Health-Related Quality of Life And Economic Analysis of Olanzapine Versus Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Malaysia

IF 1.4 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Value in health regional issues Pub Date : 2024-07-27 DOI:10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101028
Nurul Suhaida Badarudin PhD , Noraida Mohamed Shah PhD , Nurul Ain Mohd Tahir PhD , Azmi Nor Mohd Farez Ahmat PhD , Fuad Ismail MBBS , Farida Islahudin PhD , Suhana Yusak MCO , Syahir Muhammad MBBS , Kamarun Neasa Begam Mohd Kassim MClinPharm
{"title":"Health-Related Quality of Life And Economic Analysis of Olanzapine Versus Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Malaysia","authors":"Nurul Suhaida Badarudin PhD ,&nbsp;Noraida Mohamed Shah PhD ,&nbsp;Nurul Ain Mohd Tahir PhD ,&nbsp;Azmi Nor Mohd Farez Ahmat PhD ,&nbsp;Fuad Ismail MBBS ,&nbsp;Farida Islahudin PhD ,&nbsp;Suhana Yusak MCO ,&nbsp;Syahir Muhammad MBBS ,&nbsp;Kamarun Neasa Begam Mohd Kassim MClinPharm","doi":"10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Olanzapine has been shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, there is limited work on the impact of CINV on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the comparative cost-effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis in the Malaysian context. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the HRQoL using EQ-5D-5L and the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine compared with aprepitant for CINV prophylaxis in Malaysia using data from a local study.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Fifty-nine chemo-naive patients receiving either olanzapine or aprepitant were randomly recruited and completed the EQ-5D-5L before and day 5 after HEC. HRQoL utility scores were analyzed according to the Malaysian valuation set. The economic evaluation was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective with a 5-day time horizon. Quality-adjusted life days (QALD) and the rate of successfully treated patients were used to measure health effects. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is assessed as the mean difference between groups’ costs per mean difference in health effects. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess variations that might affect outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Aprepitant and olanzapine arms’ patients had comparable baseline mean HRQoL utility scores of 0.920 (SD = 0.097) and 0.930 (SD = 0.117), respectively; however, on day 5, a significant difference (<em>P</em> value = .006) was observed with mean score of 0.778 (SD = 0.168) for aprepitant and 0.889 (SD = 0.133) for olanzapine. The cost per successfully treated patient in the aprepitant arm was 60 times greater than in the olanzapine arm (Malaysian Ringgit [MYR] 927 vs MYR 14.83). Likewise, the cost per QALD gain in the aprepitant arm was 36 times higher than in the olanzapine arm (MYR 57.05 vs MYR 1.57). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of MYR −937.00 (USD −200.98) per successfully treated patient and MYR −391.84 (USD −85.43) per QALD gained for olanzapine compared with the aprepitant-based regimen.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>An olanzapine-based regimen is a cost-effective therapeutic substitution in patients receiving HEC in Malaysia.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23497,"journal":{"name":"Value in health regional issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in health regional issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221210992400061X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Olanzapine has been shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, there is limited work on the impact of CINV on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the comparative cost-effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis in the Malaysian context. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the HRQoL using EQ-5D-5L and the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine compared with aprepitant for CINV prophylaxis in Malaysia using data from a local study.

Methods

Fifty-nine chemo-naive patients receiving either olanzapine or aprepitant were randomly recruited and completed the EQ-5D-5L before and day 5 after HEC. HRQoL utility scores were analyzed according to the Malaysian valuation set. The economic evaluation was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective with a 5-day time horizon. Quality-adjusted life days (QALD) and the rate of successfully treated patients were used to measure health effects. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is assessed as the mean difference between groups’ costs per mean difference in health effects. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess variations that might affect outcomes.

Results

Aprepitant and olanzapine arms’ patients had comparable baseline mean HRQoL utility scores of 0.920 (SD = 0.097) and 0.930 (SD = 0.117), respectively; however, on day 5, a significant difference (P value = .006) was observed with mean score of 0.778 (SD = 0.168) for aprepitant and 0.889 (SD = 0.133) for olanzapine. The cost per successfully treated patient in the aprepitant arm was 60 times greater than in the olanzapine arm (Malaysian Ringgit [MYR] 927 vs MYR 14.83). Likewise, the cost per QALD gain in the aprepitant arm was 36 times higher than in the olanzapine arm (MYR 57.05 vs MYR 1.57). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of MYR −937.00 (USD −200.98) per successfully treated patient and MYR −391.84 (USD −85.43) per QALD gained for olanzapine compared with the aprepitant-based regimen.

Conclusions

An olanzapine-based regimen is a cost-effective therapeutic substitution in patients receiving HEC in Malaysia.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
奥氮平与阿瑞匹坦在预防马来西亚高致呕吐化疗患者化疗引起的恶心和呕吐方面的健康相关生活质量和经济分析
研究目的研究表明,奥氮平可有效预防高致吐性化疗(HEC)后化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV);然而,在马来西亚,有关 CINV 对健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)的影响以及预防 CINV 的成本效益比较的研究十分有限。因此,本研究使用 EQ-5D-5L 来确定 HRQoL,并使用一项当地研究的数据来比较奥氮平与阿瑞匹坦在马来西亚预防 CINV 的成本效益:随机招募了59名接受奥氮平或阿普瑞坦治疗的非化疗患者,在HEC治疗前和治疗后第5天完成EQ-5D-5L。HRQoL 实用性评分根据马来西亚估值集进行分析。经济评估从医疗支付方的角度进行,时间跨度为 5 天。质量调整生命天数(QALD)和成功治疗患者的比率被用来衡量健康效应。评估增量成本效益比时,采用的是各组之间每健康效果平均差异带来的成本平均差异。进行了单向敏感性分析,以评估可能影响结果的变异:阿瑞匹坦和奥氮平两组患者的基线平均 HRQoL 实用性评分相当,分别为 0.920(SD = 0.097)和 0.930(SD = 0.117);但在第 5 天,阿瑞匹坦的平均评分为 0.778(SD = 0.168),奥氮平的平均评分为 0.889(SD = 0.133),观察到显著差异(P 值 = .006)。阿普瑞坦治疗组每位成功治疗患者的成本是奥氮平治疗组的 60 倍(927 马来西亚林吉特对 14.83 马来西亚林吉特)。同样,阿瑞匹坦治疗组每增加一个 QALD 的成本是奥氮平治疗组的 36 倍(57.05 马币对 1.57 马币)。与阿瑞匹坦治疗方案相比,奥氮平治疗方案每成功治疗一名患者的增量成本效益比为-937.00马币(-200.98美元),每增加一个QALD的成本效益比为-391.84马币(-85.43美元):在马来西亚,以奥氮平为基础的治疗方案对接受 HEC 治疗的患者来说是一种具有成本效益的治疗替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Value in health regional issues
Value in health regional issues Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
期刊最新文献
Understanding What Matters: Stakeholder Views on Decision Criteria for Cancer Drug Selection in the Public Sector in Malaysia. Postpartum Screening for Type 2 Diabetes in Women With a History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Singapore Cost-Utility Analysis of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin Chemotherapy Regimen in Comparison With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Chemotherapy Regimen in the Treatment of Patients With Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer in Iran. Editorial Board Table of Contents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1