Resource utilization and costs associated with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy administered in the US outpatient hospital setting

Efficacy and Safety of Ginger on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent and distressing side effect. Historically, ginger has been explored as a potential remedy for various ailments, including its potential efficacy against CINV.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether taking ginger supplements can relieve CINV.

METHOD

A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Wanfang database. Randomized controlled trials meeting our inclusion criteria were analyzed. The primary outcomes were the incidence and severity of CINV. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO, and the number is CRD4202232104.

RESULT

Of the 35 randomized controlled trials analyzed, 22 trials employed ginger capsules as the primary intervention, whereas 13 studies evaluated the prophylactic effects of ginger-partitioned moxibustion. The outcomes indicated that combining ginger capsules with standard antiemetic agents can significantly reduce the incidence of grade 3 acute nausea (Risk Ratio [RR], 0.19; P < .001) and the incidence of high-grade overall vomiting (RR, 0.47; P = .01). Moreover, ginger-partitioned moxibustion can significantly alleviate the incidence of both mild (RR, 0.56; P = .001) and severe (RR, 0.39; P < .00001) vomiting. Only 2.8% of patients experienced dizziness after ginger-partitioned moxibustion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that ginger capsules, when used alongside antiemetic drugs, enhance the management of severe CINV, particularly in highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Based on our findings, we recommend initiating ginger supplements before chemotherapy, in conjunction with standard antiemetics, to reduce the severity of CINV. The promising results warrant more rigorous clinical trials to firmly establish the role of ginger in CINV management.

Understanding the Extent of Polypharmacy and its Association With Health Service Utilization Among Persons With Cancer and Multimorbidity: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study in Ontario, Canada

Background: Cancer often co-occurs with other chronic conditions, which may result in polypharmacy. Polypharmacy is associated with adverse outcomes, including increased health service utilization. Objectives: This study examines the overall prevalence of polypharmacy (5 or more medications) among adults with cancer and multimorbidity, as well as the association of both minor polypharmacy (5-9 medications) and hyper-polypharmacy (10 or more medications) on high use of emergency room visits and hospitalizations, while controlling for age, sex, and type and stage of cancer. Methods: This retrospective longitudinal study used linked health administrative databases and included persons 18 years and older diagnosed with cancer between April 2010 and March 2013 in Ontario, Canada. Data on the number of health service utilizations at or above the 90th percentile (high users), was collected up to March 2014 and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the impact of polypharmacy. Results: The prevalence of polypharmacy was 46% prior to cancer diagnosis, and 57% one year after diagnosis. Polypharmacy prior to and after cancer diagnosis increased with the level of multimorbidity, increasing age, but did not differ by sex. It was also highest in persons with lung cancer (52.4%) and those diagnosed with stage 4 cancer (51.3%). Minor polypharmacy increased the odds of being a high user of emergency rooms (1.16; 99% CI: 1.09-1.24) and hospitalizations (1.03; 0.98-1.09) and the odds of high use was greater with hyper-polypharmacy (1.41; 1.33-1.51) and (1.23; 1.17-1.29) respectively. Conclusion: Polypharmacy is highly prevalent and is associated with high health service utilization among adults with cancer and multimorbidity.

A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan Versus Trastuzumab Emtansine for Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine as second-line therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer from a US healthcare sector perspective.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine. For both treatments, modeled patients were administered treatment intravenously every 3 weeks indefinitely or until disease progression. Transition parameters were principally derived from the updated DESTINY-Breast03 phase III randomized clinical trial. Costs include drug costs extracted from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services average sales price and administrative, adverse event, and third-line therapy costs derived from published literature, measured in 2022 US dollars. Health utilities for health states and disutilities for adverse events were sourced from published literature. Effects were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We conducted both probabilistic sensitivity analysis and comprehensive scenario analysis to test model assumptions and robustness, while utilizing a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

In our base-case analysis, total costs for trastuzumab deruxtecan were $1 266 945, compared with $820 082 for trastuzumab emtansine. Total QALYs for trastuzumab deruxtecan were 5.09, compared with 3.15 for trastuzumab emtansine. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $230 285/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that trastuzumab deruxtecan had an 11.1% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer, our findings raise concern regarding its value at current prices.

Vomiting after intrathecal chemotherapy under anesthesia in pediatric patients with hematologic cancers: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Despite preventive strategies, vomiting is an adverse event affecting patients with cancer. However, literature on the incidence and risk factors for vomiting in pediatric patients with cancer are scarce.

AIM

To assess the incidence and risk factors for vomiting within 24 h and goodness of fit for the Eberhart score in pediatric patients with hematologic cancers after receiving intrathecal chemotherapy under deep sedation.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included patients under 20 years of age with hematologic cancers who were scheduled to undergo intrathecal chemotherapy under anesthesia. The primary outcome was the occurrence of vomiting within 24 h after the end of anesthesia. Sociodemographic and procedure data and underlying diseases were collected. Patients were monitored during the procedure, in the postanesthesia care unit, and the day after (by phone call).

