Deborah Buchner

Clinical and economic burden of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with cancer in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States

Abstract 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

Likelihood of a subsequent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) event in patients receiving low, moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC/MEC/HEC)

89 million were observed. Average daily treatment cost for all care settings was

Impact of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a retrospective cohort study.

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

Impact of 5-HT 3 RA selection within triple antiemetic regimens on uncontrolled highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting

1850. Further studies on early and appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis on CINV rates and economic outcomes are warranted.

Comparative clinical effectiveness of various 5-HT3 RA antiemetic regimens on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with hospital and emergency department visits in real world practice

Abstract Objective: To assess the likelihood of subsequent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events following a first chemotherapy administration CINV event in patients receiving single-day low, moderately, or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC, MEC, or HEC). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted utilizing Georgia Cancer Specialists, Florida Cancer Specialists, and ACORN electronic medical records databases (April 2006 through July 2009). Patients were included who received more than one single-day LEC, MEC, or HEC administration (oral or intravenous) with no chemotherapy 3 months prior to the first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration. Two cohorts, patients with a first administration CINV and no first administration CINV, were created and followed for 6 months. A multivariate logistic regression assessed the likelihood of subsequent CINV, controlling for age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer type, number of chemotherapy administrations, gap between LEC, MEC, or HEC administrations, and number of different LEC, MEC, or HEC agents administered. Results: A total of 10,586 patients met the inclusion criteria (LEC = 3099; MEC = 5172; HEC = 2315). Of those patients, 4.4% (n = 136), 7.8% (n = 402), and 13.8% (n = 320) experienced a CINV event with their initial single-day LEC, MEC, or HEC administration, respectively. The unadjusted subsequent CINV rate was higher in the cohorts with first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration CINV for all groups receiving LEC (33.1% vs. 16.0%; p < 0.0001), MEC (46.5% vs. 18.9%; p < 0.0001), or HEC (59.1% vs. 26.9%; p < 0.0001). After controlling for covariates, patients with first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration CINV were 3.1, 3.8, and 3.7 times more likely to have a subsequent CINV compared to patients without a first LEC, MEC, or HEC administration CINV (Odds Ratio: 3.05 [95% CI: 2.08–4.48, p < 0.0001]; 3.77 [95% CI: 3.04–4.68, p < 0.0001]; and 3.70 [95% CI: 2.88–4.74, p < 0.0001], respectively). Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, patients receiving single-day LEC, MEC, or HEC who had a prior CINV were at increased risk of subsequent CINV. Further studies assessing increased risk of a subsequent CINV events are warranted given this study represents an assessment of electronic medical record data within select community-based populations under usual care.

Palonosetron versus other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with emetogenic chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States

Background1st generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), and palonosetron, a 2nd generation 5-HT3 RA, are indicated for the prevention of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately (MEC) and highly emetogenic CT agents (HEC). This study explores the impact of step therapy policies requiring use of an older 5-HT3 RA before palonosetron on risk of CINV associated with hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.MethodsPatients who received cyclophosphamide post breast cancer (BC) surgery or who were diagnosed with lung cancer on carboplatin (LC-carboplatin) or cisplatin (LC-cisplatin) were selected from PharMetrics’ (IMS LifeLink) claims dataset (2005-2008). Patients were followed for 6 months from initial CT administration for CINV events identified through ICD-9-CM codes. Patients were grouped into those initiated with older, generic 5-HT3 RAs (ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron) and those initiated and maintained on palonosetron throughout study follow-up. CINV events and CINV days were analyzed using multivariate regressions controlling for demographic and clinical variables.ResultsEligible patients numbered 3,606 in BC, 4,497 in LC-carboplatin and 1,154 in LC-cisplatin cohorts, with 52%, 40%, and 34% in the palonosetron group, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two 5-HT3 RA groups in age or Charlson Comorbidity Index among the two MEC cohorts (BC and LC-carboplatin). Among the LC-cisplatin cohort, palonosetron users were older with more males than the older 5-HT3 RA group (age: 60.1 vs. 61.3; males, 66.9% vs. 56.9%). Compared to the older 5-HT3 RAs, the palonosetron groups incurred 22%-51% fewer 5-HT3 RA pharmacy claims, had fewer patients with CINV events (3.5% vs. 5.5% in BC, 9.5% vs. 12.8% in LC-carboplatin, 16.4% vs. 21.7% in LC-cisplatin), and had lower risk for CINV events (odds ratios 0.62, 0.71, or 0.71, respectively; p < 0.05). The BC and LC-carboplatin palonosetron groups experienced 50% and 30% fewer CINV days than the generic 5-HT3 RA group (p < 0.05).ConclusionsPatients with breast or lung cancer initiated and maintained on palonosetron were at significantly lower risk for potentially costly CINV versus those on older 5-HT3 RAs. Further studies on impact of step therapy policy are warranted in order to minimize the clinical and economic burden of CINV.

