Search

Objectives: Olanzapine has been shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, there is limited work on the impact of CINV on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the comparative cost-effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis in the Malaysian context. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the HRQoL using EQ-5D-5L and the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine compared with aprepitant for CINV prophylaxis in Malaysia using data from a local study., Methods: Fifty-nine chemo-naive patients receiving either olanzapine or aprepitant were randomly recruited and completed the EQ-5D-5L before and day 5 after HEC. HRQoL utility scores were analyzed according to the Malaysian valuation set. The economic evaluation was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective with a 5-day time horizon. Quality-adjusted life days (QALD) and the rate of successfully treated patients were used to measure health effects. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is assessed as the mean difference between groups' costs per mean difference in health effects. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess variations that might affect outcomes., Results: Aprepitant and olanzapine arms' patients had comparable baseline mean HRQoL utility scores of 0.920 (SD = 0.097) and 0.930 (SD = 0.117), respectively; however, on day 5, a significant difference (P value = .006) was observed with mean score of 0.778 (SD = 0.168) for aprepitant and 0.889 (SD = 0.133) for olanzapine. The cost per successfully treated patient in the aprepitant arm was 60 times greater than in the olanzapine arm (Malaysian Ringgit [MYR] 927 vs MYR 14.83). Likewise, the cost per QALD gain in the aprepitant arm was 36 times higher than in the olanzapine arm (MYR 57.05 vs MYR 1.57). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of MYR -937.00 (USD -200.98) per successfully treated patient and MYR -391.84 (USD -85.43) per QALD gained for olanzapine compared with the aprepitant-based regimen., Conclusions: An olanzapine-based regimen is a cost-effective therapeutic substitution in patients receiving HEC in Malaysia., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the productivity loss and cost due to maternal ill-health conditions and its associated factors throughout pregnancy in rural Sri Lanka., Design: A follow-up study of women registered in the Rajarata Pregnancy Cohort (RaPCo)., Setting: Anuradhapura district, Sri Lanka., Participants: 1573 pregnant women who were followed up from pregnancy identification to termination., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures of this study are productivity loss due to maternal ill-health conditions expressed by days/month and productivity cost due to maternal ill-health conditions expressed in monetary terms (US$)/month. Data were collected monthly, and all pregnant women were asked to report the leading cause of maternal ill-health condition and the associated loss due to absenteeism and presenteeism., Results: During the pregnancy follow-up, 3595 (81.5%) months had at least one episode of maternal ill-health condition. Of these, only 1729 (48.1%) episodes sought medical care. Assistance for lost routine work was reported in 1281 (35.6%) episodes. The absenteeism, presenteeism and gross and net productivity loss per month were 3.6, 4.5, 8.1 and 5.5 days/month, respectively. The corresponding productivity cost was US$15.26/month. Nausea and vomiting (NVP) reported the highest prevalence (n=1599, 44.5%) until the second month of the third trimester, presenteeism (5.5 days/month) and gross productivity loss (9.5 days/month). Pregnant women with vaginal bleeding reported the highest absenteeism (6.2 days/month) and net productivity loss (6.8 days/month). Pregnant women diagnosed with anaemia reported the highest productivity cost (US$26.98/month). Monthly household expenditure, poverty and receiving assistance were the associated factors of productivity loss (p<0.05)., Conclusion: Maternal ill-health conditions during pregnancy lead to productivity loss in rural Sri Lanka. NVP, vaginal bleeding and anaemia are the leading causes of productivity loss. Hence, controlling and preventing the leading causes are the recommended priorities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Chronic nausea and vomiting syndromes (CNVS), gastroparesis and functional dyspepsia (FD) are complex disorders. Body Surface Gastric Mapping (BSGM), a new test of gastric function, using Gastric Alimetry® (Alimetry, New Zealand) may be useful for de-escalating healthcare utilisation. This study aimed to define healthcare costs and estimate health economic impacts of implementing this test in patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms., Methods: Consecutive patients at a tertiary referral centre evaluated with Gastric Alimetry were included. Frequency and cost data relating to medical investigations, hospital and outpatient presentations were evaluated. Costs of healthcare utilisation were calculated, and the potential cost savings of implementing Gastric Alimetry within a diagnostic decision-tree model were estimated., Results: Overall, 31 consecutive patients (mean age 36.1 years; 83.9% female; predominant symptoms: nausea [83.9%], pain [61.3%], vomiting [67.7%] and bloating [35.5%]) completed Gastric Alimetry testing. Repeat gastroscopy and abdominal CT rates were 29% (8/28) and 85% (11/13), respectively. Gastric Alimetry testing identified spectral abnormalities in 45.2% of patients, and symptom profiling classified a further 29.1% of patients. Median annualised cost difference after test introduction was NZ$-12,032. Estimated reductions in investigation-related costs when incorporating Gastric Alimetry into the diagnostic workflow model were approximately NZ$1,300 per patient., Conclusions: Healthcare utilisation and confirmatory testing rates remain high in nausea and vomiting syndromes. This study presents real-world data, together with a decision-tree analysis, showing Gastric Alimetry can streamline clinical care pathways, resulting in reduced healthcare utilisation and cost., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.

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.

Aims: The objective of this feasibility study was to determine the extent to which data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may serve as a useful source for collecting health care resource use (HCRU) for the purposes of estimating costs of managing adverse events (AEs), specifically, grade 3-4 nausea and thrombocytopenia, which may be experienced during chemotherapy treatment. Materials and Methods: The feasibility study was conducted in four steps: (1) HCRU data were extracted from patient narratives in four phase 3 RCTs in non-small cell lung cancer; (2) missing HCRU data were imputed; (3) unit costs were applied to the resulting HCRU data set and costs of managing AEs were estimated; and (4) the overall utility of using RCT data as a source for estimating costs of AEs was evaluated. Results: 33 nausea and 68 thrombocytopenia AEs met eligibility criteria and were evaluated in this study. Medication usage was recorded as a treatment in 76% of nausea AEs, although only 14% of the instances of medication usage included the minimum data elements required for costing. Platelet transfusions were provided in 24% of thrombocytopenia AEs; however, in only one instance were the minimum data elements recorded. Of nausea and thrombocytopenia AEs, 18% and 72%, respectively, required no missing data assumptions or imputation. Limitations: Only two AEs were considered, and they may not be representative of all AEs in terms of suitability for use in estimating HCRU and costs of managing AEs. Not all grade 3-4 AEs met the criteria for requiring a patient narrative. HCRU data in the narratives were incomplete. Conclusions: The usefulness of RCTs for estimating the costs of AEs may be improved by using a standardized form to collect HCRU data for key AEs, including an appropriate level of detail required to estimate costs of managing the AEs.

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.