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were included, and the incidence of vomiting was 30.9% within 24 h after intrathecal chemotherapy under anesthesia, with 90.7% of vomiting prior to 6 h. Prophylactic ondansetron was administered prior to the procedure to 45.3% of patients. Risk factors for vomiting were female gender (hazard ratio: 2.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-4.53, p: .003), consolidation phase of treatment (hazard ratio: 2.16, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-4.24, p: .025), and history of kinetosis (hazard ratio: 2.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-4.70, p: .005). Incidence of vomit was higher than estimated by the Eberhart score distribution (observed incidence in patients with a score of zero: 33.3%; with a score of one: 28.8%; with a score of two: 60%).

CONCLUSION

A high incidence of vomiting was observed within 24 h after intrathecal chemotherapy under propofol deep sedation. Risk factors for this outcome were established (being female, consolidation phase of treatment, and previous kinetosis), and evidence suggested that the Eberhart score was not suitable for the studied population.

Economic evaluation of third-line neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer

Background

Breast cancer (BC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in women. In addition, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) BC is overexpressed in 25% of BC patients, resulting in the predicament of poor prognosis. Although first- and second-line treatments have been established, optimum third-line treatment is still mired in controversies for HER2+ metastatic BC (mBC). Therefore, this study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of neratinib plus capecitabine (N+C) and lapatinib plus capecitabine (L+C) over a 5-year time horizon from a payer perspective.

Methods

A half-cycle corrected four-state Markov model was established to simulate the course of BC events and deaths in N+C and L+C armed patients. The data of this model were derived from NCT01808573 trail and other published literatures. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) was conducted to investigate the impact of variables and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed based on second-order Monte Carlo simulation. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed to verify its cost-effectiveness in China.

Result

The base-case results found that N+C was in dominant position in 82.70% of the generation scenarios, providing an improvement of 0.17 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and a reduction of $1,861.28 compared with L+C. The ICER was $-1,3294.86/QALY, which did not exceed the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold, while in subgroup, the ICER decreased to $-2,448.17/QALY.

Conclusion

This analysis indicated that the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine is likely to be cost-effective in comparison with lapatinib plus capecitabine in patients with HER2+ mBC who continues to progress during or after second-line HER2-targeted therapy. So neratinib plus capecitabine can become a third-line treatment option.

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

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs.

RESULTS

NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Fosaprepitant: current options to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A review

Background. Chemotherapy (CT) is a mainstay of treatment for malignant tumors. CT-induced nausea and vomiting are observed in 3090% of patients within 0120 h after moderate and highly emetogenic CT administration. These adverse events can severely impact the quality of treatment, daily life, and adherence to treatment, thus reducing the effectiveness of therapy and survival. Materials and methods. The author provides the results of a systematic review of research papers, including clinical studies, on the efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist fosaprepitant to prevent CT-induced nausea and vomiting. Data from the PubMed database were reviewed. Results. The prevention and treatment of CT-associated nausea and vomiting are vital during special therapy, including symptomatic therapy. International organizations recommend using a triple combination with antagonists of neurokinin-1 and 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptors and dexamethasone. According to the data obtained, the efficacy of fosaprepitant has been proven in delayed and general phases in several large, well-planned studies; the drug reduces the incidence of adverse events by 2.74.4 times compared with aprepitant. Conclusion. Fosaprepitant is an antagonist of neurokinin-1 receptors; when administered intravenously, it rapidly converts into aprepitant. When used as part of a triple combination with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone in patients receiving moderate and highly emetogenic CT leads to a higher rate of complete response when controlling nausea and vomiting. In general, fosaprepitant is well tolerated.

A retrospective study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: incidence and prescribing practice

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting (CINV) is a common and significant problem in oncology patients and rated as one of cancer chemotherapy's most distressing side effects. The objectives of this study are to describe the incidence of CINV in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-treated patients and the prescribing pattern of CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional single-center study randomly collected data on demographics, CINV episodes, and prescribing patterns for adult oncology patients receiving intravenous highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) between January and December 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 419 randomly selected records of HEC/MEC recipients with 2388 total chemotherapy cycles were included. The mean age was 53.6 ± 12.6 years old. The majority was female (66%), Malay (54.4%), diagnosed with cancer stage IV (47.7%), and with no comorbidities (47%). All patients were prescribed with IV granisetron and dexamethasone before chemotherapy for acute prevention, whereas dexamethasone and metoclopramide were prescribed for delayed prevention. Aprepitant was not routinely prescribed for the prevention of CINV. CINV incidence was 57% in the studied population and 20% in the total cycle. This study found a significant association between CINV incidence with performance status and cisplatin-based chemotherapy (OR = 3.071, CI = 1.515-6.223, p = 0.002; OR = 4.587, CI = 1.739-12.099, p = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CINV incidence was rather high per patient but relatively low per cycle. Most patients were prescribed with dual regimen antiemetic prophylaxis.

IMPACT

This study provides evidence that there was suboptimal use of recommended agents for CINV, and there is a clear need for further improvements in CINV management.

