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)

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.

Palonosetron versus Granisetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting after Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study

The triplet antiemetic regimen is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, the superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in triplet antiemetic therapy remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) and granisetron (GRA) in triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV. This study included 267 patients who received MEC at our hospital between April 2017 and September 2020. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising PALO or GRA and dexamethasone on day 1 and aprepitant on days 1-3. We evaluated the rate of complete response (CR) (i.e., no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall phase (0-120 h) after first-cycle chemotherapy. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for non-CR. The rate of CR in the overall and delayed phases was significantly higher in the PALO group (91.9 and 91.9%, respectively) than in the GRA group (74.1 and 75.5%, respectively). In the acute phase, the incidence was not different between the GRA and PALO groups (96.5 and 99.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex and the use of GRA were risk factors for non-CR. Subgroup analysis revealed the superiority of PALO over GRA in female patients, but not in male patients. In conclusion, PALO was more effective than GRA in triplet antiemetic therapy in preventing CINV during MEC, especially for female patients.

Adding aprepitant to palonosetron does not decrease carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently, aprepitant has been recommended in carboplatin-based regimens, but there are limited reports on the efficacy of administering aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone (DEX) in carboplatin-containing regimens. Moreover, because aprepitant is an expensive drug, confirming its effectiveness is very important from the medical cost perspective. In this study, we examined the efficacy of prophylactically administered aprepitant, palonosetron and DEX, in paclitaxel and carboplatin (TC) combination chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with gynecologic cancer who were treated with paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve, AUC = 5-6) combination chemotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. The complete response (CR) rate, severity of nausea, and incidence of anorexia in the first course were compared between patients who did not receive aprepitant (control group) and those who received (aprepitant group).

RESULTS

The 106 patients were divided into two groups, consisting of 52 and 54 the control and aprepitant groups, respectively, and the patient background showed no significant difference between both groups. The CR rate of the overall phase between the control and aprepitant groups was 73.1 vs. 74.1%, that in the acute phase was 98.1 vs. 100%, and in the delayed phase was 75.0 vs. 74.1%, respectively, without any significant difference. The severity of nausea and incidence of anorexia were also not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study suggest that adding aprepitant to palonosetron and DEX does not prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in gynecologic cancer patients. Therefore, adding aprepitant to palonosetron does not decrease carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly occurs after chemotherapy, adversely affecting patients' quality of life. Recently, studies have shown inconsistent antiemetic effects of two common 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, namely, palonosetron and granisetron. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing CINV.

METHODS

Relevant studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the complete response (CR) rate. Secondary outcomes were headache and constipation events.

RESULTS

In total, 12 randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies were reviewed. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior to granisetron in all phases in terms of the CR rate (acute phases: odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.54; delayed phases: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; and overall phases: OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.17-1.60). Moreover, a non-significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the headache event, but the occurrence of the constipation event was lower in the granisetron group than in the palonosetron group.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron showed a higher protective efficacy in all phases of CINV prevention, especially in delayed phases, and no relatively severe adverse effects were observed.

Cost-effectiveness of newer regimens for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: review of the literature and real-world data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To investigate the cost of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for cancer treatment in real life.

RECENT FINDINGS

A retrospective analysis of all consecutives patients with advanced lung cancer treated in platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) chemotherapy and with breast cancer treated with anthracycline and cyclophosphamide -based chemotherapy at our Medical Oncology Unit during 4 years was performed. The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital (&OV0556;).

SUMMARY

We evaluated 110 patients with lung cancer and 55 patients with breast cancer. Concerning lung cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 133 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and dexamethasone (DEX) vs. the combination of palonosetron (PALO) and DEX for each patient. Concerning breast cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 78 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and DEX vs. the combination of PALO and DEX for each patient. Combining the medical costs of antiemetic therapy with the measure of efficacy represented by the complete response, the combination of NEPA and DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in HEC and MEC cancer treatment.

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

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

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.