PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings. METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained. RESULTS: NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125. CONCLUSION: By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings. METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained. RESULTS: NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125. CONCLUSION: By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.
Authors: Matti Aapro; Florian Scotté; Yolanda Escobar; Luigi Celio; Richard Berman; Alessandra Franceschetti; Danielle Bell; Karin Jordan Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-03-17
Authors: P Fernández-Ortega; M T Caloto; E Chirveches; R Marquilles; J San Francisco; A Quesada; C Suárez; I Zorrilla; J Gómez; P Zabaleta; G Nocea; A Llombart-Cussac Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Yolanda Escobar; Gerardo Cajaraville; Juan Antonio Virizuela; Rosa Álvarez; Andrés Muñoz; Olatz Olariaga; María José Tamés; Begoña Muros; María Jose Lecumberri; Jaime Feliu; Purificación Martínez; Juan Carlos Adansa; María José Martínez; Rafael López; Ana Blasco; Pere Gascón; Virginia Calvo; Pablo Luna; Joaquín Montalar; Patricia Del Barrio; María Victoria Tornamira Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R J Gralla; S M Bosnjak; A Hontsa; C Balser; G Rizzi; G Rossi; M E Borroni; K Jordan Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Helene Cawston; Francois Bourhis; Jennifer Eriksson; Pierfrancesco Ruffo; Paolo D'Agostino; Marco Turini; Lee Schwartzberg; Alistair McGuire Journal: Drugs Context Date: 2017-03-24