Metagenomics and chemotherapy-induced nausea: A roadmap for future research

Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can reduce patients' quality of life and may result in premature discontinuation of chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting are commonly grouped together, research has shown that antiemetics are clinically effective against chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) but less so against chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). Nausea remains a problem for up to 68% of patients who are prescribed guideline-consistent antiemetics. Despite the high prevalence of CIN, relatively little is known regarding its etiology independent of CIV. This review summarizes a metagenomics approach to the study and treatment of CIN with the goal of encouraging future research. Metagenomics focuses on genetic risk factors and encompasses both human (ie, host) and gut microbial genetic variation. Little work to date has focused on metagenomics as a putative biological mechanism of CIN. Metagenomics has the potential to be a powerful tool in advancing scientific understanding of CIN by identifying new biological pathways and intervention targets. The investigation of metagenomics in the context of well-established demographic, clinical, and patient-reported risk factors may help to identify patients at risk and facilitate the prevention and management of CIN.

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.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) with GI Cancer Chemotherapy: Do We Need CINV Risk Score Over and Above Antiemetic Guidelines in Prescribing Antiemetic Regime?

Background  Various predictive models have been developed which incorporates patient risk factors into the selection of optimal antiemetic therapy, one of which is chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk scoring system developed by Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). Patients and Methods  Consecutive patients with gastrointestinal malignancy who had not received previous chemotherapy were eligible for enrollment in the study if they were scheduled to receive at least one cycle of chemotherapy. The CINV risk assessment tool was used to collect the study data and to assess CINV risk score. Results  Ninety-eight patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in this study, out of which 57% were males, median age was 48 years (range: 28-77). Colorectal cancer (32.7%) was the most common diagnosis followed by gastric cancer (27.6%). Gemcitabine/cisplatin and CAPOX regimen were the most common regimen being administered in 19.4% each. As per MASCC guidelines, 19.4% patients received highly emetogenic chemotherapy, 69.4% moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, while 11.2% received regimen with low emetogenicity. CINV risk module characterized 52% patients to have high risk for CINV, while 48% to have low risk of CINV, thus, 52% had the discrepancy in risk assigned by two methods, and this was statistically significant ( p = 0.025). In subgroup analysis, although patient cohort with acute nausea had no statistically significant discrepancy ( p = 0.123), but statistically significant discrepancy was found in patient cohort with delayed nausea ( p = 0.001), acute ( p = 0.038), and delayed ( p < 0.001) vomiting. Conclusion  A significant percentage of patients who receive chemotherapy continue to experience nausea and vomiting despite receiving antiemetic treatment as per standard guidelines. The study generates a hypothesis for future large randomized studies looking at change in antiemetic prophylaxis based on CINV risk tool, leading to improvement in complete response rates of acute and delayed CINV.

Unplanned emergency department visits and hospital admissions of older adults under treatment for cancer in the ambulatory/community setting

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify the incidence and risk/protective factors for (1) unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions (HA) and (2) nausea/vomiting/dehydration (NVD) at time of treatment in older adults under treatment for cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a exploratory retrospective cohort study of adults (60 and older) with cancer. Adults were included if they had a new cancer diagnosis and were being treated with chemotherapy. Study outcomes included the number of ED visits and HA (cycles 1-4) and NVD at the time of receiving chemotherapy (cycles 2-4). Repeated measures, Poisson regression was used to obtain risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for independent predictors of outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 402 study participants, 20% experienced an ED visit, and 18% experienced a HA. Common reasons for ED visits were pain (23.5%) and NVD (20.4%). Common reasons for HA were infection (34.4%) and NVD (22.2%). Multivariate analysis showed risk factors for ED visits included chemotherapy cycle 1, having esophageal cancer, being treated with ≥ 3 chemotherapy agents, and increasing levels of functional impairment. Risk factors for HA included chemotherapy cycle 1, increasing levels of functional impairment, intravenous fluids between treatment, and being prescribed antiemetics for home use. Predictors of NVD at time of chemotherapy treatment included Hispanic ethnicity, insurance status, cancer type, chemotherapy emetic potent, treatment frequency, intravenous fluids between cycles, and number of home antiemetics.

CONCLUSION

Unplanned ED visits and HA occur in older adults under treatment for cancer due to numerous treatment-related side effects. Helping older adults identify and manage side effects early may reduce the number of unplanned admissions.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Breast Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Objective:

This study aimed to assess the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in acute phase (24 h after chemotherapy) and delayed phase (2–5 days after chemotherapy) after standard antiemetic therapy and to explore the risk factors of CINV in the acute and delayed phases.

Methods:

This prospective and observational study analyzed the data of 400 breast cancer patients scheduled for chemotherapy in two hospitals. The self-report survey was developed to assess the occurrence of CINV and their associated factors. On day 2 and day 6 of chemotherapy, CINV was evaluated by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemetic Tool (MAT). The incidence of acute and delayed CINV was expressed as frequency and percentage.

Results:

Among 400 patients, 29.8% and 23.5% experienced acute and delayed CINV, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors associated with acute CINV included pain/insomnia, history of CINV, and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The history of motion sickness (MS), history of CINV, number of chemotherapy cycles completed, and the incidence of acute CINV were significant risk factors for delayed CINV (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

The results of this study are helpful for nurses to identify high-risk patients with CINV, formulate effective treatment plans, and reduce the incidence of CINV.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the real-world setting in Spain

Purpose

Proper monitoring and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with antiemetics is crucial for cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of antiemetics for the treatment of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) including carboplatin in the real-world setting in Spain.

Methods

A representative panel of cancer specialists was asked to collect information about the antiemetic treatments provided to patients receiving chemotherapy. Records formed part of the Global Oncology Monitor^© database (Ipsos Healthcare, London, UK). Chemotherapy data were extrapolated using Ipsos Healthcare’s projection methodology.

