Economic evaluation of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone for the prevention of 'overall' nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese adult patients

Evaluation of clinical outcomes and efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in combination with dexamethasone in Egyptian patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is considered one of the most serious adverse events affecting chemotherapy-receiving cancer patients. It dramatically affects their food intake, nutritional status and more importantly their quality of life. We can observe CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) such as adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (AC) in breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other cancer types. This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) over granisetron (GRA) in combination with dexamethasone for multiple highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs (HEC), especially in chemotherapy regimens in Egyptian breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other diseases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An open-label randomized trial was carried out, including 115 patients receiving at least four cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. All patients received dexamethasone in combination with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. We recorded patients' clinical and biochemical characteristics and withdraw blood samples to monitor serum substance P and serotonin in correlation with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We use the MASCC antiemetic tool in the acute phase (0-24 hr) and delayed phase (24-120 h) to evaluate patient outcomes in both stages after each chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

In (PALO) group, only 7.84% of patients showed acute vomiting, and 11.76% showed acute nausea, whereas 43.75% of patients showed acute vomiting and 89.06% showed acute nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). For delayed CINV, 23.53% of patients showed delayed vomiting, and 47.06% showed delayed nausea in the (PALO) group, while 82.81% of patients showed delayed emesis, and 92.19% showed delayed nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). The study showed that PALO is a cost-effective choice when compared to GRA in CINV prevention as 45.10% of patients in (PALO) required additional rescue medications (Domperidone 10 mg orally three times per day plus Trimebutine 200 mg orally three times per week both for 5 days), while 95.24% in the (GRA) group used the same medications. Adverse events of both antiemetic drugs (PALO and GRA) include headaches and constipation and QTc prolongation reports, mostly mild to moderate, with relatively low rates among the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron, combined with dexamethasone, is more effective than granisetron and dexamethasone combination against both acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) cisplatin-based protocols and the combination of cyclophosphamide and anthracyclines (AC). Medical team members should make more efforts, especially clinical pharmacy personnel, to monitor medications' effectiveness and help the medical team achieve a suitable and reliable care plan.

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.

Clinical efficacy of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists in reducing propofol injection pain, postoperative nausea/vomiting and shivering: A meta-analysis

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in reducing propofol injection pain, postoperative nausea/ vomiting, and shivering through pooling the available published data.

Methods Prospective randomized clinical studies relevant to 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in reducing propofol injection pain published before June 2019 were identified from four electronic databases, Pubmed, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, EMBASE and Wanfang. The incidence of propofol injection pain, postoperative nausea/vomiting, and shivering in patients after 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were compared to relevant control groups by pooling the individual data through random or fixed-effect models. The publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger’s line regression test.

Results After screening, a total of 19 publications relevant to 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in reducing propofol injection pain and prevention of postoperative nausea/vomiting or shivering were included for analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists could significantly reduce the total propofol injection pain compared to placebo (RR=0.49, 95%CI:0.45-0.54, P<0.05). For mild propofol injection pain, there was no statistical difference between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and control groups (RR=1.07,95%CI:0.89-1.29, P>0.05). However, for moderate (RR=0.37, 95%CI: 0.31-0.46, P<0.05) and severe (RR=0.19, 95%CI:0.14-0.27, P<0.05) propofol injection pain, the incidence in 5-HT3 receptor antagonists was significantly lower than that of control groups. The pooled results also indicated that incidence of postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR=0.28, 95%CI:0.17-0.44, P<0.05) and postoperative shivering (RR=0.33, 95%CI:0.23-0.48, P<0.05) were significantly reduced in 5-HT3 receptor antagonists group compared to control group with a statistical difference.

Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists effectively reduced propofol injection pain, postoperative nausea/vomiting, and shivering.

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.

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.

Risk factors associated with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the triplet antiemetic regimen including palonosetron or granisetron for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: analysis of a randomized, double-blind controlled trial

PURPOSE

The triplet antiemetic regimen is recommended for cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy, in the current guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis. Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified by several prior studies, there are only few studies evaluating risk factors associated with the prophylactic triplet antiemetic therapy, particularly in palonosetron use. The present study aimed to reveal the risk factors related to CINV development in patients receiving cisplatin and to compare CINV risk factors between palonosetron and granisetron use.

METHODS

In total, 825 patients in a phase III trial receiving palonosetron with graniestron were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV development. Additionally, risk factors associated with CINV development were separately evaluated in each treatment group.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that sex, age, cisplatin dose, and granisetron use were significant and independent factors affecting CINV development in the overall phase. Similarly, sex and age were risk factors for CINV in both treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier curves classified by each treatment group showed no significant difference between the groups among patients without any risk factors for CINV (P = 0.353). Conversely, complete response rates for patients with at least one risk factor were higher in patients receiving palonosetron (P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis revealed the importance of previously reported CINV risk factors when using triplet antiemetics. Palonosetron might be preferred for patients with at least one risk factor.