TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy
AU - Moore, Susan
AU - Tumeh, John
AU - Wojtanowski, Steven
AU - Flowers, Christopher
N1 - Funding Information:
Source of financial support used to assist in the preparation of this article include: This research was funded by a Health Outcomes Research Starter Grant from the PhRMA Foundation, a research startup award from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, and from a Georgia Cancer Coalition Distinguished Clinicians and Scientists Award.
PY - 2007
Y1 - 2007
N2 - 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-$111,239/QALY). In univariate analyses, the most influential factors on the ICER were: the cost of aprepitant, the likelihood of delayed CINV without aprepitant, the likelihood of acute CINV with/without aprepitant, and the increase in HDE from avoiding CINV. Conclusions: Aprepitant provides modest incremental benefits compared with conventional management of CINV. Routine aprepitant use appears most cost-effective when the likelihood of delayed CINV or the cost of rescue medications is high.
AB - Objective: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem for cancer patients. Aprepitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved for use with 5-HT3 antagonists and corticosteroids to prevent CINV associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of standard aprepitant use has not been established. Methods: We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies for CINV: conventional treatment with a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid, conventional treatment plus aprepitant, and conventional treatment with aprepitant added after the onset of CINV. Data from published clinical trials provided probabilities and utilities for the model. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Federal Supply Scale provided costs for medical resources and medications utilized. Resource use data were based on a randomized clinical trial and routine clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each aprepitant strategy was calculated in US$ 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.
KW - Cost-effectiveness
KW - Health-care utilization
KW - Nausea and vomiting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846471238&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846471238&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00141.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00141.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 17261113
AN - SCOPUS:33846471238
SN - 1098-3015
VL - 10
SP - 23
EP - 31
JO - Value in Health
JF - Value in Health
IS - 1
ER -