Results

A total of 73 experts were finally included. Data from 9519 patients, estimated to be representative of 202,084 patients, were collected. HEC (and carboplatin-based chemotherapy) was administered to 73,118 (36%) patients, cisplatin-based therapy being the most frequent treatment (n = 34,649, 47.38%). Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK₁RAs) alone or in combination were used as prophylaxis for CINV in 14,762 (20%) patients, while the combination of NK₁RA with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RAs) and dexamethasone as recommended by the international guidelines was used in 5849 (8%) patients only. No antiemetic prophylaxis was administered to 8.46% of the patients receiving HEC (n = 6189). Physicians classified cisplatin-, anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC-), and carboplatin-based regimens as HEC in 63%, 22% and 4% of the cases, respectively.

Conclusions

The use of NK₁RA-containing regimens for CINV prevention in patients treated with HEC was less than expected, suggesting poor adherence to international antiemetic guidelines.

Reconsidering Dexamethasone for Antiemesis when Combining Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy

Whether the immune suppressive action of glucocorticoid steroids, such as dexamethasone, might reduce the benefits of cancer immunotherapy has long been a concern. Observations that established tumor regressions in response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) often persist, despite the use of steroids to mitigate ICI-related autoimmune breakthrough, are not sufficiently reassuring, because these observations do not address the potential blunting of immune priming at the initiation of ICI therapy. With increasing indications for ICI in combination with chemotherapy, this issue merits reconsideration. Professional society guidance advises that dexamethasone should be used as first-line prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting in patients receiving ICI and highly emetogenic chemotherapy combination regimens. Here, we review the availability of data on this subject and propose an alternative approach focused on the adoption of steroid minimization or sparing for prophylaxis of nausea until the underlying immune biology is better understood.

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

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common cause of unplanned healthcare utilization. The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center initiated the chemotherapy remote care monitoring program (CRCMP) to proactively identify patients experiencing CINV and intervene before the need for urgent evaluation.

METHODS

High-risk patients for CINV are identified by neurokinin-1 (NK-1) antagonist administration, enrolled in the CRCMP, and received a daily text message survey for 7 days after chemotherapy administration to report symptoms. Responses above a set threshold trigger a message to the team pharmacist for intervention. The primary outcome of 14-day unplanned healthcare use was evaluated before and after CRCMP implementation.

RESULTS

In 8 months, 652 patients received an NK-1 antagonist (2,244 cycles) and 387 patients were enrolled in the CRCMP (59%). Text message response rate was 94%. Clinical pharmacists provided 248 interventions in 121 patient episodes meeting threshold criteria. Fourteen-day unplanned healthcare use was decreased in the CRCMP-enrolled NK-1 episodes (6.68% v 4.53%, P = .02). Admissions were numerically lower for those enrolling in CRCMP when only admissions for nausea were considered (0.63% v 0.35%, P = .33).

CONCLUSION

The CRCMP allowed for real-time management of patient-reported CINV symptom burden based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and an electronic medical record-integrated SMS text questionnaire. Clinical pharmacists were key team members to manage patient symptoms. Enrollment in CRCMP significantly reduced overall unplanned healthcare utilization. Although these changes were numerically small, any reduction in unnecessary care utilizing PROs can contribute to high-value care for patients with cancer.

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

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation.

RESULTS

Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Recommendations, and New Trends

The significant physical and emotional effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are experienced by cancer patients. Severe symptoms decrease the patient's quality of life and potentially deters further treatment. The five main forms of CINV (i.e., acute, delayed, anticipatory, breakthrough, and refractory) require different treatment regimens, which often include 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids. Despite a significant amount of research and development of antiemetic agents, management of CINV remains a great challenge with many needs waiting to be adequately addressed, such as controlling non-acute CINV, developing appropriate CINV treatment protocols for multiple-day chemotherapy patients, and providing options for those prone to CINV despite treatment. Further research is required to optimize CINV management for these patients.

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.

Unscheduled hydrations: redefining complete response in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting studies

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is nausea and/or vomiting occurring within 5 days of chemotherapy administration despite using guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetic agents. It is highly prevalent (30–40%), usually requiring immediate treatment or “rescue” medication. If breakthrough CINV occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend using an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, along with intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. Data supporting these guideline recommendations are limited. Importantly, costs associated with breakthrough CINV can be substantial (i.e., unscheduled hydrations). Two retrospective analyses evaluating guideline-adherent CINV prophylaxis suggest that the initial antiemetic selection may decrease breakthrough CINV. Here we review optimal CINV prophylactic strategies and introduce unscheduled hydration as a potential important surrogate for breakthrough CINV aligning with cost-effective cancer care.