Palonosetron Versus Other 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Cancer on Chemotherapy in a Hospital Outpatient Setting

Background: It is recommended that patients initiate triple antiemetic therapy with one of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), aprepitant (or its intravenous prodrug fosaprepitant) and dexamethasone prior to the start of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, the impact of 5-HT3 RA selection within triple antiemetic regimens on the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with HEC has not been well studied. Aim: To assess the likelihood of an uncontrolled CINV event following antiemetic prophylaxis with the 5-HT3 RA palonosetron + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone (palonosetron cohort) versus any of the other 5-HT3 RAs + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone (other 5-HT3 RA cohort) among single-day HEC cycles. Methods: Single-day HEC cycles (a gap of at least 5 days between two administrations) among patients with a cancer diagnosis and receiving antiemetic prophylaxis with the aforementioned regimens between 1/1/2006 and 6/30/2010 were identified from the IMS LifeLink claims database. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea and vomiting), Current Procedural Terminology codes (hydration), rescue medications and/or use of antiemetic therapy from days 2–5 following HEC administration. Risks for an uncontrolled CINV event among all patients, and within breast cancer and multiple cancer subpopulations, were analyzed at cycle level using logistic multivariate regression models. Results: A total of 8018 cycles for the palonosetron cohort and 1926 cycles for the other 5-HT3 RA cohort (3574 and 978 patients, respectively) were analyzed. Single-day HEC cycles received by the palonosetron cohort had a significantly lower unadjusted risk of an uncontrolled CINV event (17.5 vs 20.7% for the other 5-HT3 RA cohort; p = 0.0010), with a 17% lower adjusted risk for palonosetron-administered cycles (odds ratio: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73–0.94; p = 0.0042). Results in the breast cancer and multiple cancer subgroups were consistent with those for the overall population. Conclusion: In this retrospective claims data analysis, single-day HEC cycles administered with palonosetron + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone had a lower risk for an uncontrolled CINV event versus other 5-HT3 RAs + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone.

Willingness to pay to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events for various 5-HT3 RAs in patients who received moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) by evaluating hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.MethodsPharMetrics claims database was used to identify patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) who were initiated on cyclophosphamide-based adjuvant chemotherapy or with lung cancer (LC) initiated on carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based chemotherapy between 2005 and 2008. Patients were stratified in two groups: those initiated and maintained on palonosetron versus those treated with any other 5-HT3 RA regimens in the 6-month post first chemotherapy. Risk for CINV events, identified by ICD-9-CM for nausea, vomiting, and/or dehydration, were estimated using logistic regressions, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, and total chemotherapy doses or days.ResultsOf the 4,868 cyclophosphamide-treated BC, 5,414 carboplatin-treated LC, and 1,692 cisplatin-treated LC identified, there were 1,864 BC (38.5%), 1,806 carboplatin-treated LC (33.4%), and 390 cisplatin-treated LC (23.0%) in the palonosetron-only group. Palonosetron-only group had significantly lower probability of CINV events associated with ED/hospital admissions in all three cohorts (3.5% vs. 6.3% in BC, 9.5% vs. 13.8% in carboplatin-treated LC, and 16.4% vs. 22.6% in cisplatin-treated LC, all at p < 0.05). Logistic regressions found palonosetron-only group had significantly lower risk of CINV events (odds ratios = 0.550, 0.653, and 0.689 in BC, carboplatin-treated LC and cisplatin-treated LC, respectively, p < 0.05).ConclusionPatients with lung or breast cancer receiving MEC or HEC had significantly lower risk of CINV events associated with hospital/ED admissions if initiated and maintained on palonosetron relative to patients receiving 5-HT3 RA regimens.