Importance: Systemic therapy and radiotherapy can be associated with acute complications that may require emergent care. However, there are limited data characterizing complications and the financial burden of cancer therapy that are treated in emergency departments (EDs) in the United States., Objectives: To estimate the incidence of treatment-related complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy, examine factors associated with inpatient admission, and investigate the overall financial burden., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was performed. Between January 2006 and December 2015, there was a weighted total of 1.3 billion ED visits; of these, 1.5 million were related to a complication of systemic therapy or radiotherapy for cancer. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to December 23, 2018. External cause of injury codes, Clinical Classifications Software, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients with complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Patterns in treatment-related complications, patient- and hospital-related factors associated with inpatient admission, and median and total charges for treatment-related complications were the main outcomes., Results: Of the 1.5 million ED visits included in the analysis, 53.2% of patients were female and mean age was 63.3 years. Treatment-related ED visits increased by a rate of 10.8% per year compared with 2.0% for overall ED visits. Among ED visits, 90.9% resulted in inpatient admission to the hospital and 4.9% resulted in death during hospitalization. Neutropenia (136 167 [8.9%]), sepsis (128 171 [8.4%]), and anemia (117 557 [7.7%]) were both the most common and costliest (neutropenia: $5.52 billion; sepsis: $11.21 billion; and anemia: $6.78 billion) complications diagnosed on presentation to EDs; sepsis (odds ratio [OR], 21.00; 95% CI, 14.61-30.20), pneumonia (OR, 9.73; 95% CI, 8.08-11.73), and acute kidney injury (OR, 9.60; 95% CI, 7.77-11.85) were associated with inpatient admission. Costs related to the top 10 most common complications totaled $38 billion and comprised 48% of the total financial burden of the study cohort., Conclusions and Relevance: Emergency department visits for complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy increased at a 5.5-fold higher rate over 10 years compared with overall ED visits. Neutropenia, sepsis, and anemia appear to be the most common complications; sepsis, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury appear to be associated with the highest rates of inpatient admission. These complications suggest that significant charges are incurred on ED visits.

Background: Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is the most prevalent medical condition associated with pregnancy. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published its first guidelines for management of NVP in 2016, although many current treatments are off label, with only one recently licensed treatment for NVP in the UK., Aim: To identify the current practices for NVP management across the patient pathway, and estimate the economic burden to NHS services., Design and Setting: This was an observational, retrospective research study conducted in the Newcastle Gateshead Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) health economy area in England., Method: Data were collected from GP practices, local hospital datasets, ambulance services (April 2013-March 2016), and the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset (2006-2016)., Results: Eight GP practices participated in the study. In all, 15.2% of the total pregnant population presented with NVP. Treatment varied significantly between GP practices, and 33.6% of women re-presented to their GP. There was an annual increase in women admitted to hospital for NVP symptoms, with increasing length of stay per admission. Almost half (44.6%) of the calls to 999/111 from women experiencing NVP symptoms resulted in an ambulance dispatch. The annual cost of NVP to this health economy was estimated to be £199 804, which crudely extrapolates to £25 758 731 at UK level. Due to underestimations of costs, the impact to the UK NHS could be up to £62 373 961., Conclusion: There is considerable variation in current management practices for NVP outside of recently published guidelines, and this may result in substantial resource use and avoidable financial impact to the NHS., (© British Journal of General Practice 2019.)

Background and Aims: Chronic cannabis use is associated with nausea and vomiting that may lead to emergency department (ED) visits, multiple diagnostic tests, and procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze recent trends in ED visits for vomiting associated with cannabis use disorder between 2006 and 2013., Methods: Data were obtained from the National Emergency Department Sample records in which vomiting (ICD-9-CM codes 787.01, 787.03, and 536.2) was a primary diagnosis in combination with cannabis abuse or dependence (304.3, 304.30, 304.31, 304.32, 304.33, 305.2, 305.20, 305.21, 305.22, and 305.23) and were seen in the ED between 2006 and 2013. The National Emergency Department Sample collects data from more than 25 million visits in over 950 EDs and is weighted to provide national estimates., Results: The rate of ED visits for vomiting with cannabis use disorder from 2006 compared with 2013 increased from 2.3 to 13.3 per 100,000 ED visits, while the mean inflation-adjusted costs increased 68.5% from $2758.43 to $4647.62, respectively. Men between the ages of 20 and 29 were the most common group to present to the ED for vomiting with cannabis use disorder. The Midwest and West had the higher rates of ED visits for vomiting with cannabis use disorder compared with the Northeast and South., Conclusions: ED visits for vomiting associated with cannabis use disorder is common and is associated with significant medical costs. Further research on the role of cannabis use in nausea and vomiting is warranted.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a particularly distressing event for oncology patients. This review aims at analyzing the impact of CINV on Health-Related Quality of Life (QoL) and on the use of healthcare resources., Methods: A systematic search was conducted according to the PRISMA statement on MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED., Results: Sixty-seven studies were included in the final selection. Despite the availability of numerous treatment options, CINV was found to have a strong impact on HRQoL of patients. Direct costs are particularly affected, but this result could be due to scarcity of studies assessing indirect costs., Conclusions: Evidence supports the notion that CINV continues to have a negative impact on HRQoL of patients, even for those receiving moderately emetic chemotherapy. Further studies need also to collect data on the cost of CINV, particularly indirect costs, to ensure that decisions on use of healthcare resources are better supported., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the comparative cost effectiveness of day care over inpatient management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP)., Study Design: A cost utility analysis was performed using a decision analytical model in which a Markov model was constructed. The Markov model was primarily populated with data from a recently published randomised controlled trial. Which included pregnant women presenting to Cork University Maternity Hospital, a tertiary referral maternity hospital, seeking treatment for NVP. Costs and outcomes were estimated from the perspective of the Irish health service (HSE) and patients. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using a Monte Carlo simulation, was also performed. A Bayesian Value of Information analysis was used to estimate the value of collecting additional information., Results: When both the healthcare provider and patient's perspective was considered, day care management of NVP remained less costly (mean €985; 95% C.I. 705-1456 vs. €3837 (2124-8466)) and more effective (9.42; 4.19-12.25 vs. 9.49; 4.32-12.39 quality adjusted life years) compared with inpatient management. The Cost Effectiveness Acceptability Curve indicates the probability that day care management is 70% more cost effective compared to inpatient management at a ceiling ratio of €45,000 per QALY, indicating little decision uncertainty. The Bayesian Value of Information analysis indicates there is value in collecting further information; the Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) is estimated to be €5.4 million., Conclusion: Day care management of NVP is cost effective compared to inpatient management., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troubling side effect of cancer treatment and is often poorly controlled. As a consequence, CINV is associated with substantially increased costs of care and significant interference with patients' lives. Inadequate control over CINV results from factors that include failure to provide guideline-adherent prophylactic medication and limitations in available therapies. Newer serotonin receptor antagonists, such as palonosetron, and addition of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists to treatment have significantly decreased both acute and delayed CINV. A fixed-dose combination of palonosetron and a new NK-1 receptor, netupitant, is significantly superior to palonosetron alone and has small, but consistent, numerical advantages over aprepitant plus palonosetron for prevention of CINV. The combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist plus an NK-1 receptor antagonist has been shown to be cost-effective for prevention of CINV and the availability of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron may enhance this benefit.

