Evaluation of patient quality care in Spain in prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To characterise current management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Spain, as well as professional adherence to antiemetic guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective observational study. A multicenter has been designed including 360 patient case files from 18 hospitals. The involvement of pharmacists and nurses was studied, and also indicators of structure, process, and selected outcomes previously recruited from antiemetic guidelines.

RESULTS

We found 94.4% of hospitals used a written protocol for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and only 44.4% had educational programs for patients regarding this. Patients were prescribed antiemetic prophylactic treatment for delayed emesis in varying degree between highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (77.8% and 58.9%, respectively). Dexamethasone was the most prescribed antiemetic drug for patients receiving highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (98.3% and 90%, respectively), followed by ondansetron (68.9% and 95%, respectively). Nursing was more involved than pharmacy units in evaluating emetic risk factors in patients (64.7% vs 21.4%), and tracking symptom onset (88.2% vs 57.1%) and adherence to treatment (94.1% vs 28.6%). Pharmacy units were more involved than nursing in choosing the antiemetic treatment (78.6% vs 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although antiemetic guidelines were used by all hospitals, there were differences in management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Increased education directed towards patients and oncology professionals is needed to improve adherence.

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.