What the HEC? Clinician Adherence to Evidence-Based Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Background: Clinician adherence to antiemetic guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remains poorly characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate individual clinician adherence to HEC antiemetic guidelines. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving HEC was conducted using the IBM Watson Explorys Electronic Health Record Database (2012–2018). HEC antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as prescription of triple prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA], serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone) at initiation of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC). Clinicians who prescribed ≥5 HEC courses were included and individual guideline adherence was assessed, noting the number of prescribing clinicians with >90% adherence. Results: A total of 217 clinicians were identified who prescribed 2,543 cisplatin and 1,490 AC courses. Patients (N=4,033) were primarily women (63.3%) and chemotherapy-naïve (92%) with a mean age of 58.6 years. Breast (36%) and thoracic (19%) cancers were the most common tumor types. Guideline adherence rates of >90% were achieved by 35% and 58% of clinicians using cisplatin or AC, respectively. Omission of an NK1 RA was the most common practice of nonadherence. Variation in prophylaxis guideline adherence was considerable for cisplatin (mean, 71%; SD, 29%; coefficient of variation [CV], 0.40) and AC (mean, 84%; SD, 26%; CV, 0.31). Conclusions: Findings showed substantial gaps in clinician adherence to HEC CINV guidelines, including a high variability across clinicians. Clinicians should review their individual clinical practices and ensure adherence to evidence-based CINV guidelines to optimize patient care.

Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scientific evidence proves its detrimental impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL), treatment compliance, and overall healthcare cost. Despite the CINV-management landscape witnessing a radical shift with the introduction of novel, receptor-targeting antiemetic agents, this side effect remains a chink in the armor of a treating oncologist. Though global guidelines acknowledge patient-specific risk factors and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenic potential in CINV control, a "one-fit-for-all" approach cannot be followed across all geographies. Hence, in a pioneering attempt, India-based oncologists conveyed easily implementable, region-specific, consensus-based statements on CINV prevention and management. These statements resulted from integrating the analysis of scientific evidence and guidelines on CINV by the experts, with their clinical experience. The statements will strengthen decision-making abilities of Indian oncologists/clinicians and help in achieving consistency in CINV prevention and management in the country. Furthermore, this document shall lay the foundation for developing robust Indian guidelines for CINV prevention and control.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) relative to aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a trial-based analysis

PURPOSE

To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

Cost Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing for Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Compared with single-marker genetic testing (SMGT), multigene panel sequencing (MGPS) has the potential to identify more patients with cancer who could benefit from targeted therapies, but the effects on outcome and total cost of care are uncertain. Our goal was to estimate the clinical and cost effectiveness of MGPS versus SMGT among patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

METHODS

Patients with aNSCLC—stage IIIB or metastatic—who were diagnosed between 2011 and 2016 were identified from the Flatiron Health database. After stratifying patients into MGPS or SMGT cohorts, we analyzed the percentage of patients who received targeted treatment, survival, and total costs of care. SMGT included epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase testing. MGPS also allowed for the detection of BRAF, RET, ROS1, HER2, and MET mutations. Cost data sources were the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Fee Schedule and 2017 average sales price drug cost. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon using a decision model.

RESULTS

We identified 5,688 patients with aNSCLC who received MGPS (n = 875) or SMGT (n = 4,813), of which 22% tested positive for epidermal growth factor receptor (18.5% MGPS; 17.3% SMGT) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (3.59% MGPS; 3.78% SMGT). Among MGPS-tested patients, an additional 8% were found to have BRAF, RET, ROS1, HER2, or MET mutations. Of MGPS-tested patients, 21% received treatments that were targeted to the specific mutations versus 19% with SMGT. Expected survival was 1.14 life years (LYs) in SMGT versus 1.20 LYs in MGPS. Lifetime total costs were $8,814 higher per patient for MGPS. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of MGPS versus SMGT was $148,478 per LY gained.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of data from a nationwide oncology patient database, MGPS is shown to have moderate cost effectiveness compared with SMGT in patients with aNSCLC.

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70-80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact. Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT₃ RA + NK₁ RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care. Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Current antiemetic regimens are less effective in children than in adults. Fosaprepitant was recently approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children aged six months and older.

PROCEDURE

The pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) profile, safety, and tolerability of a single intravenous dose of fosaprepitant administered concomitantly with ondansetron with/without dexamethasone were evaluated in pediatric patients with cancer receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. PK/PD from three doses of fosaprepitant (3.0, 1.2, and 0.4 mg/kg, up to 150, 60, and 20 mg, respectively) were compared with placebo in 2- to 17-year-old subjects; an open-label amendment evaluated a fourth dose (5.0 mg/kg, up to 150 mg) in those under 12 years old. Historical adult PK data were used for comparison. Efficacy was measured as an exploratory endpoint.

RESULTS

PK data were evaluable for 167/234 subjects who completed cycle one. Aprepitant exposures were dose proportional; adolescents (12 to 17 years) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg had exposures similar to adults at the same dose. Higher weight-normalized doses (5 mg/kg) were necessary for children aged < 12 years to achieve comparable adult exposures. The adverse event profile was typical of cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16 (6.8%) subjects, with hiccups being most common (n = 5; 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous fosaprepitant was well tolerated by pediatric subjects with cancer, and dose-proportional exposures were observed. Subjects < 12 years old required higher doses to achieve comparable adult exposures.

Real-world effectiveness of palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens: preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Aim: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of guideline-recommended palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis used records of adults receiving first-line chemotherapy and a three-drug palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for HEC or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for MEC (carboplatin). Results: A total of 1587 records were evaluated. For HEC and MEC, respectively, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurred in 40 versus 44% of patient cycles (p = 0.01), and unscheduled iv. antiemetics in 41 versus 35% (p < 0.05). A total of 48% of HEC patients versus 42% of MEC patients had CINV-related clinic visits (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens may provide insufficient CINV control. Alternative regimens may improve patient quality of life and reduce healthcare resource utilization.