Objective: Nausea and/or vomiting (N/V) are frequent side effects of opioid drugs. These are of major concerns to patients and caregivers and only few studies have focused on their economical costs., Design: This is a prospective, nonproduct-related, activity-based evaluation of personnel and material costs of opioid-related N/V among inpatients., Setting: Data were obtained from surgical, general medicine, and palliative care wards at 16 German hospitals of different size, healthcare mandate, and ownership., Patients, Participants: According to predefined criteria, of 462 documented N/V events, 340 were diagnosed as opioid related., Interventions: Elicited activities and pharmacological interventions for N/V episodes followed local standards., Main Outcome Measure: Both materials used and the time engaged to treat patients with N/V were documented on an "ad hoc" activity recording form. The total cost of an opioid-related N/V episode was calculated based on standard wages of the involved personnel and standard costs of the inherent materials used., Results: Mean staff tenure time for handling an episode of N/V was 26.2 ± 19.8 minutes (nausea 16.9 ± 28.7 minutes; nausea + vomiting: 33.4 ± 26.8 minutes). In the German context, this corresponds to average personnel costs of €18.06 ± 13.64. Material cost contributes to another €13.49 ±13.38 of costs mainly depending on acquisition costs of antiemetic drugs., Conclusions: N/V showed to have impact on workload of nurses and (to lesser extent) physicians and economic burden of €31 ± 22 for each N/V episode. In view of these results, the potential costs of strategies to minimize the incidence of N/V (use of antiemetics and/or the use of new analgesics) should be outweighed against the incurred costs of N/V.

Opioids are the cornerstone of pain management; however, their use is associated with a variety of adverse drug events (ADEs) ranging from nausea and vomiting to urinary retention and respiratory depression. The purpose of this review is to describe the frequency and cost associated with different types of opioid-related ADEs to better understand their economic impact. A search of studies published in journals from 1946 to December, 2013, was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE. A total of 20 articles were reviewed. Data reflect a substantial economic burden of opioid-related ADEs resulting in high hospital costs, prolonged hospital stays, and substantial health care resource usage. Nausea, vomiting, and constipation are frequent and increased costs occur in all types of pain (surgical, nonsurgical, cancer, noncancer) in both inpatients and outpatients. Given the large economic burden of opioid-related ADEs, prevention rather than treatment may be the most effective strategy.

Objective: Understanding the value patients place on avoiding various aspects of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can help medical professionals assess whether current and emerging treatments are acceptable based on their costs and expected effects. Little is known, however, about the value patients place on avoiding various aspects of CINV. The current study helps fill this gap in the literature., Methods: 301 patients completed a discrete-choice conjoint survey. Patients viewed 25 conjoint tasks, each containing two descriptions of CINV, and indicated which they preferred. The descriptions combined levels from eight CINV attributes (likelihood of nausea, duration of nausea, severity of nausea, likelihood of vomiting, duration of vomiting, severity of vomiting, need to seek treatment for dehydration, and out-of-pocket treatment costs)., Results: Cost contributed more to patient choices than any other single attribute. The combined effect of the likelihood, duration, and severity attributes for nausea, however, was a stronger driver of patient choices than cost, as was the combined effect of the likelihood, duration, and severity attributes for vomiting. The nausea attributes also were a stronger driver of patient choices than the vomiting attributes. Patients were willing to pay to avoid increases in all attributes, except likelihood of vomiting, where the result was not statistically different from zero. Willingness-to-pay varied by income, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, chemotherapy status, and whether patients worked while on chemotherapy., Limitations: Although the study used a convenience sample, data were collected from several geographically dispersed U.S. oncology clinics., Conclusions: Several antiemetics are now available at different price points. This study assesses the value patients place on their benefits and may be used to inform decisions about the management of CINV.

Side effects or toxicities are frequent, undesirable companions of almost all forms of non-surgical cancer therapy. It is unusual for patients to complete treatment with radiation or chemotherapy without experiencing at least one form of therapy-associated tissue injury or systemic side effect. Often, toxicities do not occur as solitary events; rather, they result in clusters of symptoms that share a common biological aetiology. Like any disease, cancer treatment-related toxicities (CTRTs) vary in their severity. But, in contrast to most diseases in which incidence is described as being present or absent, the current approach to CTRT typically limits reporting to severe cases only. Not only does this dilute the frequency with which CTRTs occur, but it also undermines our ability to determine the full burden of their impact and to accurately assess the cost effectiveness of potential toxicity interventions. In this article, we report the results of a directed literature review for the years 2000-2012, in which we studied and compared three tissue-based toxicities (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, and oral mucositis) and one systemic toxicity (fatigue). Our results confirm the heavy burden of resource use and cost associated with CTRTs. The inclusion of fatigue in our analysis provided an opportunity to compare and contrast a toxicity in which there are both acute and chronic consequences. Our findings also demonstrate a number of challenges to, and opportunities for, future study. Among the most obvious are the lack of provider consistency in diagnosis and grading, especially when there is no global agreement on severity scales. Compounding this inconsistency is the disconnect between healthcare providers and patients that exists when describing toxicity severity and impact. In many cases, cancer can be thought of as a chronic disease that requires prolonged but episodic treatment once the acute disease is eradicated. This change reflects increasing treatment successes, but it also implies that the burden of CTRTs will be expanded and prolonged. Creation of hierarchical attribution of costs in the presence of simultaneous CTRTs, accurate coding, and consistent tracking tools for toxicities will be imperative for effective appraisal of the costs associated with cancer treatment regimen toxicities.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain difficult symptoms to manage in clinical practice. As standard antiemetic drugs do not fully eliminate these symptoms, it is important to explore the adjuvant role of non-pharmacological and complementary therapies in antiemetic management approaches. Acupressure is one such treatment showing highly suggestive evidence so far of a positive effect, meriting further investigation., Objectives: The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-acupressure using wristbands compared with sham acupressure wristbands and standard care alone in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea. Secondary objectives included assessment of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the wristbands in relation to vomiting and quality of life and exploration of any age, gender and emetogenic risk effects., Design: Randomised three-arm sham-controlled trial (Assessment of Nausea in Chemotherapy Research or ANCHoR) with an economic evaluation. Arms include the wristband arm, the sham wristband arm and the standard care only arm. Randomisation consisted of minimisation with a random element balancing for gender, age (16-24, > 24-50, >50 years) and three levels of emetogenic chemotherapy (low, moderate and high). Qualitative interviews were incorporated to shed more light on the quantitative findings., Setting: Outpatient chemotherapy clinics in three regions in the UK involving 14 different cancer units/centres., Participants: Chemotherapy-naive cancer patients receiving chemotherapy of low, moderate and high emetogenic risk., Intervention: The intervention was acupressure wristbands pressing the P6 point (anterior surface of the forearm)., Main Outcome Measures: The Rhodes Index for Nausea/Vomiting, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G). At baseline participants completed measures of anxiety/depression, nausea/vomiting expectation and expectations from using the wristbands., Results: In total, 500 patients were randomised in the study arms (166 standard care, 166 sham acupressure and 168 acupressure) and data were available for 361 participants for the primary outcome. The primary outcome analysis (nausea in cycle 1) revealed no statistically significant differences between the three arms, although the median nausea experience in patients using wristbands (both real and sham ones) was somewhat lower than that in the antiemetics only group (median nausea experience scores for the four cycles: standard care arm 1.43, 1.71, 1.14, 1.14; sham acupressure arm 0.57, 0.71, 0.71, 0.43; acupressure arm 1.00, 0.93, 0.43, 0). A gender effect was evident (p= 0.002), with women responding more favourably to the use of sham acupressure wristbands than men (odds ratio 0.35 for men and 2.02 for women in the sham acupressure group; 1.27 for men and 1.17 for women in the acupressure group). This suggests a placebo effect. No significant differences were detected in relation to vomiting outcomes, anxiety and quality of life. Some transient adverse effects were reported, including tightness in the area of the wristbands, feeling uncomfortable when wearing them and minor swelling in the wristband area (n= 6).There were no statistically significant cost differences associated with the use of real acupressure bands (£70.66 for the acupressure group, £111.13 for the standard care group and £161.92 for the sham acupressure group). In total, 26 subjects took part in qualitative interviews. The qualitative data suggested that participants perceived the wristbands (both real and sham) as effective and helpful in managing their nausea during chemotherapy., Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences between the three arms in terms of nausea, vomiting and quality of life, although apparent resource use was less in both the real acupressure arm and the sham acupressure arm compared with standard care only; therefore; no clear conclusions can be drawn about the use of acupressure wristbands in the management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. However, the study provided encouraging evidence in relation to an improved nausea experience and some indications of possible cost savings to warrant further consideration of acupressure both in practice and in further clinical trials., Trial Registration: ISRCTN87604299., Source of Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 26. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Background: In a prospective cohort study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Malaysia, a total of 94 patients received low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with or without granisetron injections as the primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study is a retrospective cost analysis of two antiemetic regimens from the payer perspective., Materials and Methods: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness., Results: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen., Conclusions: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.

