Clinical and economic burden of postoperative nausea and vomiting: Analysis of existing cost data.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an undesirable outcome that occurs in up to 30% of patients. Over the years, the cost of treating PONV has decreased due to the availability of cheaper yet effective antiemetics. Limiting PONV development benefits the hospital system as studies have shown that prevention is associated with shorter post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stays as well as decreased supply costs and staffing burden. The financial burden for prophylaxis against PONV has been shown to be less than what patients are willing to pay to prevent the development of PONV. Studies have also shown that prevention of initial development of PONV limits readmission rates, which is beneficial to both the patient and the hospital. Owing to recent economic analysis and reductions in antiemetic prices, the patient's preference for comfort, the hospital's commitment to providing the best care, and the system's desire for fiscal prudence are aligned. This culminates in recommending PONV prophylaxis for all patients undergoing anesthesia.

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.

Best Practice Approach to Successful Conversion of Fosaprepitant to Aprepitant IV in a Large Multisite Community Oncology Infusion Center: A Retrospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact on cost, time, resource use, and clinic workflow of converting the route of drug administration from a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion to aprepitant IV, and more specifically to IV push, within a multicenter community oncology practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter time, motion, and resource/cost evaluation study. Conversion to aprepitant IV was determined by calculating number of doses of aprepitant IV versus fosaprepitant administered in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Operational advantages (i.e., supply costs, time saved) of switching from fosaprepitant IV infusion to aprepitant administered as a 2-min IV push were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 12,908 doses of aprepitant IV 130 mg were administered at 13 Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers clinics over an 18-month period. Conversion from fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV reached 90% after 9 months of aprepitant IV initiation. Supply costs per administration were reduced ($2.51 to $0.52) when aprepitant was prepared as an IV push versus an NK-1 RA infusion. The overall time savings per administration of aprepitant was reduced by 90% (from 36.5 to 3.5 min, 33 min saved) as an IV push rather than an infusion. Most of the time saved per administration (30 min) pertained to the infusion nurse, and 3 min was saved by the pharmacy technician. CONCLUSION: Successful conversion to aprepitant, and specifically to a 2-min IV push, provides time, cost, and resource savings, improves operational efficiency, and avoids the negative impact of potential future IV fluid shortages.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a major impact on quality of life for patients receiving chemotherapy. Intravenous (IV) aprepitant is an approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) that has been effective and safe when administered as part of a guideline-recommended regimen in patients receiving chemotherapy. In addition to being approved as a 30-min infusion, aprepitant IV is the only NK-1 RA approved for administration as a 2-min injection. These factors contributed to Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers (RMCC), which is a physician-owned community oncology practice, evaluating the impact on cost, time, and resource use of converting from a 30-min infusion of fosaprepitant to aprepitant IV, and more specifically a 2-min injection. Within 9 months of implementing aprepitant IV at RMCC, the percent utilization compared to fosaprepitant reached over 90%, signifying a successful conversion within the practice. Furthermore, a 2-min injection of aprepitant IV resulted in several operational advantages compared to a 30-min infusion. When accounting for all 13 clinics within RMCC, total monthly time savings to the practice would be over 28,000 min, or approximately 60 workdays per month of saved time. This new workflow is more efficient and allows for pharmacy technicians to complete other necessary tasks in the pharmacy such as cleaning, organizing, managing inventory, drug ordering, and charge/documentation corrections. Time saved by the nurses could be used for enhanced patient care, thoroughly reviewing chemotherapy or other orders, and assisting other nurses.

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.

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70-80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT3) and neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact. Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT3 RA + NK1 RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care. Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.

Randomized Phase II Trial to Compare the Efficacy of Haloperidol and Olanzapine in the Control of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Nepal.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare efficacy and toxicity of olanzapine (OLN; a higher-cost drug) and haloperidol (HAL; a lower-cost drug) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, phase II trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either OLN 10 mg orally on days 1 to 4 or HAL 1 mg orally on day 1 and 0.5 mg twice daily on days 2 to 4. Both groups received ondansetron 16 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg intravenously on day 1. Patients recorded their nausea using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and recorded daily episodes of vomiting from day 1 to day 5. The primary end point was complete nausea prevention (CNP; ie, ESAS of 0). Secondary end point was complete emesis prevention (CEP). RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were randomly assigned, and 64 received their allocated treatment (n = 32 in each arm). There was no difference in CNP during the overall period (days 1 to 5) between OLN and HAL (68.7% v 71.8%; P = .78). In the acute period (day 1) and the delayed period (days 2 to 5), CNP was similar between OLN and HAL (acute: 84.3% v 81.2%; delayed: 68.7% v 75%). No difference was identified in the rate of CEP during the overall period (81.2% with OLN v 78.1% with HAL; P = .75), during the acute period (93.7% with OLN v 90.6% with HAL), or during the delayed period (84.3% with OLN v 84.3% with HAL). No difference in toxicities was noted between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: In this study, HAL had comparable efficacy to OLN in the management of CINV, which suggests that it is the higher-value option in patients who receive HEC in resource-scarce countries.

Cost-minimization analysis of GSTP1c.313A>G genotyping for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: A Bayesian inference approach.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are concerning adverse events resulting from cancer treatment, and current guidelines recommend the use of neurokinin-1-selective antagonists, such as fosaprepitant, in highly emetogenic schemes. However, the implementation of this strategy may be limited by the cost of treatment. GSTP1 c.313A>G genotype was recently described as a predictor of vomiting related to high-dose cisplatin. We hypothesized that the inclusion of routine GSTP1 c.313A>G screening may be promising in financial terms, in contrast to the wide-spread use of fosaprepitant. METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was planned to compare GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping versus overall fosaprepitant implementation for patients with head and neck cancer under chemoradiation therapy with high-dose cisplatin. A decision analytic tree was designed, and conditional probabilities were calculated under Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. The observed data included patients under treatment without fosaprepitant, while priors were derived from published studies. RESULTS: To introduce screening with real-time polymerase chain reaction, an initial investment of U$ 39,379.97 would be required, with an amortization cost of U$ 7,272.97 per year. The mean cost of standard therapy with fosaprepitant is U$ 243.24 per patient, and although the initial cost of routine genotyping is higher, there is a tendency of progressive minimization at a threshold of 155 patients (Credible interval-CI: 119 to 216), provided more than one sample is incorporated for simultaneous analysis. A resulting reduction of 35.83% (CI: 30.31 to 41.74%) in fosaprepitant expenditures is then expected with the implementation of GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping. CONCLUSION: GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping may reduce the use of preventive support for chemotherapy induced nausea and lower the overall cost of treatment. Despite the results of this simulation, randomized, interventional studies are required to control for known and unknown confounders as well as unexpected expenses.

Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan.

PURPOSE: Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) is recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC, respectively). We previously reported that aprepitant, an NK1RA, was needed to control CINV in 43% and 12% of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively (Support Care Cancer 23:905-912, 2015). To elucidate the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in these patients, a cost-utility analysis according to the necessity of aprepitant was performed. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed according to the necessity of aprepitant and CINV responses in both acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy. Probabilities of health states and medical costs were derived from the results of the abovementioned trial. RESULT: In patients who received HEC and needed aprepitant, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the regimen with no aprepitant, was 7912 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which was far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. The ICER was 27,457 USD/QALY in patients who received MEC and needed aprepitant. In contrast, in patients who received HEC or MEC but did not need aprepitant, the ICER was 175,959 or 478,844 USD/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: Regardless of whether a patient received HEC or MEC, aprepitant use was highly cost-effective for patients who truly needed it. These results warrant further research to predict the necessity of NK1RA treatment before initiating emetogenic chemotherapies.

Effectiveness of Antiemetic Regimens for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for managing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Southeast Asia: a multinational study.

PURPOSE: Recent studies suggested that olanzapine, together with dexamethasone and serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), is effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This regimen is particularly useful in Southeast Asia (SEA) countries where resources are limited. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating olanzapine into standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC among SEA countries. METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed. RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries. CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.

Medication overuse in oncology: current trends and future implications for patients and society.

The high cost of cancer care worldwide is largely attributable to rising drugs prices. Despite their high costs and potential toxic effects, anticancer treatments could be subject to overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to harm than to benefit a patient. We found 30 studies documenting medication overuse in cancer, which included 16 examples of supportive medication overuse and 17 examples of antineoplastic medication overuse in oncology. Few specific agents have been assessed, and no studies investigated overuse of the most toxic or expensive medications currently used in cancer treatment. Although financial, psychological, or physical harms of medication overuse in cancer could be substantial, there is little published evidence addressing these harms, so their magnitude is unclear. Further research is needed to better quantify medication overuse, understand its implications, and help protect patients and the health-care system from overuse.

