is bioequivalent to aprepitant, and could offer potential benefits for patients who may be unable to tolerate oral administration of antiemetics during an episode of nausea or vomiting.

Aprepitant: a review of its use in the prevention of nausea and vomiting

Aprepitant (Emend) is a neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist that is able to alleviate the emetic effects of substance P. When combined with a standard regimen of a corticosteroid (dexamethasone) and a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist (ondansetron), oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 then 80 mg once daily on days 2 and 3) was effective in the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with single or multiple cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This aprepitant regimen was also effective in the prevention of CINV in patients treated with single or multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). A single oral dose of aprepitant 40 mg administered prior to patients undergoing abdominal surgery was also effective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. Aprepitant is a recommended option for the treatment of PONV, and when combined with a corticosteroid and 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist is a recommended regimen for the treatment of CINV.

Bioequivalence assay between orally disintegrating and conventional tablet formulations in healthy volunteers

The purpose of this study was to evaluate bioequivalence of two commercial 8 mg tablet formulations of ondansetrona available in the Brazilian market. In this study, a simple, rapid, sensitive and selective liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method is described for the determination of ondansetron in human plasma samples. The method was validated over a concentration range of 2.5-60 ng/ml and used in a bioequivalence trial between orally disintegrating and conventional tablet ondansetron formulations, to assess its usefulness in this kind of study. Vonau flash (Biolab Sanus Farmacêutica, Brazil, as test formulations) and Zofran (GlaxoSmithKline, Brazil, as reference formulation) were evaluated following a single 8 mg dose to 23 healthy volunteers of both genders. The dose was administered after an overnight fast according to a two-way crossover design. Bioequivalence between the products was determinated by calculating 90% confidence interval (90% CI) for the ratio of C(max), AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-infinity) values for the test and reference products, using logarithmically transformed data. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio of C(max) (87.5-103.8%), AUC(0-t) (89.3-107.2%) and AUC(0-infinity) (89.7-106.0%) values for the test and reference products is within the 80-125% interval, proposed by FDA, EMEA and ANVISA. It was concluded that two ondansetron formulations are bioequivalent in their rate and extent of absorption.

[Experience with aprepitant in the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by highly emetic chemotherapy of lung cancer]

Approximately one half of cancer patients experience nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy containing high-dose cisplatin, despite the use of a corticosteroid and 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists. The addition of aprepitant, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, improves control of emesis by a further 15-20%, and improves late phase symptoms (>24 h after chemotherapy). The cornerstone of standard first line lung cancer chemotherapy is high-dose cisplatin. Our experience with aprepitant in the chemotherapy of 10 lung cancer patients is described, who reported more than one episode of vomiting caused by chemotherapy despite the use of ondansetron previously. Aprepitant prevented acute and late phase oncoming vomiting in all 10 patients and acute and late phase nausea in 9 of the 10 patients. According to our experience on a limited number of patients, aprepitant may be of clinical benefit in the supportive treatment of lung cancer, in achieving better quality of life during chemotherapeutic cycles in these patients.

A randomized study of aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

This is a single center, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study to evaluate the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant, in Chinese breast cancer patients. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen and standard antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The secondary objective was to compare the patient-reported quality of life in these two groups of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible breast cancer patients were chemotherapy-naive and treated with adjuvant AC chemotherapy (i.e. doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)). Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant-based regimen (day 1, aprepitant 125 mg, ondansetron 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and ondansetron 8 mg 8 h later; days 2 through 3, aprepitant 80 qd) or a control arm which consisted of standard regimen (day 1, ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and ondansetron 8 mg 8 h later; days 2 through 3, ondansetron 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary, patients quality of life were assessed by self-administered Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

RESULTS

Of 127 patients randomized, 124 were assessable. For CINV in Cycle 1 AC, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with reported complete response, complete protection, total control, 'no vomiting', 'no significant nausea' and 'no nausea'. The requirement of rescue medication appears to be lesser in patients treated with the aprepitant-based regimen compared to those with the standard regimen (11% vs. 20%; P = 0.06). Assessment of FLIE revealed that while there was no difference in the nausea domain and the total score between the two groups; however, patients receiving standard antiemetic regimen had significantly worse quality of life in the vomiting domain (mean score [SD] = 23.99 [30.79]) when compared with those who received the aprepitant-based regimen (mean score [SD] = 3.40 [13.18]) (P = 0.0002). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Patients treated with the aprepitant-based regimen had a significantly lower incidence of neutropenia (53.2% vs. 35.5%, P = 0.0468), grade >or= 3 neutropenia (21.0% vs. 45.2, P = 0.0042) and delay in subsequent cycle of chemotherapy (8.1% vs. 27.4%, P = 0.0048).

CONCLUSION

The aprepitant regimen appears to reduce the requirement of rescue medication when compared with the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide, and is associated with a better quality of life during adjuvant AC chemotherapy.