Background: While nausea is a defining feature of migraine, the association of nausea with other headache features and its influence on the burden of migraine have not been quantified. Population-based data were used to elucidate the relative frequency and burden of migraine-associated nausea in persons with migraine., Methods: Participants with episodic migraine who completed the 2009 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention survey rated their headache-related nausea as occurring none of the time, rarely,

Purpose: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in daily practice in Japan., Methods: This was a retrospective observational study using medical records. Eligible patients were those with bladder or testicular cancer receiving platinum-containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The incidence of CINV on days 1-5 in single-day chemotherapy and on days 1-9 in multiple-day chemotherapy, and the costs of antiemetic therapy directly associated with the administration of antiemetics were estimated. The analysis of costs was performed from a hospital perspective., Results: A total of 54 patients or 169 chemotherapy courses were included. In all chemotherapy courses 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists were used on the day(s) that platinum-containing agents were administered and frequently used on subsequent days. In contrast, the use of corticosteroids was infrequent. Acute CINV in single-day chemotherapy was well controlled, but the incidences of delayed CINV in single-day chemotherapy and CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy were relatively high. The costs for antiemetic therapy were $484.65 in courses with CINV and $318.56 in courses without CINV, and the difference was approximately $170 per chemotherapy course, which was considered to be mainly imputable to the prevalence of CINV., Conclusions: The cost of antiemetic therapy for CINV is substantial in Japan as well as in other countries, and it is suggested that the onset of CINV is a possible cost driver. The improvements in antiemetic therapy may contribute not only to improved patient well-being but also to a reduction of economic burden.

Despite recent progress, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), especially delayed CINV, continues to be a problem. Delayed CINV is underestimated and perceived differently by providers and patients. Communication between providers and patients about this side effect may help improve outcomes. This study identifies patients' and providers' perceptions of management and barriers to quality CINV care. Provider and patient versions of a Nausea and Vomiting Management Barriers Questionnaire were developed to address potential barriers. Providers and patients were given opportunities to add detail in open-ended questions. Providers were recruited through the NCCN and the Oncology Nursing Society mailing lists. Patients who received at least 2 cycles of chemotherapy and experienced CINV were recruited through a consortium of advocacy groups. Both providers (n = 141) and patients (n = 299) completed the survey. Providers (41%) and patients (42%) agreed medication side effects were a concern, but more patients (63%) than providers (36%) tried to limit the number of medications taken (P < .0001). Many providers (67%) spontaneously reported barriers to managing CINV, with financial and patient-related factors among the most common. Few patients (10%) reported cost as a barrier, but 37% endorsed the desire "to be strong by not complaining." Barriers to communication and quality care of CINV differ between caregivers and patients. Addressing misconceptions and establishing mutually consistent goals will lead to more effective overall care.

Objectives: Hospitalized patients often experience adverse events of the gastrointestinal tract due to analgesic treatment. The objectives of this study were to estimate use of medications for treatment of nausea, vomiting, or constipation (NVC medications) after initiation of analgesic treatment, and to compare differences in length of stay and treatment costs between patients who received NVC medications and those who did not., Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Premier Perspective data from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 and stratified inpatients into 4 groups based on the first analgesic agent they were given. Patients were observed for 14 days after the first analgesic use until a regimen change, first use of NVC medication, or hospital discharge, whichever occurred first. Data were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and a generalized linear model., Results: This study found that 239,183 (55.1%) of 434,304 patients received NVC medications after analgesic administration. Compared with oral nonopioid analgesics, the risk of using NVC medication was 4.8 times higher for injectable opioid analgesics after controlling for confounders. Patients who received NVC medications were hospitalized 0.26 days longer (P < 0.0001) at an additional cost of $756 per patient compared with patients who did not receive NVC medications (P < 0.0001)., Discussion: Use of an analgesic with improved gastrointestinal tolerability may potentially reduce use of NVC medications and hospital resources.

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of chemotherapy, but it may be prevented or mitigated with medications. Uncontrolled CINV can lead to reduced quality of life and can result in increased costs (due to health care utilization and missed work). We prospectively assessed the prevalence and burden of CINV in a US population., Methods: Final analysis was performed on 178 patients, beginning chemotherapy during 2007-2008 at oncology specialty settings. Patients kept a diary recording use of antiemetic medications just before the start of chemotherapy and use of antiemetic medications, health care resources, and episodes of nausea and vomiting during the 5 days following. In addition, they completed a Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire and a Work Productivity and Assessment Inventory-Nausea and Vomiting assessment, to determine the impact of CINV on daily functioning and on work productivity, respectively. Physicians independently recorded prescribed medications and health care utilization., Results: Of the patients, 61.2% reported experiencing CINV (34.3% with acute CINV and 58.4% with delayed CINV). Based on the FLIE assessment, 37.2% of all patients reported reduced daily functioning, and of those with poorly managed CINV, about 90% reported a significant impact on daily functioning. Total costs due to CINV were on average $778.58 per patient from the day of administration through the 5 days following the first cycle of chemotherapy; patients with more severe CINV typically had higher costs., Conclusions: CINV remains a significant problem among US patients, suggesting a need for more effective prophylaxis use in clinical practice.

