Cost-effectiveness of single-day intravenous fosaprepitant versus three-day oral aprepitant anti-emetic regimen in pediatric patients receiving highly-emetogenic chemotherapy.

Authors

null

Manraj Singh Sra

All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), New Delhi, India

Manraj Singh Sra , Azgar Abdul Rasheed , Shuvadeep Ganguly , Santosh Kumar , Priya Sharma , Ashwati S Pillai , Swetambri Sharma , DEEPAM PUSHPAM , Sameer Bakhshi

Organizations

All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), New Delhi, India, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: The non-inferiority of single-dose fosaprepitant to a three-day oral aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen for pediatric patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) has not been demonstrated. The cost-effectiveness of these regimens with respect to each other in India and the United States (US) is unknown. Methods: Individual patient data from an investigator-initiated, open-label, non-inferiority randomized control trial was used to estimate health states. The total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were calculated from the patient's perspective in India and the US. The incremental-cost utility ratio (ICUR) and net-monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis was done by varying the cost of medications, hospitalization and utility values by ±25%. Results: The fosaprepitant arm had a total QALY of 0.0116 compared to 0.0118 in the aprepitant arm. The use of fosaprepitant led to an incremental cost of $14.21 in India and a cost reduction of $193.81 in the US. The total cost of medication in the fosaprepitant arm was higher in India and lower in the US compared to the aprepitant arm. The cost of hospitalisation was lower in the fosaprepitant in both India and the US. The ICUR was -$59,974.86/QALY in India and $817,737.23/QALY in the US. The ICUR for India was located in the north-west quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, for the US it was located in the south-west quadrant below the willingness the pay threshold for the US. The ICUR estimate was most sensitive to the cost of fosaprepitant in India and the utility value of the complete protection health state in the US. Conclusions: Fosaprepitant was not found to be cost-effective versus aprepitant in India, comparatively it was cost-saving and cost-effective in the US. These findings highlight the necessity of region-specific considerations when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of anti-emetic regimens.

Cost comparison and economic outcomes in India and the United States.

ParameterIndiaUnited States
Fosaprepitant
Arm
Aprepitant
Arm
Difference*Fosaprepitant
Arm
Aprepitant
Arm
Difference*
Average Cost of Fosaprepitant (USD)29.56029.5642.56042.56
Average Cost of Aprepitant (USD)014.54-14.54088.17-88.17
Average Cost of Ondansetron (USD)2.172.19-0.02483.49489.09-5.6
Average Cost of Dexamethasone (USD)1.831.85-0.0219.3319.55-0.22
Average Cost of Rescue Medication (USD)0.010.0100.110.10
Average Cost of Hospitalisation (USD)0.381.14-0.7670.43212.82-142.38
Average Total Cost (USD)33.9419.7314.21615.92809.73-193.81
ICUR (USD/QALY)-59,974.86817,737.23
NMB (USD)-15.59179.12

ICUR: Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio; NMB: Net Monetary Benefit; USD: United States Dollars.

*Differences have been rounded to two decimal places so may not be exact.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Pediatric Oncology

Track

Pediatric Oncology

Sub Track

Symptom Management/Supportive Care/Palliative Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 (suppl 16; abstr 10075)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.10075

Abstract #

10075

Poster Bd #

442

Abstract Disclosures