Search

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of addition of olanzapine to a prophylactic antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron among children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA., Methods: Health states were estimated using individual patient-level outcome data from a randomised trial. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated from the patient perspective for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. One-way sensitivity analysis was done by varying the cost of olanzapine, cost of hospitalisation and utility values by ±25%., Results: The olanzapine arm had an increment of 0.0018 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the control arm. The mean total expenditure in the olanzapine arm was greater by US$0.51, US$0.43, US$6.73, US$11.05 and US$12.35 in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR($/QALY) was US$282.60 in India, US$241.42 in Bangladesh, US$3755.93 in Indonesia, US$6161.83 in the UK and US$6887.41 in the USA. The NMB was US$9.86, US$10.12, US$14.08, US$44.74 and US$98.79 for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR estimates of the base case and sensitivity analysis were below the willingness-to-pay threshold in all scenarios., Conclusion: The addition of olanzapine as a fourth agent for antiemetic prophylaxis is cost-effective despite an increase in overall expenditure. Olanzapine should be uniformly considered for children receiving HEC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: More than 50% patients develop emesis during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). The addition of aprepitant for emesis control in children receiving induction for AML have not been explored., Methods: A single-institutional randomised, open-label trial (NCT02979548) was conducted where children between 5 and 18 years with the diagnosis of AML being planned for 3+7 induction regimen were included. All study participants received ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) every 8 hours for 8 days starting 30 min prior to chemotherapy. Children belonging to aprepitant group additionally received aprepitant capsules (15-40 kg=days 1-3, 80 mg; >40 kg=day 1, 125 mg and days 2-3, 80 mg) starting from 1 hour prior to chemotherapy. The proportion of patients with complete response (CR) in chemotherapy induced vomiting (CIV) in acute phase (day 1-8), delayed phase (day 9-13), overall and initial 96 hours were recorded along with severity of vomiting and adverse effects., Results: Total 78 children were randomised (Aprepitant group: 37 and control group: 41). The proportion of patients with CR in CIV was significantly higher in Aprepitant group in acute phase (p=0.007), overall phase (p=0.007) and in initial 96 hours (p<0.001) but it was not different in delayed phase (p=0.07). The first episode of vomiting was also significantly delayed in aprepitant group (p=0.02). Adverse effect profile was similar in two groups., Conclusion: Aprepitant significantly improves emesis control in children receiving induction therapy for AML, especially in acute phase and should be routinely incorporated as part of antiemetic prophylaxis., Trial Registration Number: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02979548)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is an uncommon malignancy in children in which tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have significantly improved outcome in recent years., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of CML patients (≤ 18 years old) presenting to our center between January 2005 and December 2018 with respect to baseline demographics, response to imatinib, and real-world management of those with a suboptimal response., Results: A total of 124 patients were diagnosed with CML with 99 (80%) in the chronic phase. There was a male preponderance (males:females = 3.1:1) with a median age of 13 years. The common presenting clinical features were splenomegaly (90.9%) and fever (51.5%) with a median leukocyte count of 165 × 10 3 /μL. The proportion of patients attaining a complete hematologic response (CHR) at 3 months, a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at 12 months, and a major molecular response at 12 months were 79.7%, 54.1%, and 50.9%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 67.4 months, the 5-year overall survival rate and the event-free survival (EFS) rate were 92% ± 3% and 64% ± 6%, respectively. Failure to achieve CCyR at 12 months was associated with poor EFS beyond 1 year (hazard ratio = 2.865, P = .044). Among 15 patients not achieving CHR at 3 months, dose escalation of imatinib resulted in the attainment of CHR in 13 (87%) patients. Seven patients in the cohort had a loss of the established response to imatinib because of documented poor compliance., Conclusion: Imatinib remains the frontline treatment of choice in CML with a reasonable outcome in children, especially when financial affordability, availability of second-generation TKIs, and poor compliance still remain major challenges in management. Dose escalation of imatinib remains an option in patients with a suboptimal response., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)