Objective: This study evaluated the overall burden of illness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and associated all-cause costs from a hospital's perspective (costs to the hospital) in patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy (CT) in the US hospital outpatient setting., Methods: Patients with a cancer diagnosis aged ≥18 years initiating CT in a hospital outpatient setting for the first time between April 1 2007 and March 31 2009 were extracted from the Premier Perspective Database. Patients were followed through eight CT cycles or 6 months post-index date, whichever occurred first. Within each CT cycle, the follow-up time for CINV event estimation was from day 1 (except rescue medication use that was identified from day 2) to cycle end. A multivariate regression model was developed to predict the CINV event rate per CT cycle in the study follow-up period. Associated total all-cause costs of managing CINV from a hospital's perspective were analyzed descriptively. Event rate and associated costs were estimated in the entire hospital setting (outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room). All-cause costs included inpatient, hospital outpatient, and ER visit costs (identified through a primary or secondary diagnosis code for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion) and pharmacy cost (rescue medications for CINV treatment). All physician costs and non CINV-related treatment (pharmacy) costs were excluded from the analyses., Results: Among 11,495 study patients, 8,806 patients (76.6%) received prophylaxis for all cycles in the follow-up period. The overall base population had an average age of 63.3 years, was 51.0% female, and 72.7% White. The distribution of emetogenicity for cycle 1 CT cycle was 26.0% HEC, 46.1% MEC, and 26.4% LEC/MinEC combined. In the follow-up period, a total of 47,988 CINV events with an associated total all-cause treatment cost of $89 million were observed. Average daily treatment cost for all care settings was $1854.7. The regression model predicted a 20% CINV event rate per CT cycle in the follow-up period. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizibility, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, lack of a control analysis group to estimate incremental use of resource utilization and associated costs, and a potential for cost under-estimation., Conclusion: In the current study analysis, a 20% CINV event rate per CT cycle per patient was predicted with an associated all-cause average daily total cost of approximately $1850. Further studies on early and appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis on CINV rates and economic outcomes are warranted.

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), common adverse events of chemotherapy, may be associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization. This study was conducted to describe CINV-associated healthcare visits and costs following a first cycle of highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC)., Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Premier Perspective™ Database to identify adult patients who received their first HEC or MEC and at least one antiemetic agent from 2003 to 2007 at US hospital-based outpatient facilities. Hospital visits with a CINV-related ICD-9 diagnosis were included from the chemotherapy administration date to 30 days later or 1 day before the second chemotherapy, whichever was first. CINV costs were hospital-reported costs., Results: Of 19,139 patients (HEC, 16%; MEC, 84%), mean (SD) age was 59 (14) years; 59% were female; 66% were white. CINV prophylaxis included 5-HT₃ antagonists (85%), dexamethasone (76%), and NK-1 antagonists (2%). Overall, 13.8% of patients had a CINV-associated visit (HEC, 18%; MEC, 13%): 0.2% for acute CINV (day of chemotherapy, excluding chemotherapy administration visit) and 13.7% for delayed CINV. CINV-associated visits included inpatient (IP, 64%), outpatient (OP, 26%), and emergency room (ER, 10%) visits. Mean (SD) costs of CINV visits were $5,299 ($6,639); for IP, $7,448 ($7,271); OP, $1,494 ($2,172); and ER, $918 ($1,071). Mean per-patient CINV-associated costs across all patients were $731 ($3,069). Sensitivity analysis excluding visits where CINV was a secondary diagnosis code resulted in a CINV incidence of 4.4%, a mean CINV visit cost of $4,043, and a mean per-patient CINV-associated cost across all patients of $176., Conclusions: CINV visits in the first HEC or MEC cycle were common and costly, especially inpatient hospitalizations in the delayed phase. Strategies to reduce CINV in the delayed phase could reduce healthcare utilization and costs.

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects are common with oral opioid treatment., Objective: To estimate the costs associated with GI events after oral short-acting opioid treatment, from the payer perspective., Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims from the PharMetrics' Patient-Centric Database were used to identify opioid-naïve patients who received a new prescription for oxycodone- or hydrocodone-containing immediate-release oral products between 2002 and 2006. Health-care resource use and costs were determined for patients with claims associated with ICD-9 CM (International Classification of Diseases-9th Clinical Modification) codes for nausea/vomiting (787.0x), constipation (564.0x), bowel obstruction (560, 560.1, 560.3, 560.39, 564.81), or antiemetic and laxative prescriptions during the 3 months after opioid index prescription and compared with patients without these GI event medical or prescription claims. Resource use data were compared using negative binomial regression and cost data were compared using ordinary least squares confirmed by generalized gamma regression analysis while controlling for demographics, treatment duration, and comorbidities., Results: Data from 237,447 patients were analyzed. Patients with GI event claims had significantly more hospitalizations (adjusted mean 0.20 to 0.97 vs 0.17, respectively, p < 0.001), days in the hospital (1.12 to 12.05 vs 1.00 days, p < 0.001), emergency department visits (0.36 to 1.44 vs 0.25 visits, p < 0.001), outpatient office visits (5.68 to 11.81 vs 4.11 visits, p < 0.001), and prescription claims (7.46 to 8.21 vs 6.06 claims, p < 0.001) than did patients without any GI event claims in the 3 months after index opioid prescription. Compared with patients without any GI event claims, incremental adjusted mean total health-care costs for patients with any of the GI event claims ranged from $4,880 to $36,152 and were significant (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The economic burden of GI events coincident with opioid treatment is significant for patients with a GI event recorded in claims. Reducing GI adverse effects has potential cost savings for the health-care system.