A retrospective evaluation of the perioperative drug use and comparison of its cost in robotic vs open surgery for endometrial cancer.

To compare the usage and cost of analgesics (opioid and non-opioids), antiemetics, and IV fluids and its associated costs in robotic vs open staging surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). This retrospective study was performed at a single academic institution from January 2014 to June 2017 in the department of Gynecology Oncology at Amrita Institute of Medical Science, Kerala, India. The study included women with biopsy confirmed clinically early stage endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia, who underwent robotic-assisted or open staging surgery. Data on surgical time, blood loss, post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and length of hospital (LOH) stay; analgesic, antiemetic, and IV fluid use were collected for three distinct periods: intra-operative, PACU, and ward. Direct medicine and material costs associated with the administration of intravenous (IV) fluids, analgesics, and antiemetics were collected. All parameters were compared between two surgical groups. The study included 133 (54 open and 79 robotic-assisted) patients. As compared to open surgery, robotic-assisted surgery was associated with significantly reduced: surgical time (p = 0.007), estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), PACU stay (p < 0.001), LOH stay (p < 0.001); IV fluids (crystalloid and colloid; p < 0.001); opioids (p < 0.001), non-opioids (intravenous acetaminophen, oral acetaminophen, diclofenac; all p < 0.001); incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting and the requirement of rescue antiemetics (p < 0.001). EC staging using robotic-assisted surgery was associated with significantly lower medicine and material costs attributed to IV fluids, analgesia, and antiemetics (p < 0.001). As compared to open surgery, robotic surgery was associated with the total saving of $107.7 ($19.5 in IV fluids, $49.2 in analgesics, $1.33 in antiemetics, and $37.8 in material). Robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer is associated with decreased requirement and expenditure attributable to post-operative pain, post-operative nausea and vomiting, and maintenance and replacement fluid therapy.

Antiemetic Prophylaxis as a Marker of Health Care Disparities in the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry.

BACKGROUND: US health care disparities persist despite repeated countermeasures. Research identified race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status as factors, mediated through individual provider and/or systemic biases; little research exists in anesthesiology. We investigated antiemetic prophylaxis as a surrogate marker for anesthesia quality by individual providers because antiemetics are universally available, indicated contingent on patient characteristics (gender, age, etc), but independent of comorbidities and not yet impacted by regulatory or financial constraints. We hypothesized that socioeconomic indicators (measured as insurance status or median income in the patients' home zip code area) are associated with the utilization of antiemetic prophylaxis (as a marker of anesthesia quality). METHODS: We tested our hypothesis in several subsets of electronic anesthesia records from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry (NACOR), fitting frequentist and novel Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: NACOR contained 12 million cases in 2013. Six institutions reported on antiemetic prophylaxis for 441,645 anesthesia cases. Only 173,133 cases included details on insurance information. Even fewer (n = 92,683) contained complete data on procedure codes and provider identifiers. Bivariate analysis, multivariable logistic regression, and our Bayesian hierarchical model all showed a large and statistically significant association between socioeconomic markers and antiemetic prophylaxis (ondansetron and dexamethasone). For Medicaid versus commercially insured patients, the odds ratio of receiving the antiemetic ondansetron is 0.85 in our Bayesian hierarchical mixed regression model, with a 95% Bayesian credible interval of 0.81-0.89 with similar inferences in classical (frequentist) regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses of NACOR anesthesia records raise concerns that patients with lower socioeconomic status may receive inferior anesthesia care provided by individual anesthesiologists, as indicated by less antiemetics administered. Effects persisted after we controlled for important patient characteristics and for procedure and provider influences. Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Our results challenge the notion that anesthesia providers do not contribute to health care disparities.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). SETTING: Oncology hospital department in Italy. METHODS: A Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered. RESULTS: NEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC). CONCLUSIONS: NEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.

Comparison of treatment patterns and economic outcomes among metastatic pancreatic cancer patients initiated on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy. RESULTS: 550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Changes in Antiemetic Overuse in Response to Choosing Wisely Recommendations.

