Lee Schwartzberg1, Brooke Harrow2, Lincy S Lal3, Janna Radtchenko4, Gary H Lyman5. 1. Medical Director, West Clinic, and Chief, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. 2. Director, Medical Affairs Research-HEOR, TESARO, Waltham, MA. 3. Director, HEOR Clinical Specialty Solutions, Cardinal Health, Dallas, TX. 4. Director, Client Services Specialty Solutions, Cardinal Health, Dallas, TX. 5. Co-Director, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Public Health Sciences and Clinical Research Divisions, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can lead to increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations, which may contribute to increased cost of care. Antiemetic agents, such as neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists and 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are prescribed for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The current guidelines recommend a 3-drug combination of an NK1 receptor antagonist, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone with HEC regimens and certain MEC regimens. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of CINV and CINV-related resource utilization among patients who receive guideline-adherent HEC and MEC regimens and patients who receive non-guideline-adherent regimens. METHODS: In this retrospective, claims-based study, Inovalon's Medical Outcomes Research for Effectiveness and Economics Registry (MORE2 Registry) Research Edition database was used to identify 8089 patients with solid tumors receiving therapy with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC), cisplatin, or carboplatin from June 2013 to December 2013. The patients were stratified according to the use of an NK1 receptor antagonist regimen. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify CINV events associated with hospital, emergency department, and outpatient office visits among patients in the NK1 receptor antagonist group and the non-NK1 receptor antagonist group. RESULTS: A total of 1059 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 51% (N = 536) used an NK1 receptor antagonist-based regimen and 49% (N = 523) used non-NK1 receptor antagonist therapy. A higher percentage of patients receiving AC (73%) than cisplatin (56%) or carboplatin (23%) received an NK1 receptor antagonist. The incidence rates of total CINV events and CINV-related emergency department visits were lower in the group receiving an NK1 receptor antagonist (44% and 9%, respectively) than in the group receiving a non-NK1 receptor antagonist (50% and 15%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The patients receiving an NK1 receptor antagonists had a lower rate of resource utilization, suggesting that the use of NK1 receptor antagonist-containing regimens according to current national guidelines may reduce healthcare resource utilization, such as CINV-related office, hospital, and emergency department visits for patients receiving highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can lead to increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations, which may contribute to increased cost of care. Antiemetic agents, such as neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists and 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are prescribed for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The current guidelines recommend a 3-drug combination of an NK1 receptor antagonist, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone with HEC regimens and certain MEC regimens. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of CINV and CINV-related resource utilization among patients who receive guideline-adherent HEC and MEC regimens and patients who receive non-guideline-adherent regimens. METHODS: In this retrospective, claims-based study, Inovalon's Medical Outcomes Research for Effectiveness and Economics Registry (MORE2 Registry) Research Edition database was used to identify 8089 patients with solid tumors receiving therapy with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC), cisplatin, or carboplatin from June 2013 to December 2013. The patients were stratified according to the use of an NK1 receptor antagonist regimen. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify CINV events associated with hospital, emergency department, and outpatient office visits among patients in the NK1 receptor antagonist group and the non-NK1 receptor antagonist group. RESULTS: A total of 1059 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 51% (N = 536) used an NK1 receptor antagonist-based regimen and 49% (N = 523) used non-NK1 receptor antagonist therapy. A higher percentage of patients receiving AC (73%) than cisplatin (56%) or carboplatin (23%) received an NK1 receptor antagonist. The incidence rates of total CINV events and CINV-related emergency department visits were lower in the group receiving an NK1 receptor antagonist (44% and 9%, respectively) than in the group receiving a non-NK1 receptor antagonist (50% and 15%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The patients receiving an NK1 receptor antagonists had a lower rate of resource utilization, suggesting that the use of NK1 receptor antagonist-containing regimens according to current national guidelines may reduce healthcare resource utilization, such as CINV-related office, hospital, and emergency department visits for patients receiving highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
Authors: Enzo Ballatori; Fausto Roila; Benedetta Ruggeri; Maura Betti; Samanta Sarti; Giancarla Soru; Giorgio Cruciani; Massimo Di Maio; Biffi Andrea; Robert R Deuson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-08-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Charlotte C Sun; Diane C Bodurka; Candice B Weaver; Rafia Rasu; Judith K Wolf; Michael W Bevers; Judith A Smith; J Taylor Wharton; Edward B Rubenstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Steven M Grunberg; Robert R Deuson; Panagiotis Mavros; Olga Geling; Mogens Hansen; Giorgio Cruciani; Bruno Daniele; Gerard De Pouvourville; Edward B Rubenstein; Gedske Daugaard Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Ihbe-Heffinger; B Ehlken; R Bernard; K Berger; C Peschel; H-G Eichler; R Deuson; J Thödtmann; F Lordick Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Pascale Dielenseger; Sussanne Börjeson; Cheryl Vidall; Annie Young; Patrick Jahn Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Victoria Wochna Loerzel; Robert B Hines; Christine Wargo Deatrick; Patricia I Geddie; John M Clochesy Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sylvia L Crowder; Aasha I Hoogland; Taylor L Welniak; Elizabeth A LaFranchise; Kristen M Carpenter; Daneng Li; Daniel M Rotroff; Arshiya Mariam; Christine M Pierce; Stacy M Fischer; Anita Y Kinney; Thi Dong-Binh Tran; Farzaneh Rastegari; Donna L Berry; Martine Extermann; Richard D Kim; Danielle B Tometich; Jane C Figueiredo; Jameel Muzaffar; Shahla Bari; Kea Turner; George M Weinstock; Heather S L Jim Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 6.860