Merit-based Claim Adjudication for Cancer Treatment Toxicities - Policy Trends that Lower Downstream Costs

BACKGROUND

-Due largely to the lack of effective therapeutic options, between 1973-2013, chemoradiation toxic mucositis (CRTM) has remained an uncapped expenditure for 40 years, with incremental costs of $17,000-$40,000 per patient per episode. Costs in patient morbidity and mortality have continued as well. A recent therapeutic option associated with complete prevention and/or rapid sustained elimination (high potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate, HPPCLS) delivers value by eliminating downstream costs CRTM experienced in the first 12 months. While many insurers carry the therapy as a specialty pharmacy support drug, few are familiar with the associated health economic benefits and the statutory requirements driving its coverage.

PURPOSE

-To present the rationale behind early policy trends that frame CRTM as an emergent/urgent medical condition mandated coverage as an essential health benefit. Rather than problematic for costs, this coverage trend appears to be value-based.

METHODS

-Discuss early adverse claim experience of HPPCLS. Present the costs, tenets and statutes driving policy trend toward obligatory coverage of CRTM. Review the ethical (fiduciary) and statutory requirements for CRTM coverage.

RESULTS

-CRTM coverage is ethically responsible since it is a direct consequence of authorized cancer treatment. The symptom/signs complex of CRTM meets the 'prudent layperson' statutory definition of emergency medical condition. All previously uncapped downstream costs of CRTM can be reduced to the cost of therapy, saving $15-$30K per patient per CRTM episode.

CONCLUSIONS

-Policy trend of CRTM coverage as an emergent/urgent medical condition is a value-based approach of toxicity management, conserving resources, cutting costs and eliminating patient morbidity and mortality.

Hydration requirements in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

AIM

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting diminishes quality of life and increases healthcare resource use. This retrospective medical records analysis evaluated hydration requirements with emetogenic chemotherapy.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Cancer patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and antiemetics palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Unscheduled hydration event rates were determined.

RESULTS

For 186 patients (92 palonosetron, 94 GERSC) overall, mean hydration rate was significantly higher with palonosetron (0.6 vs 0.2; p = 0.0005). Proportion of patients with ≥1 hydration event was significantly higher with palonosetron overall (54 vs 33%; p = 0.0033) and in cycles 2-4 and the HEC subgroup.

CONCLUSION

GERSC within a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce unscheduled hydration requirements with MEC or HEC.

Emergency department presentations in early stage breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy

(Neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer is associated with side-effects, resulting in increased emergency department (ED) presentations. Treatment-related toxicity can affect quality of life, compromise chemotherapy delivery and treatment outcomes, and increase healthcare use. We performed a retrospective study of ED presentations in patients receiving curative chemotherapy for early breast cancer to identify factors contributing to ED presentations. Of 102 patients, 39 (38%) presented to ED within 30 days of chemotherapy, resulting in 63 ED presentations in total. Most common reasons were non-neutropenic fever (17 presentations/27%), neutropenic fever (15/24%), pain (9/14%), drug reaction (6/10%) and infection (4/6%). Factors significantly associated with ED presentation were adjuvant chemotherapy timing compared to neoadjuvant timing (P = 0.031), prophylactic antibiotics (P = 0.045) and docetaxel-containing regimen (P = 0.018).

Olanzapine for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related nausea and vomiting in adults

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I² = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.

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.

Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

Purpose

To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃)-receptor antagonists (RAs).

Summary

CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, neurokinin 1 [NK₁] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, NK₁ RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT₃ RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT₃-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT₃ RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK₁ RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT₃ RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.

Conclusion

Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemet-ics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT₃-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens.

Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

The increasing efficacy of cancer therapeutics means that the timespan of cancer therapy administration is undergoing a transition to increasingly long-term settings. Unfortunately, chronic therapy-related adverse health events are an unintended, but not infrequent, outcome of these life-saving therapies. Historically, the cardio-oncology field has evolved as retrospective effort to understand the scope, mechanisms, and impact of treatment-related toxicities that were already impacting patients. This review explores whether current systemic approaches to detecting, reporting, tracking, and communicating AEs are better positioned to provide more proactive or concurrent information to mitigate the impact of AE's on patient health and quality of life. Because the existing tools and frameworks for capturing these effects are not specific to cardiology, this study looks broadly at the landscape of approaches and assumptions. This review finds evidence of increasing focus on the provision of actionable information to support long-term health and quality of life for survivors and those on chronic therapy. However, the current means to assess and support the impact of this burden on patients and the healthcare system are often of limited relevance for an increasingly long-lived survivor and patient population.

Safety of HTX-019 (intravenous aprepitant) and fosaprepitant in healthy subjects

AIM

Evaluate safety of HTX-019, a novel polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free intravenous formulation of neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

Two open-label, randomized, two-way crossover studies evaluated treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in 200 healthy subjects. Subjects received HTX-019 130 mg (30-min infusion) and fosaprepitant 150 mg (20- or 30-min infusion), with ≥7-day washout between doses.