Objectives: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse effect of cancer chemotherapy which may increase morbidity, reduce quality of life and threaten the success of cancer therapy. Aprepitant is effective in preventing CINV, achieving higher complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) compared to standard prevention, in patients receiving either highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC; absolute reduction = 11 and 13%, respectively). We assessed the cost effectiveness of aprepitant-based vs standard prevention in these indications in Belgium., Materials and Methods: A decision analytical model was developed in MS Excel (Fig. 1). To estimate resource use, two approaches were used. The first is based on the preventive regimens applied in randomized controlled trials comparing aprepitant-based CINV prevention (for HEC: aprepitant days 1-3, ondansetron 32 mg i.v. day 1, oral placebo twice daily days 2-4, oral dexamethasone days 1-4; for MEC: aprepitant days 1-3, ondansetron 16 mg p.o. day 1, placebo on days 2-3, oral dexamethasone day 1), vs a standard regimen (for HEC: oral placebo days 1-3, ondansetron 32 mg i.v. day 1 and 16 mg p.o. days 2-4, oral dexamethasone days 1-4; for MEC: oral placebo, ondansetron 16 mg p.o. days 1-3, dexamethasone day 1) The second analysis is based on current real-world resource use in the Belgian setting in the prevention of CINV using a longitudinal Hospital Database. CINV-specific utility values were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Drug costs were obtained from official reimbursement listings. Treatment costs for CINV were obtained from a German study and adapted to Belgium., Results: The aprepitant-based regimen is associated with 0.003 and 0.014 more QALYs in HEC and MEC, respectively and with per patient savings of 66.84 (trial based) and 74.62 (real-life based) for HEC and 17.95 (trial based) and 21.70 (real-life based) for MEC. Hence, aprepitant is both more effective and less expensive (=dominant). One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on treatment cost of emesis, the clinical benefit of aprepitant and the cost of ondansetron and showed that the results were robust on the first two parameters but sensitive on the decrease in cost of ondansetron for the moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens., Conclusions: In both approaches, the aprepitant-based strategy is more effective and less expensive compared to standard care.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is among the most feared side effects of cancer treatment. Poorly controlled CINV may lead to additional office visits or emergency room admissions, thus increasing the overall costs of cancer care. The objective of the project was to estimate the societal costs of uncontrolled CINV among working-age cancer patients., Methods: The 1997-2002 Health and Productivity Management database, a proprietary database linking medical claims to work loss information, was used. The study population consisted of employees or their spouses who were cancer patients treated with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Costs of uncontrolled CINV were estimated by comparing the direct medical costs and indirect costs between those with and without uncontrolled CINV; all costs were normalized as monthly costs and updated to 2006 US dollars. The Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the costs differences in univariate analyses, followed by multivariate analyses., Results: In all, 2,018 patients were identified; 1,771 (88%) received 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, and uncontrolled CINV was found in 563 (28%). The estimated monthly medical costs associated with uncontrolled CINV were approximately 1,300 dollars higher for cancer patients at working ages. Subgroup analysis concluded that indirect costs per patient per month were 433 dollars higher for those in the uncontrolled CINV group., Conclusions: Despite a prevalent use of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, uncontrolled CINV remained a common and costly problem among cancer patients treated with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy., ((c) 2007 American Cancer Society.)

Objective: To construct a cost-utility model comparing escitalopram with sertraline in the treatment of major depressive disorders., Methods: A decision analytic model was created to compare the cost-utility of these two antidepressants from the perspective of a managed-care organization. The model was designed to compare 10-20 mg/day of escitalopram to 50-200 mg/day of sertraline. Benefits (utility) scores were calculated based on clinical and utility data obtained from the literature. Direct medical costs included costs of the antidepressants, titration, treatment failures, and adverse events. Costs and benefits were modeled for a 6-month period and the model was subjected to thorough sensitivity analyses., Results: The estimated 6-month total cost was 919 dollars for escitalopram and 1351 dollars for sertraline. The estimated QALYs were 0.40296 for escitalopram and 0.39268 for sertraline. These differences were mostly due to differences in drug acquisition costs and adverse events. The robustness of the cost-utility model results were tested in a Monte Carlo simulation of 10 000 patients and it indicated an 88.5% probability that escitalopram was the dominant therapy, suggesting both lower costs and greater QALYs., Conclusion: This cost-utility model that incorporated the costs of titration and impact of side-effects comparing escitalopram 10-20 mg per day and sertraline 50-200 mg per day shows that escitalopram appeared to be less costly and produced efficacy (utility) at least as good as and maybe slightly better than that of sertraline.

Goals of Work: The aim of this paper is to analyze the costs of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Italy., Materials and Methods: In this prospective observational study at seven public oncology centers, incidence and intensity of CINV daily for 8 days after chemotherapy in consecutive patients receiving cisplatin-containing chemotherapy were recorded. All costs related to CINV (direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect) were recorded (in 2003 euros)., Main Results: A total of 172 patients were enrolled; cost data were available for 168 patients. Thirty-seven percent of patients experienced acute CINV, and 57% experienced delayed CINV; 39% achieved total control, defined as no nausea, vomiting, or rescue therapy. Mean per-patient costs of acute and delayed CINV were 30.03 euro from the hospital perspective, 4.9 euro from the patient perspective, and 26.85 euro from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Costs of CINV were highly variable among oncology centers, largely because of differences in procedures for preventing delayed CINV. These costs were four times higher when antiemetic drugs were prescribed and paid for by the NHS than when antiemetic prophylaxis was provided directly from hospital pharmacies. Moreover, in the delayed phase, the NHS incurred a 94% increase in costs for patients without total control. Overall costs for patients who did not experience total control of CINV were 35.57 euro higher than for those who did (85% increase)., Conclusions: Costs of CINV for the Italian NHS could be reduced if hospitals furnished antiemetic prophylaxis directly to patients. Better control of both acute and delayed CINV would improve patient well-being as well as reduce the budgetary impact of CINV in Italy.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse effect of cancer therapy. We aimed to determine outcomes associated with use of aprepitant in outpatients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany from a patient's and payer's perspective., Methods: A decision-analytic model compared an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone) to a control regimen (ondansetron/dexamethasone) over a five days period. Clinical results and resource utilisation observed in aprepitant phase III clinical trials were assigned German unit cost data., Results: Complete response over one chemotherapy cycle was observed in 68% of patients in the aprepitant group (N=514) compared to 48% of patients in the control group (N=518). Patients were estimated to have gained an equivalent of 15 additional hours of perfect health per cycle (0.63 quality-adjusted life days) with aprepitant-based regimen compared to control regimen. Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with aprepitant was estimated at euro28,891., Conclusions: Aprepitant substantially improved CINV-related health outcomes in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Incremental benefits materialised in a cost-effective fashion.

Objective: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem for cancer patients. Aprepitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved for use with 5-HT3 antagonists and corticosteroids to prevent CINV associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of standard aprepitant use has not been established., Methods: We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies for CINV: conventional treatment with a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid, conventional treatment plus aprepitant, and conventional treatment with aprepitant added after the onset of CINV. Data from published clinical trials provided probabilities and utilities for the model. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Federal Supply Scale provided costs for medical resources and medications utilized. Resource use data were based on a randomized clinical trial and routine clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each aprepitant strategy was calculated in US$ per healthy day equivalent (HDE) and converted to dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in model parameters., Results: Adding aprepitant after CINV occurred cost $264 per HDE ($96,333/QALY). The three-drug strategy cost $267/HDE with a 95% confidence range of $248-$305/HDE ($97,429/QALY; $90,396-$111,239/QALY). In univariate analyses, the most influential factors on the ICER were: the cost of aprepitant, the likelihood of delayed CINV without aprepitant, the likelihood of acute CINV with/without aprepitant, and the increase in HDE from avoiding CINV., Conclusions: Aprepitant provides modest incremental benefits compared with conventional management of CINV. Routine aprepitant use appears most cost-effective when the likelihood of delayed CINV or the cost of rescue medications is high.