IMPORTANCE: Antiemetics are used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer. Newer antiemetic agents (serotonin and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists) have increased efficacy but are expensive. The American Society of Clinical Oncology's first guideline in the 2013 Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign discouraged overuse of expensive antiemetics in patients with low risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, little is known about patterns or trends in antiemetic overuse or whether any change has occurred with the publication of the CW recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the baseline prevalence, trends, determinants, and costs of antiemetic overuse from January 1, 2008, through March 31, 2015. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From January 1, 2008, through March 31, 2015, this observational study applied descriptive (univariate and bivariate) and multivariable logistic regression analyses to longitudinal health insurance enrollment and nationwide MarketScan insurance claims data for 678 220 privately insured patients receiving chemotherapy before and after the October 29, 2013, announcement of the CW guidelines. The baseline prevalence, trends, determinants, and costs of antiemetic overuse were estimated in cases stratified by risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Antiemetic use, overuse measure, and expenses before and after the publication of the CW recommendation, with adjustment for patient and health care professional characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 678 220 adults who started chemotherapy during the observation period. The average age of the sample was 59.5 years, with 58.2% (n = 394 724) female. Antiemetic overuse occurred in 24.1% (n = 163 451) of patients, with highest rates among those receiving intravenous chemotherapy with high chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting risk (32.4% [n = 106 795]). Compared with baseline before the CW, patients had 7.0% lower odds of antiemetic overuse (95% CI, 4.4%-9.5%) during the 6 months after the CW, but this decrease was transitory: the odds of antiemetic overuse were 7.4% (95% CI, 4.6%-10.2%) higher than baseline at 6 months after the CW. Low-risk intravenous chemotherapy agents had overuse that continued to decrease 6 months after the CW. Antiemetic overuse was associated with higher costs. Reducing antiemetic overuse could have paid for 6.1% (95% CI, 5.8%-6.4%) of the chemotherapy drug costs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Antiemetic overuse is prevalent and results in unnecessary spending associated with systemic chemotherapy treatment. Short-term decreases in antiemetic overuse were associated with the CW recommendation, but sustained decreases occurred in only one risk group.

Prescription of Prophylactic Antiemetic Drugs for Patients Receiving Chemotherapy With Minimal and Low Emetic Risk.

IMPORTANCE: The use of antiemetic drugs for patients receiving chemotherapy with low or minimal emetic risk has been recognized as a growing concern for health care costs and patients' welfare. Relatively few studies have examined antiemetic prophylaxis or treatment of emesis associated with chemotherapy with lower emetic risk. OBJECTIVE: To describe the pattern in Japan of overprescribing prophylactic antiemetic drugs to patients who have received intravenous chemotherapy with minimal or low emetic risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This secondary analysis of a health insurance claims database linked with the hospital-based cancer registry of 122 designated cancer care hospitals covered the period from September 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012. Data were included from patients who (1) were diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, stomach, cervical, or prostate cancer; (2) were 20 years or older at the time of the diagnosis; and (3) received intravenous chemotherapy with minimal or low emetic risk. The data from patients with advanced stage cancer (stage IV) were excluded. Data were analyzed from March 20, 2014, to June 30, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The percentage of chemotherapy administration involving patients prescribed prophylactic antiemetic drugs, namely, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, serotonin receptor antagonist, and/or dexamethasone, was calculated. The costs of potentially unnecessary antiemetic drugs were estimated using the National Health Insurance drug price list for 2011. RESULTS: A total of 8545 patients (5886 women [68.9%] and 2659 men [31.1%]; mean [SD] age, 61.9 [12.8] years) undergoing 73 577 administrations of chemotherapy with minimal emetic risk (2464 patients; 22 619 administrations) or low emetic risk (6081 patients; 50 958 administrations) were identified. Of these, patients who received 24 373 administrations of chemotherapy with a low emetic risk (47.8%) and 633 administrations of chemotherapy with a minimal emetic risk (2.8%) were prescribed serotonin receptor antagonists and dexamethasone. Outpatients in the low emetic risk group underwent more frequent administration of chemotherapy that included prescription of both drugs (53.1% of the chemotherapy; 95% CI, 51.6%-54.7%) compared with inpatients (33.7% of the chemotherapy; 95% CI, 31.7%-35.9%). Consequently, approximately ¥170 million (US $1.6 million) was unnecessarily spent on prophylactic antiemetic drugs for these patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A substantial number of patients receiving chemotherapy with minimal and low emetic risk were prescribed potentially unnecessary prophylactic antiemetic drugs. The judicious use of these drugs could spare the burden of extra costs and the potential risk for adverse effects for patients.