RESULTS

Less than or equal to 30 min after start of infusion, TEAEs occurred in 5 (3%) HTX-019 and 30 (15%) fosaprepitant recipients. No HTX-019 recipients had infusion-site adverse events, versus 15 (8%) fosaprepitant recipients. Treatment-related dyspnea occurred in one HTX-019 and six fosaprepitant recipients. No severe/serious TEAEs occurred; all TEAEs resolved.

CONCLUSION

HTX-019 may provide a safer aprepitant formulation than fosaprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention.

Hydration requirements with emetogenic chemotherapy: granisetron extended-release subcutaneous versus palonosetron

Aim: This retrospective analysis evaluated chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related hydration needs with palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), approved in 2016 for CINV prevention. Materials & methods: At a community practice, CINV-related hydration per chemotherapy cycle was determined following highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and a guideline-recommended antiemetic regimen: NK-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and either palonosetron only, GERSC only, or palonosetron switched to GERSC. Results: Palonosetron-only patients (n = 93) had a significantly higher mean (standard deviation) hydration rate (0.9 [1.1]) than GERSC-only patients (n = 91; 0.3 [0.6]; p < 0.0001). Switched patients’ (n = 48) hydration rates were significantly higher in the HEC subgroup with palonosetron (0.7 [1.2]) versus GERSC (0.5 [1.0]; p = 0.028). Conclusion: GERSC in a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce hydration needs following HEC or MEC.

[Formula: see text]

Jordanian oncology nurses' knowledge of managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

health practitioners, especially oncology nurses, play an important role in assessing and managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Oncology nurses need adequate knowledge and skills to optimally assess and manage CINV in oncology settings.

AIM

the study intended to assess Jordanian oncology nurses' knowledge of assessing and managing CINV.

METHODS

a cross-sectional design was used to survey 229 oncology nurses working in oncology units in three hospitals.

FINDINGS

most participants were female (62.9%). The age rage was 21-55 years, with a mean age of 29.9 years (SD=6.2). The mean overall knowledge score was low at 4.7 (SD=3.5) (95% CI=4.40-5.01). Poor knowledge of CINV assessment and management were noted.

CONCLUSION

oncology nurses' knowledge about the assessment and management of CINV is inadequate, and improvements in knowledge are needed. An educational intervention is recommended, which needs to be tested to ensure that it is both effective and feasible to provide.

Factors Associated with Emergency Department Utilization and Admission in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

We assessed emergency department (ED) utilization in patients with colorectal cancer to identify factors associated with ED visits and subsequent admission, as well as identify a high-risk subset of patients that could be targeted to reduce ED visits.

METHODS

Data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse, a national administrative claims database, was retrospectively analyzed to identify patients with colorectal cancer from 2008 to 2014. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with ED visits and ED "super-users" (3+ visits). Repeated measures analysis was used to model ED visits resulting in hospitalization as a logistic regression based on treatments 30 days prior to ED visit.

RESULTS

Of 13,466 patients with colorectal cancer, 7440 (55.2%) had at least one ED visit within 12 months of diagnosis. Factors associated with having an ED visit included non-white race, advancing age, increased comorbidities, and receipt of chemotherapy or radiation. 69.2% of patients who visited the ED were admitted to the hospital. A group of 1834 "super-users" comprised 13.6% of our population yet accounted for 52.1% of the total number of ED visits and 32.3% of admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of privately insured patients undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer will visit the ED within 12 months of diagnosis. Within this group, we identify common factors for a high-risk subset of patients with three or more ED visits who account for over half of all ED visits and a third of all admissions. These patients could potentially be targeted with alternative management strategies in the outpatient setting.

US oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths from chemoradiation mucositis and antimucositis therapy benefits

Approximate oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths associated with mucositis and identify health economic benefits of antimucositis therapies. Review the literature relevant to the clinical experience of mucositis by pathophysiology, incidence, duration, costs and deaths. Use US insurance actuarial and epidemiology on cancer to generalize an oncology-wide impact of toxic mucositis. Toxic mucositis causes oropharyngoesophageal ulcerations, chemo-induced nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Acutely, it lasts 102 days/six cycles of chemotherapy, 60 days in human stem-cell transplantation patients and 70-84 days in head and neck cancer patients at annual costs of US$13.23 billion/522,166 treated patients (US$20,892/erosive-type mucositis patient, US$25,337/physiologic mucositis patient) and 46,699 deaths. Using antimucositis therapies prior to 2013 provided fractional benefits at high costs. By completely preventing and rapidly reversing mucositis, high-potency polymerized cross-linked sucralfate promises superior health economic benefits.

New options and controversies in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

An expanding array of options for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including regimens containing olanzapine or recently approved neurokinin 1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists, are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Up to 80% of patients receiving chemotherapy have CINV. Current practice guidelines recommend that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy also receive a 3-drug antiemetic regimen initiated on the day of and continued for 3 days after chemotherapy administration, with the most commonly used 3-drug regimen consisting of an NK₁ receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. Developments in the area of CINV management in recent years include the use of olanzapine in combination with a 5-HT₃ antagonist and dexamethasone; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the NK₁ receptor antagonist rolapitant, which provides a longer duration of effect than aprepitant; FDA approval of a combination product containing palonosetron and the NK₁ receptor antagonist netupitant; and revisions of U.S. practice guidelines ending palonosetron's status as the preferred 5-HT₃ antagonist for prevention of CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Newer therapeutic options for the management of CINV are equivalent to standard-of-care regimens in terms of efficacy and toxicity. While the NK₁ receptor antagonist rolapitant and a product combining palonosetron and netupitant have potential advantages over standard therapy in terms of convenience or pharmacologic properties, their relatively high costs must be considered.

