Martin Barnes1, George Calcanes2, Michael C Mosier3, Jeffrey Vacirca4, Zulfiqar Malik5. 1. Internal Medicine Resident, PGY3, John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, Port Jefferson, NY. 2. Chief Clinical Officer, New York Cancer & Blood Specialists, Port Jefferson Station, NY. 3. Director of Biostatistics, EMB Statistical Solutions, Overland Park, KS. 4. Chief Executive Officer, New York Cancer & Blood Specialists. 5. Chief of Research, New York Cancer & Blood Specialists.
Abstract
Background: Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (SC) injection is a novel formulation of granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Palonosetron is administered intravenously and is indicated for CINV prevention in acute and delayed phases after the use of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and in the acute phase after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). No data are available regarding the impact of SC granisetron on the cost of unscheduled hydration compared with other antiemetic drugs, specifically the older-generation palonosetron. Objective: To compare the costs of unscheduled hydration associated with breakthrough CINV after SC granisetron versus palonosetron administration in patients receiving MEC or HEC. Methods: This retrospective analysis was based on electronic medical records data from a single multicenter, community-based practice involving patients receiving MEC or HEC with a 3-drug antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and either SC granisetron or palonosetron. A cost-of-care analysis for SC granisetron and palonosetron was based on the maximum per-unit Medicare reimbursement amounts for the use of unscheduled hydration, administration of rescue antiemetic drugs, laboratory tests, and patient office evaluations. Results: A total of 182 patient records were evaluated, 91 for patients receiving SC granisetron and 91 receiving palonosetron. The mean per-patient cost of care related to unscheduled hydration in patients receiving HEC or MEC was significantly lower with SC granisetron ($296) than palonosetron ($837; P <.0001), including subset analysis of patients requiring additional care (SC granisetron [$691], N = 39; palonosetron [$1058], N = 72; P = .0260). The mean hydration costs per patient receiving HEC or MEC were lower with SC granisetron ($62) than with palonosetron ($253; P <.0001). The hydration costs per patient receiving only HEC were lower with SC granisetron ($66) than palonosetron ($280; P <.0001). The per-patient costs were lower when SC granisetron was administered than when palonosetron was administered as part of the antiemetic regimen, except for the cost of rescue antiemetic drug in patients receiving MEC. Fewer median unscheduled hydration therapies per patient were used with SC granisetron versus palonosetron (HEC, 3 vs 5; MEC, 2 vs 3). Conclusion: The use of SC granisetron reduced the total per-patient costs of care associated with unscheduled hydration compared with palonosetron in patients receiving HEC or MEC for breakthrough CINV events.
Background: Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (SC) injection is a novel formulation of granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Palonosetron is administered intravenously and is indicated for CINV prevention in acute and delayed phases after the use of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and in the acute phase after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). No data are available regarding the impact of SC granisetron on the cost of unscheduled hydration compared with other antiemetic drugs, specifically the older-generation palonosetron. Objective: To compare the costs of unscheduled hydration associated with breakthrough CINV after SC granisetron versus palonosetron administration in patients receiving MEC or HEC. Methods: This retrospective analysis was based on electronic medical records data from a single multicenter, community-based practice involving patients receiving MEC or HEC with a 3-drug antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and either SC granisetron or palonosetron. A cost-of-care analysis for SC granisetron and palonosetron was based on the maximum per-unit Medicare reimbursement amounts for the use of unscheduled hydration, administration of rescue antiemetic drugs, laboratory tests, and patient office evaluations. Results: A total of 182 patient records were evaluated, 91 for patients receiving SC granisetron and 91 receiving palonosetron. The mean per-patient cost of care related to unscheduled hydration in patients receiving HEC or MEC was significantly lower with SC granisetron ($296) than palonosetron ($837; P <.0001), including subset analysis of patients requiring additional care (SC granisetron [$691], N = 39; palonosetron [$1058], N = 72; P = .0260). The mean hydration costs per patient receiving HEC or MEC were lower with SC granisetron ($62) than with palonosetron ($253; P <.0001). The hydration costs per patient receiving only HEC were lower with SC granisetron ($66) than palonosetron ($280; P <.0001). The per-patient costs were lower when SC granisetron was administered than when palonosetron was administered as part of the antiemetic regimen, except for the cost of rescue antiemetic drug in patients receiving MEC. Fewer median unscheduled hydration therapies per patient were used with SC granisetron versus palonosetron (HEC, 3 vs 5; MEC, 2 vs 3). Conclusion: The use of SC granisetron reduced the total per-patient costs of care associated with unscheduled hydration compared with palonosetron in patients receiving HEC or MEC for breakthrough CINV events.
Authors: Jeffrey Vacirca; Dennis Caruana; George Calcanes; Michael Mosier; Ralph Boccia; Ali McBride Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: F Roila; A Molassiotis; J Herrstedt; M Aapro; R J Gralla; E Bruera; R A Clark-Snow; L L Dupuis; L H Einhorn; P Feyer; P J Hesketh; K Jordan; I Olver; B L Rapoport; J Roscoe; C H Ruhlmann; D Walsh; D Warr; M van der Wetering Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jørn Herrstedt; Fausto Roila; David Warr; Luigi Celio; Rudolph M Navari; Paul J Hesketh; Alexandre Chan; Matti S Aapro Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ian D Schnadig; Richy Agajanian; Christopher Dakhil; Nashat Y Gabrail; Robert E Smith; Charles Taylor; Sharon T Wilks; Lee S Schwartzberg; William Cooper; Michael C Mosier; J Yvette Payne; Michael J Klepper; Jeffrey L Vacirca Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Harry Raftopoulos; William Cooper; Erin O'Boyle; Nashat Gabrail; Ralph Boccia; Richard J Gralla Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 3.603