Objective: We investigated the relationship between quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and willingness to pay (WTP) in acute and chronic conditions., Study Design and Setting: Face-to-face interviews were used to collect data in a convenience sample of women. Participants completed one interview evaluating preferences for an acute condition, post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting (PCNV), and the other interview for a chronic condition (breast cancer). Preferences were elicited for QALYs using visual analogue scale (VAS), and standard gamble in addition to WTP. Because QALYs and WTP are purportedly based on the same underlying theoretical foundations, WTP was regressed onto change in QALYs, age, income, and health status., Results: Regression analysis reported statistically significant models for all breast cancer (P < .001) and PCNV (P < .05) conditions tested. However, QALY was not a significant predictor of WTP., Conclusion: The results of this study indicate QALYs was a poor predictor of WTP for the conditions tested. Linear combinations of change in QALYs, age, income, and health status were a better predictor of WTP for chronic than acute conditions. This can be attributed to violations of underlying assumptions in measurement of QALYs with acute conditions and to problems with the use of WTP with chronic conditions.

Background: Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse effect of cancer chemotherapy. We assessed, under current practice patterns, the occurrence and impact on healthcare resource utilization of CINV in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. An additional aim of this study was to estimate costs imputable to CINV in the German healthcare environment., Materials and Methods: This prospective, multi-center, cross-sectional cost-of-illness study was conducted in three hospitals and in three office-based facilities in Germany. Consecutive patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy (levels 4 or 5 according to Hesketh classification of emetogenicity) were enrolled. Data were obtained from preplanned chart reviews and from self-administered patient questionnaires. Analysis of direct costs was performed from the perspectives of third party payer (statutory sick fund), provider (hospital) and patients. Indirect costs were assessed on the basis of paid workdays lost., Results: During the 5-day observation period, 134 of 208 chemotherapy cycles observed (64.4%) were associated with at least one episode of nausea or vomiting. More patients experienced delayed than acute CINV (60.7% versus 32.8%), and more patients reported nausea than vomiting (62.5% versus 26.0%). A total of 68 patients (32.6%) utilized healthcare resources due to CINV. The most frequently used resources were rescue medications and outpatient hospital and office physician visits. Only one patient required hospitalization and only three patients lost workdays due to CINV. Average costs imputable to CINV per patient (with or without CINV) per treatment cycle incurred by third party payers and hospital providers were Euro 49 and Euro 48, respectively. Patient or treatment characteristics that were associated with high costs imputable to CINV were as follows: cisplatin-containing regimen; experience of emesis; and presence of delayed CINV., Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients continue to experience CINV. This entails not only clinical but also economic consequences, and highlights a continuing need for improved utilization of existing antiemetic agents and for new, more efficacious treatments. The greatest improvements in patient care and potential for cost offset may be realized by preventing delayed CINV.

Background: Neither droperidol nor ondansetron has been proven completely effective, and there are conflicting data comparing the efficacy of the two agents. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and cost of a combination of ondansetron administered intravenously in the operating room followed by oral ondansetron treatment at home with the more commonly used treatment of intravenous droperidol therapy and oral dimenhydrinate therapy, for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery., Methods: Double-blind randomized clinical trial with parallel comparison groups. All patients aged 6 months to 18 years who underwent strabismus surgery at a pediatric hospital in Montreal between Nov. 13, 2000, and June 12, 2001, were included. The exclusion criteria were nausea or vomiting, or use of antiemetics or narcotics in the 24 hours preceding surgery, and past history of hepatic, gastric or renal disease. The outcome measures were frequency of nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea and adverse effects in hospital, during transportation home and during the first 24 hours at home. Data were obtained through nursing notes and through a telephone interview conducted 24 to 48 hours after discharge., Results: Of the 208 eligible patients, 172 were randomly assigned to the study groups (88 to the ondansetron group and 84 to the droperidol/dimenhydrinate group). We found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting in hospital or at home between the two groups (25.3% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.371). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the rate of vomiting during transportation home (3.6% vs. 12.6%, p = 0.044). The incidence of severe nausea was 14.4% with ondansetron and 15.4% with droperidol, a nonsignificant difference (p = 1.00). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in the incidence of any nausea (p = 0.434) or adverse effects (p = 0.220). We calculated that the combination of droperidol and dimenhydrinate was seven times less costly than the ondansetron regimen., Interpretation: In this study, the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of droperidol followed by oral use of dimenhydrinate did not differ from that of intravenous followed by oral use of ondansetron in children undergoing strabismus surgery. Since treatment with ondansetron is much more costly than the combination of droperidol and dimenhydrinate, at this time the use of ondansetron in the prevention and treatment of vomiting and nausea in this population may not be beneficial on a cost basis if all other variables are considered.

Objectives: To review the evidence-based management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) and hyperemesis gravidarum., Evidence: MEDLINE and Cochrane database searches were performed using the medical subject headings (MeSH) of treatment, nausea, vomiting, pregnancy, and hyperemesis gravidarum. The quality of evidence reported in these guidelines has been described using the Evaluation of Evidence criteria outlined in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Exam., Benefits: NVP has a profound effect on women's health and quality of life during pregnancy, as well as a financial impact on the health care system, and its early recognition and management are recommended. (III-B) COST: Costs, including hospitalizations, additional office visits, and time lost from work, may be reduced if NVP is treated early.