Budget impact of everolimus for the treatment of progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional neuroendocrine tumors of gastrointestinal or lung origin that are advanced or metastatic

BACKGROUND

Advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a rare malignancy with considerable need for effective therapies. Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2016 for treatment of adults with progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional NETs of gastrointestinal (GI) or lung origin that are unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the 3-year budget impact for a typical US health plan following availability of everolimus for treatment of GI and lung NETs. Methods An economic model was developed that considered two perspectives: an entire health plan and a pharmacy budget. The total budget impact included costs of drug therapies, administration, hospitalizations, physician visits, monitoring, and adverse events (AEs). The pharmacy model only considered drug costs.

RESULTS

In a US health plan with 1 million members, the model estimated 66 patients with well-differentiated, non-functional, and advanced or metastatic GI NETs and 20 with lung NETs undergoing treatment each year. Total budget impact in the first through third year after FDA approval ranged from $0.0568-$0.1443 per member per month (PMPM) for GI NETs and from $0.0181-$0.0355 PMPM for lung NETs. The total budget impact was lower than the pharmacy budget impact because it included cost offsets from administration and AE management for everolimus compared with alternative therapies (e.g. chemotherapies).

LIMITATIONS

Because GI and lung NETs are rare diseases with limited published data, several assumptions were made that may influence interpretation of results.

CONCLUSIONS

The budget impact for everolimus was minimal in this rare disease area with a high unmet need, largely due to low disease prevalence. These results should be considered in the context of significant clinical benefits potentially provided by everolimus, including significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) for advanced GI and lung NET patients.

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.

Differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. CINV typically manifests during two well-defined time periods (acute and delayed phases). The acute phase is the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and is largely managed with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists. The delayed phase, a 5-day at-risk period during which patients are not often in direct contact with their health care provider, remains a significant unmet medical need. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists have demonstrated protection against acute and delayed CINV in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy when used in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Furthermore, recent data indicate that this protection is maintained over multiple treatment cycles. Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved as oral formulation for the prevention of delayed CINV in adults. This review discusses the differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in preventing CINV compared with other NK-1 receptor antagonists.

Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Incidence, and Current Management

Even when chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be effectively controlled in the acute phase, it may still occur in the delayed phase. Identifying at-risk patients is complex and requires consideration of clinical, personal, demographic, and behavioral factors. Delayed CINV has a significant detrimental effect on patients' daily life and is responsible for significant healthcare resource utilization. Patients who do not experience acute CINV are not necessarily exempt from delayed CINV, and healthcare professionals have been shown to underestimate the incidence of delayed CINV. Failure to protect against CINV during the first cycle of chemotherapy is the most significant independent risk factor for delayed CINV during subsequent cycles. Addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic prophylactic regimens involving a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid helps to ameliorate delayed CINV, particularly vomiting. Netupitant and rolapitant are second-generation neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists that provide effective prophylaxis against delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting and also have an antinausea benefit. All of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with the exception of rolapitant inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), and a reduced dose of dexamethasone (a CYP3A4 substrate) should be administered with aprepitant or netupitant; by contrast, this is not necessary with rolapitant. Here we review specific challenges associated with delayed CINV, its pathophysiology, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes relative to acute CINV, and its management within the larger context of overall CINV.

Adverse event-related costs for systemic metastatic breast cancer treatment among female Medicaid beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study compared the real-world incidence and costs of systemic treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a Medicaid population.

METHODS

Insurance claims data for adult women who received biologic or chemotherapy (± hormonal therapy) for metastatic breast cancer between 2006-2013 were extracted from the Truven Health MarketScan^® Multi-State Medicaid database. Incidence of AEs (per 100 person years) and average monthly AE-related healthcare costs (per-patient-per-month) during each line of therapy (first or later lines) were estimated. The association between AEs and total all-cause healthcare costs was estimated using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

A total of 729 metastatic breast cancer patients were analyzed. Hematological (202.3 per 100 person years) and constitutional AEs (289.6 per 100 person years) were the most common class of AEs reported. Unadjusted per-patient-per-month AE-related expenditure by class were highest for hematological AEs ($1524), followed by gastrointestinal ($839) and constitutional AEs ($795), with anemia ($942), nausea/vomiting ($699), and leukopenia/neutropenia ($550) having incurred the highest total AE-related costs. Adjusted total all-cause monthly costs increased with the number of AEs ($19,701 for >7 AEs, $16,264 for 4 - 6 AEs, and $13,731 for 1 - 3 AEs) compared to no AEs ($5908) (all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among metastatic breast cancer patients treated with systemic therapy in a Medicaid population, AEs were associated with significant increases in costs, which increased with the number of AEs experienced. Therapies associated with a lower incidence of AEs may reduce cost burden and improve patient outcomes.