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

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 analysis of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy in Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

Background

Olanzapine has been shown to have an additive effect on the three-drug antiemetic therapy consisting of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, in a highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Although olanzapine may be more economical than aprepitant or palonosetron, an adequate cost-efficacy analysis has not been conducted.

Methods

We conducted a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine use in four-drug antiemetic therapy among Japanese patients. We simulated model patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and developed a decision-analytical model of patients receiving triple antiemetic therapy with or without olanzapine in an inpatient setting. The cost and probabilities of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare payer. The probabilities, utility value, and other costs were obtained from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the influence of each parameter on the model and the robustness of a base-case analysis. Threshold analysis was conducted to determine the cost of olanzapine that would make the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) equivalent to the threshold ICER). The threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was set at 5 million Japanese Yen (JPY) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Results

The cost was 10,238 JPY in the olanzapine regimen and 9719 JPY in the non-olanzapine regimen. The QALY gained were 0.01065 QALYs and 0.01029 QALYs in the olanzapine and non-olanzapine regimen, respectively. The incremental cost of the olanzapine regimen relative to the non-olanzapine regimen was 519 JPY, and the incremental QALYs were 0.00036 QALY, resulting in an ICER of 1,428,675 JPY per QALY gained. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the results were most sensitive to the utility value of incomplete control. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed the probability that the ICER was below the willingness-to-pay, and the incremental QALYs was positive was 96.2%. The calculated cost of olanzapine per 5 mg that would make the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio equivalent to the threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated to be 475 JPY.

Conclusions

Olanzapine was cost-effective in the four-drug antiemetic therapy for Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.