The goals of this work were to compare the relative efficacy of ondansetron, granisetron and tropisetron in a randomised double blind crossover trial, evaluating objective, subjective and pharmacoeconomic parameters. To this end, 136 patients were enrolled, 120 of whom were eligible and evaluable. Each patient received three identical chemotherapy cycles with an antiemetic protocol which consisted in dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. and a tapering dose schedule for 4 days, and a single i.v. dose of an antiserotoninergic drug in each cycle. Arm A patients received tropisetron 5 mg; arm B patients, granisetron 3 mg; and arm C patients, ondansetron 24 mg. Numbers of patients and days with emetic episodes, grade of nausea, patient preference, headaches, need for metoclopramide, nursing or medical consultation, or admission to emergency room or ward were evaluated. There was no difference in the percentage incidence of acute or delayed nausea and vomiting. Twenty-five per cent of patients preferred tropisetron, 30% preferred granisetron, and 45% preferred ondansetron (P<0.01). Toxicity was mild in less than 10% of patients. Direct and indirect costs of treatment varied from 19.74 to 28.53 euros for tropisetron, 31.07-46.51 euros for granisetron and 22.76-62.61 euros for ondansetron. There was no difference in objective activity. In the schedules studied, patients preferred ondansetron. Indirect costs amount to less than 10% of the total antiemetic cost. Direct costs varied widely and should be considered whenever an antiemetic drug is selected.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of ondansetron availability on the costs of managing nausea and vomiting., Methods: We retrospectively assessed antiemetic costs (drug costs, nursing time, pharmacy time, physician's time, supplies, and facility "hotel" costs, in 1991 Canadian dollars) for all patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy from 6 months before to 6 months after ondansetron became commercially available in September 1991. We compared the costs for treating patients who received ondansetron versus those who received other antiemetic regimens, the costs for treating patients in the 6 months before versus the 6 months after ondansetron commercial availability, and the costs for treating patients in the first 4 months versus the last 4 months of the study period., Results: We found no cost differences for patients treated with ondansetron versus other antiemetic regimens. However, there was a significant reduction in emesis management costs for patients treated after versus before the availability of ondansetron: for patients treated in the last third versus first third of the study period, there was a decrease in cost per patient per month of treatment of $374 (95% confidence interval, $243 to $505). These savings were achieved through a reduction in hospital bed days and other costs associated with the prevention and more effective management of nausea and vomiting. At the same time, the number of patients who received emetogenic chemotherapy and their average age increased, presumably because of the better control of gastrointestinal toxicity., Conclusion: Ondansetron availability has been associated with changes in the clinical management of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and with overall cost savings compared with previously available antiemetic therapy.

The efficacy of granisetron in preventing acute nausea and vomiting during the 24 hours following chemotherapy in patients with cancer is equivalent to that of other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (ondansetron and tropisetron) and similar to or greater than that of conventional antiemetic regimens such as metoclopramide plus dexamethasone. Like other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, granisetron is generally well tolerated by most patients and its antiemetic efficacy is enhanced when used concomitantly with dexamethasone. To date, pharmacoeconomic evaluations of granisetron have involved intravenous administration of the drug to adult patients with cancer receiving single-dose or fractionated chemotherapy of moderate to high emetogenic potential. In economic analyses conducted in France, a single dose of granisetron 3mg was associated with a mean direct treatment cost per patient (or per well-controlled patient) approximately 50% lower than that for ondansetron 8mg intravenously followed by 8mg orally every 8 hours for 3 days, in patients receiving single-dose chemotherapy. Direct costs per patient were approximately 20 to 30% lower with granisetron (usually 3 mg/day) than ondansetron (usually 24 to 32 mg/day intravenously) in patients receiving chemotherapy fractionated over several days. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results, were robust to variations in the acquisition costs of the antiemetics. Granisetron also remained more cost effective than ondansetron with variations in the antiemetic dosage regimens, except when the granisetron dosage remained unchanged while the ondansetron dosage was reduced to a single 8mg intravenous dose on each day prior to chemotherapy (and no change in efficacy was assumed). Other economic evaluations suggest that granisetron may be more cost effective than a combined antiemetic regimen of high dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone, and selected use of granisetron or ondansetron in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy can be implemented with relatively small incremental increases to the total cancer treatment budget, albeit with a marked increase in antiemetic acquisition costs. In conclusion, granisetron is an effective and well tolerated agent for the prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and its selective use in this clinical setting can provide cost-effective antiemetic therapy.

Postoperative emesis is a common daily problem in anesthetic practice. Authors report their experience about prevention of PONV (postoperative nausea and vomiting) with the association of different drugs in premedication, and suggest Promethazine as an effective and inexpensive medication to prevent PONV in orthopedic surgery.

Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a major concern for patients receiving cancer therapy and a major quality of life issue. However, the fact that antiemetic control improves quality (but not duration) of survival and the significant cost of newer antiemetic agents have led to discussions about the relative priority of supportive care interventions and the appropriate use of newer and more expensive medications. Various decision trees can be constructed to estimate appropriate use and pricing of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Additional costs of ineffective antiemetic therapy can be taken into account when calculating the advantages of effective antiemesis. Use of appropriate doses for appropriate indications will also have an impact. Since supportive care leads to qualitative rather than quantitative improvement in survival, the appropriate form of analysis is not cost-effectiveness (which considers only increase in years of survival) but rather cost-utility (which considers quality-adjusted life years).

Study Objective: To estimate the financial costs incurred by outpatient surgical centers in managing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)., Design: Prospective, observational study., Setting: 6 hospital-based outpatient surgery centers., Patients: 211 adult patients undergoing outpatient surgery for laparoscopy, dilatation and curettage, knee arthroscopy, or hernia repair., Measurements and Main Results: Of the 211 patients studied, 34 experienced PONV in the recovery room. For those patients experiencing PONV, personnel, supply, and drug costs for management of this condition averaged $14.94 per patient. In addition, PONV increased the centers' operating costs by delaying patient discharge by an average of 24 minutes. A minimum estimate of this cost, based on nurses' wage rates, was $7.12. This estimate is appropriate only for short-run considerations in outpatient surgery centers that operate at low capacity. An appropriate valuation for long-run considerations and for centers operating near capacity is based on the revenue that centers lose as a result of extended stays. Lost revenue was estimated to be $415 per patient experiencing PONV., Conclusions: PONV substantially increases the costs incurred by outpatient surgical centers.

Study Objective: To compare the relative cost-effectiveness ratios of (1) therapy with ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and (2) prophylactic versus rescue therapy of PONV with these agents., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the estimated costs of 12 mutually exclusive outcomes identified by decision analysis., Setting: Computer model of outcome established using data extracted from published studies and a survey of current practice in two university-affiliated hospitals., Patients: Patients undergoing operations associated with a high risk of PONV., Interventions: The cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetic therapy was compared among three drugs and also compared with limiting treatment to established PONV., Measurements and Main Results: Direct costs included drug acquisition, drug delivery, equipment used in managing vomiting, and additional nursing time costs. Indirect costs included drugs and materials used to treat persistent nausea and/or vomiting and the side effects of prophylactic drugs, increased time spent in the postanesthesia care unit, unanticipated hospitalization, and lost earnings due to hospitalization. Separate models were created for patients with both nausea and vomiting and with isolated nausea. The total incremental costs associated with the prophylactic use of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and droperidol were $37.74, $28.43, and $18.17 per patient, respectively. The costs per emesis-free patient with the prophylactic use of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and droperidol, were $55.91, $71.08, and $30.15, respectively, and per nausea-free patient $68.93, $82.74, and $33.52, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy was cost-effective for operations with a high frequency of emesis, whereas treatment of established symptoms was more cost-effective when the frequency was lower. For ondansetron, prophylactic use was cost-effective only when the frequency of emesis exceeded 33%, whereas prophylactic droperidol was cost-effective even if the frequency was 10%., Conclusions: When drug costs, efficacy, and adverse events were all considered, prophylactic droperidol was more cost-effective than ondansetron, and both drugs were more cost-effective than metoclopramide. However, the expected frequency of PONV, as well as local drug acquisition costs, can significantly influence whether a particular antiemetic is cost-effective when given prophylactically or only as therapy for established PONV.