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.

Background Two pivotal Phase III trials compared the efficacy of palonosetron, ondansetron and granisetron, combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. However, an economic evaluation of these three regimens in the real-world setting of Chinese adult patients has not been determined. Objectives To estimate, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, which of these frequently used strategies consisting of 0.25 mg palonosetron (0.25P), 16 mg ondansetron (Onda), and 3 mg granisetron (Gran), is the most cost-effective option in patients following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods A Markov decision-analytic model was developed. The health and economic outcomes of the three strategies; 0.25P, Onda, and Gran were investigated. The clinical and utility data were taken from published studies. The cost data were calculated according to current local Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty regarding the results. Results The base-case analysis showed that the 0.25P strategy yielded maximum health benefits compared with the other two strategies. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the Gran strategy was the most cost-effective approach when the willingness-to-pay threshold was not more than US$22,515/quality-adjusted life year. Moreover, palonosetron is not cost-effective in preventing 'overall' nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese patients. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that, compared with palonosetron and ondansetron, 3 mg granisetron may be a cost-effective treatment option in the current Chinese healthcare setting.

Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum and nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a systematic review and economic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 85% of all women during pregnancy, but for the majority self-management suffices. For the remainder, symptoms are more severe and the most severe form of NVP - hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) - affects 0.3-1.0% of pregnant women. There is no widely accepted point at which NVP becomes HG. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for NVP and HG. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, Conference Proceedings Index, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched from inception to September 2014. References from studies and literature reviews identified were also examined. Obstetric Medicine was hand-searched, as were websites of relevant organisations. Costs came from NHS sources. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for effectiveness, and population-based case series for adverse events and fetal outcomes. Treatments: vitamins B6 and B12, ginger, acupressure/acupuncture, hypnotherapy, antiemetics, dopamine antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists, intravenous (i.v.) fluids, corticosteroids, enteral and parenteral feeding or other novel treatment. Two reviewers extracted data and quality assessed studies. Results were narratively synthesised; planned meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity and incomplete reporting. A simple economic evaluation considered the implied values of treatments. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies (75 reports) met the inclusion criteria. For RCTs, 33 and 11 studies had a low and high risk of bias respectively. For the remainder (n = 20) it was unclear. The non-randomised studies (n = 9) were low quality. There were 33 separate comparators. The most common were acupressure versus placebo (n = 12); steroid versus usual treatment (n = 7); ginger versus placebo (n = 6); ginger versus vitamin B6 (n = 6); and vitamin B6 versus placebo (n = 4). There was evidence that ginger, antihistamines, metoclopramide (mild disease) and vitamin B6 (mild to severe disease) are better than placebo. Diclectin® [Duchesnay Inc.; doxylamine succinate (10 mg) plus pyridoxine hydrochloride (10 mg) slow release tablet] is more effective than placebo and ondansetron is more effective at reducing nausea than pyridoxine plus doxylamine. Diclectin before symptoms of NVP begin for women at high risk of severe NVP recurrence reduces risk of moderate/severe NVP compared with taking Diclectin once symptoms begin. Promethazine is as, and ondansetron is more, effective than metoclopramide for severe NVP/HG. I.v. fluids help correct dehydration and improve symptoms. Dextrose saline may be more effective at reducing nausea than normal saline. Transdermal clonidine patches may be effective for severe HG. Enteral feeding is effective but extreme method treatment for very severe symptoms. Day case management for moderate/severe symptoms is feasible, acceptable and as effective as inpatient care. For all other interventions and comparisons, evidence is unclear. The economic analysis was limited by lack of effectiveness data, but comparison of costs between treatments highlights the implications of different choices. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available. CONCLUSION: There was evidence of some improvement in symptoms for some treatments, but these data may not be transferable across disease severities. Methodologically sound and larger trials of the main therapies considered within the UK NHS are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006642. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.