Cheaper Options in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine in Children Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Double-blind Placebo-controlled Phase 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

In this trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of olanzapine in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, patients aged 3 to 18 years were randomly assigned to either the olanzapine group or the placebo group. All patients received intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone 30 minutes before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, followed by oral ondansetron for 48 hours. Participants in the olanzapine group received olanzapine once daily on days 1 and 2, while those in the control group received a placebo in the same dosage and schedule. The primary objective was: (a) to compare the complete control rates of vomiting in the delayed phase and (b) to compare the complete control rates of vomiting in acute and overall phases. The secondary objective was to evaluate the safety of olanzapine and the need for rescue medications.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients were randomly assigned either to the olanzapine group (n=63) or the control group (n=65). Complete control of vomiting between olanzapine and placebo group was 73% versus 48% ( P =0.005) in the delayed phase, 60% versus 54% ( P =0.46) in the acute phase, and 48% versus 34% ( P =0.117) in the overall phase, respectively. Grades 1 and 2 sedation was greater in the olanzapine group (46% vs. 14%; P <0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the placebo group required rescue medications for vomiting compared with in the olanzapine group ( P =0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine significantly improved complete control of vomiting in the delayed phase. A considerably lesser proportion of patients in the olanzapine group needed rescue medications.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients

PURPOSE

Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV.

RESULTS

Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

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.

Perspective: Creating the Evidence Base for Nutritional Support in Childhood Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Priorities for Body Composition Research

There is a striking disparity in survival rates for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with high-income countries (HICs). Many of the contributing factors are preventable, including the comorbidity of malnutrition. There are emerging data that malnutrition, as reflected in body composition changes, impacts survival of cancer. However, not enough priority is given to nutrition management of children with cancer, particularly in LMICs. The primary purpose of this article is to review the current knowledge on childhood cancer and body composition in LMICs and identify priorities for future research into the interlinking associations between cancer, body composition, and clinical outcomes for childhood cancer patients. Evidence will ensure feasible and effective nutrition management is prioritized in childhood cancer centers in LMICs and contribute to improving outcomes for children with cancer.

Oral cannabinoid for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting-a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a burdensome adverse event frequently associated with chemotherapy treatment of cancer. Evidence suggests that cannabinoid CB2 receptors are present in brainstem neurons, and thus, there may exist a role for cannabinoids to counter CINV. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of oral cannabinoids compared with other treatments as documented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE up until December 31, 2018; Embase Classic and Embase up until 2018 week 53; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until November 2018. Study data were extracted and included in this meta-analysis if they reported on at least one of the following efficacy endpoints: no nausea and no vomiting, no nausea, and no vomiting. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effects analysis model were used, to generate odds ratio (OR) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

In the setting of prophylactic treatment against both nausea and vomiting, oral cannabinoid was more efficacious than placebo or other studied antiemetic treatments. When controlling for vomiting, oral cannabinoid was equally as efficacious as others. Against nausea, oral cannabinoid was equally as effective as other treatments. A greater percentage of patients administered oral cannabinoid for CINV experienced dysphoria, euphoria, and sedation.

CONCLUSION

Although there exists some evidence suggesting that oral cannabinoids may have a role in controlling for emesis from a neurophysiological perspective, these conclusions are currently not mirrored in the published RCTs to date. However, there exists only a limited number of RCTs, comparisons with older treatment regimens and a lack of standard reporting practice across published literature. Further RCTs should investigate the efficacy and safety of oral cannabinoids, to secure a better picture of the efficacy of oral cannabinoids against CINV.

Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Comparative Study From Sudan

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing adverse effect. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA)–containing regimens are the standard regimens for CINV prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). NK1RA agents are expensive and were not registered in Sudan. Recently, regimens containing olanzapine, the available and affordable medication in Sudan, were introduced as another option. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of an olanzapine-containing regimen with the antiemetic regimen that was currently used in our institute for CINV prophylaxis in HEC/MEC settings.

Patients and Methods

The study prospectively compared an olanzapine-containing regimen (acute phase: olanzapine, ondansetron, dexamethasone; delayed phase: olanzapine, ondansetron) with an ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen (acute phase: ondansetron, dexamethasone; delayed phase: ondansetron) in adult patients with cancer receiving HEC or MEC. The study outcomes were complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medications) and nausea control (no nausea), which were assessed in the acute (0 to 24 hours), delayed (24 to 120 hours), and overall (0 to 120 hours) phases.

Results

The study included 131 patients (olanzapine-containing: 50 patients; ondansetron/dexamethasone: 81 patients). CR and nausea control were higher in the olanzapine-containing than in the ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen (CR: acute phase, 86% v 71.6%; P = .086; delayed phase, 72% v 30.9%; P < .001; overall phase, 66% v 25.9%; P < .001; nausea control: acute phase, 86% v 74.1%; P = .127; delayed phase, 76% v 34.6%; P < .001; overall phase, 72% v 29.6%; P < .001). The major toxicity of olanzapine was grade 1 and 2 sedation or drowsiness (25 patients).

Conclusion

An olanzapine-containing regimen has better efficacy for prevention of CINV in the HEC/MEC setting. Oncologists working in a limited-resource setting should be familiar with olanzapine-containing regimens, because NK1RA agents are not affordable and not easily available.

Economics of Cancer Medicines: For Whose Benefit?

Although new cancer drugs are continually getting approved and used, the value that these drugs add is very debatable. Because of the skyrocketing cost of the new drugs, each new approval represents a multibillion market. However, unlike other branches of economics, cancer drugs are intricately associated with socio-political issues, emotional overlay, public pressure, industry manipulation and propaganda. In this article, we review the value added by new cancer drugs and examine the socio-political agenda around them with highlights on the increasing gulf between high-income and low-middle income countries regarding the affordability to these drugs. Finally, we also suggest a way forward to address this highly complex issue.

Low-value practices in oncology contributing to financial toxicity

Financial toxicity of cancer treatment is now a well-recognised problem in cancer medicine leading to patient bankruptcy and even poor survival, including in high-income countries and countries with public health care systems. Many oncologists, despite acknowledging the severity of financial toxicity as a problem, resign the responsibility of reducing the costs of cancer treatment to the government, industry, and oncology societies. However, an oncologist can play an important role in reducing the costs of cancer treatment because all cancer treatment decisions are made between the oncologist and the patient. In this article, I point out a few examples of low value practices from various oncology disciplines that we oncologists can easily replace or abandon in our practice and contribute to lessening the financial toxicities to patients and society. As these examples suggest, reducing cost does not necessarily mean compromising efficacy. We should continuously keep looking for other similar cost-saving strategies in our practice.

Role of olanzapine in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on platinum-based chemotherapy patients: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Even with the use of modern antiemetic drugs, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still a cause of great distress to the patients. Olanzapine, primarily marketed as an antipsychotic, was found to reduce nausea and vomiting in some chemotherapy patients. But it was never tested in Indian population with a diverse genetic background. The present study aims to evaluate the role of olanzapine in CINV in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded study on 100 chemotherapy-naïve consenting patients receiving any one from cisplatin, carboplatin or oxaliplatin. The control group (n = 50) received palonosetron and dexamethasone in the approved therapeutic dose from the day 1 of chemotherapy. The test group (n = 50) received additional olanzapine 10 mg/day from day 1 for five consecutive days. CINV and quality of life (QoL) were assessed.

RESULTS

Vomiting was significantly less among the olanzapine-treated patients. Control of delayed emesis was significantly better in this group (complete response among 96 vs. 42 % in the control group, p value <0.0001). Incidence and severity of nausea was significantly less in this group. Failure of anti-CINV measure was 4 % in this group compared to 26 % of the patients of the control group during overall days 1-5. Though sedation was more in these olanzapine-treated patients, there was no dose-limiting adverse event. Quality of life was also better among the olanzapine-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine was found to be effective as add-on in the control of CINV.