Hematologic Outcomes of Myelodysplastic Syndromes Treatment With Hypomethylating Agents in Community Practice

Abstract Objective: This study evaluated the rate of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) in patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukemia) and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in a hospital outpatient setting. Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years and diagnosed with hematologic malignancies initiating HEC or MEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT3 RAs (Group 2) for the first time in a hospital outpatient setting between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective Database. Within each cycle, CINV events were identified (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) through ICD-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from each CT administration day 1 until the end of the CT cycle), or use of rescue medications (day 2 until the end of the CT cycle). Negative binomial distribution generalized linear multivariate regression model estimating the CINV event rate on CT, specific CT cycles, and cancer diagnosis (leukemia/lymphoma)-matched groups in the follow-up period (first of 8 cycles or 6 months) was developed. Results: Of 971 identified patients, 211 initiated palonosetron (Group 1). Group 1 patients comprised of more females [50.2 vs. 41.4%; p = 0.0226], Whites [74.4 vs. 70.4%, and Hispanics [7.6 vs. 6.3%; all races p = 0.0105], received more HEC treatments [89.6 vs. 84.2%; all CT types p = 0.0129], and had more lymphoma diagnosed patients [89.6 vs. 76.3%; all cancer types p = 0.0033] at baseline. After controlling for differences in several demographic and clinical variables, the regression model predicted a 20.4% decrease in CINV event rate per CT cycle for Group 1 versus Group 2 patients. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizability, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, potential underestimation of incidence of uncontrolled CINV, and inability to draw conclusions pertaining to cause and effect relationship. Conclusion: In this retrospective hospital study, patients with hematologic malignancies treated with HEC or MEC and initiated on antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron in the hospital outpatient setting were more likely to experience significantly lower CINV event rates (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) versus patients initiated on other 5-HT3 RAs.

The burden of diurnal and nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms

BACKGROUND Despite favorable evidence from clinical trials for single-dose palonosetron versus other commercially available 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), clinical comparative data are scarce from hospital outpatient settings, where these antiemetic agents are used in patients diagnosed with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy (CTH). OBJECTIVE The purpose of our retrospective study was to assess the hospital claims to evaluate the rate of uncontrolled CINV with antiemetic prophylaxis using palonosetron versus other 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists in patients diagnosed with cancer who are receiving CTH (highly emetogenic CTH, moderately emetogenic CTH, low-emetogenic CTH, or minimally emetogenic CTH) treatment in a hospital outpatient setting. METHODS Patients aged ≥18 years who had cancer and were being treated with CTH and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (Group 2) for the first time between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2009, were identified using a hospital-service database. Within each CTH cycle, CINV events were identified through International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from Day 1 of each CTH administration until the end of the CTH cycle) or for use of rescue medications (Day 2 until the end of the CTH cycle). A multivariate regression model was developed to predict uncontrolled CINV event rates per CTH cycle between Groups 1 and 2 matched on CTH emetogenicity distribution in the study follow-up period (first of 8 cycles or 6 months). A subgroup analysis of patients on CTH with the highest risk of nausea and vomiting (highly emetogenic CTH or moderately emetogenic CTH) was also conducted. RESULTS Of 9144 identified patients, 1775 were prescribed palonosetron (Group 1). Group 1 patients were statistically younger (61.2 vs 62.8 years; P < 0.001), composed of more females (57.1% vs 51.9%; P < 0.001) and more whites (72.8% vs 71.4%; all races P < 0.001), received more highly emetogenic CTH treatments (43.3% vs 28.5%; all CTH P < 0.001), and had more lung (26.1% vs 22.4%) and breast cancer patients (19.3% vs 15.3%; all cancer P < 0.001). The regression model predicted a 13.7% decrease in CINV event rate per CTH cycle for Group 1 versus Group 2. For Subgroup 1, the model predicted a 12.5% decrease in the CINV event rate per cycle in Group 1 patients versus those in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS In this study, patients with cancer who were treated with CTH and on antiemetic prophylaxis using palonosetron were found to have significantly lower CINV event rates than those receiving other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists.