Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Mexico: healthcare provider predictions versus observed.

OBJECTIVE: An understanding of the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may assist healthcare providers (HCP) when making treatment decisions. We investigated the incidence of CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC), in comparison with predictions of CINV by HCP. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at nine oncology centers in Mexico. Eligible patients were >/=18 years old and scheduled to receive a single, initial cycle of chemotherapy. Patients recorded nausea severity, episodes of emesis, and rescue medication use for the first 5 days after chemotherapy. HCP predicted the general incidence of acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-5) CINV. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were enrolled, with complete data available for 73. Mean age was 50 years; 67 (92%) were women; and 57 (78%) received HEC, while 16 (22%) received MEC. HCP predictions were comparable to the incidence of acute CINV after HEC and MEC and of delayed CINV after MEC. However, HCP predictions underestimated delayed CINV after HEC. 75.4% of patients (95% CI: 62.2-85.9) reported delayed nausea and HCP predicted 41.7% (95% CI: 30.2-55.0); 63.2% of patients (95% CI: 49.3-75.6) reported delayed emesis and HCP predicted 31.8% (95% CI: 21.0-44.5). Limitations of the study include the small sample size, possible selection bias and lack of a standardized antiemetic regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers underestimated the incidence of delayed CINV after HEC. There is a need for a better understanding of the incidence of delayed nausea and emesis, which remain common side-effects of chemotherapy.

The impact of losartan on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and costs in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in Type 2 Diabetes with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study demonstrated that treatment with losartan reduced the risk of ESRD by 29% among hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy. The objective of this study was to project the effect of losartan compared to placebo on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and associated costs from a third-party payer perspective in Mexico. METHODS: A competing risks method was used to estimate lifetime incidence of ESRD, while accounting for the risk of death without ESRD. The cost associated with ESRD was estimated by combining the cumulative incidence of ESRD with the lifetime cost associated with ESRD. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD from the three main public institutions in Mexico, the lifetime cost of losartan therapy, and other costs (non-ESRD/non-losartan) expected for patients with type 2 diabetes. Survival was estimated by weighting the life expectancies with and without ESRD by the cumulative risk of ESRD. RESULTS: The projected lifetime incidence of ESRD for losartan patients was lower (66%) compared with placebo patients (83%). This reduction in ESRD resulted in a decrease in ESRD-related cost of M dollar 49,737 per patient and a discounted gain of 0.697 life years per patient. After accounting for the cost of losartan and the additional cost associated with greater survival, we projected that treatment with losartan would result in a net savings of M dollar 24,073 per patient. CONCLUSION: Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy not only reduced the within-trial incidence of ESRD but is projected to result in lifetime reductions in ESRD, increased survival, and overall cost savings to public institutions in Mexico.

The impact of losartan on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and costs in Mexico / El impacto del losartan en la incidencia de por vida de la enfermedad renal de la etapa terminal y sus costos en México

Background. The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in Type 2 Diabetes with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study demonstrated that treatment with losartan reduced the risk of ESRD by 29% among hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy. The objective of this study was to project the effect of losartan compared to placebo on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and associated costs from a third-party payer perspective in Mexico. Methods. A competing risks method was used to estimate lifetime incidence of ESRD, while accounting for the risk of death without ESRD. The cost associated with ESRD was estimated by combining the cumulative incidence of ESRD with the lifetime cost associated with ESRD. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD from the three main public institutions in Mexico, the lifetime cost of losartan therapy, and other costs (non-ESRD/non-losartan) expected for patients with type 2 diabetes. Survival was estimated by weighting the life expectancies with and without ESRD by the cumulative risk of ESRD. Results. The projected lifetime incidence of ESRD for losartan patients was lower (66%) compared with placebo patients (83%). This reduction in ESRD resulted in a decrease in ESRD-related cost of M$49,737 per patient and a discounted gain of 0.697 life years per patient. After accounting for the cost of losartan and the additional cost associated with greater survival, we projected that treatment with losartan would result in a net savings of M$24,073 per patient. Conclusion. Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy not only reduced the within-trial incidence of ESRD but is projected to result in lifetime reductions in ESRD, increased survival, and overall cost savings to public institutions in Mexico.

Antecedentes. El estudio RENAAL (Reducción de los grados o puntos terminales en la diabetes tipo 2 con losartan, el antagonista de la anglotenslna II) demostró que el tratamiento con losartan redujo el riesgo de la ESRD (enfermedad renal de la etapa terminal) en 29% entre pacientes hipertensos con diabetes tipo 2 y neuropatía diabética. El propósito estudiado fue hacer una proyección del efecto del losartan comparándolo con el placebo en la incidencia de por vida de la ESRD y con los costos asociados de un tercer pagador en perspectiva en México. Métodos. Se utilizó un método de riesgos muy competitivo para calcular la incidencia de por vida de la ESRD, al mismo tiempo que se calculaba el riesgo de muerte sin la ESRD. El costo asociado con la ESRD se calculó confirmando la incidencia acumulativa de la ESRD en relación con el costo de por vida de la terapia con losar-tan y otros costos (sin ESRD o sin losartan) con los que se contaba para pacientes con diabetes tipo 2. La supervivencia se calculó esperando las expectativas de vida con y sin ESRD por el riesgo acumulativo de ESRD. Resultados. La proyectada incidencia de por vida de la ESRD en cuanto a los pacientes con losartan fue más baja (66%) comparada con los pacientes que tomaron placebo (83%). Esta reducción de la ESRD tuvo por resultado una disminución en el costo relacionado con la ESRD de $49,737 por paciente y una ganancia descartada de 0.697 años de vida por paciente. Luego de contabilizar el costo del losartan y el costo añadido asociado con una mayor supervivencia, llegamos a la conclusión de que el tratamiento con losartan daría por resultado un ahorro neto de $24,073 por paciente. Conclusión. El tratamiento mediante losartan en pacientes aquejados de diabetes tipo 2 y neuropatía no sólo redujo la incidencia intraexperimental de la ESRD, sino que además nos ha servido para proyectar que resulte en reducciones de por vida en la ESRD, en una supervivencia incrementada y en un ahorro total de costos en cuanto a las instituciones públicas en nuestro país.