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
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.
Parameter | India | United States | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fosaprepitant Arm | Aprepitant Arm | Difference* | Fosaprepitant Arm | Aprepitant Arm | Difference* | |
Average Cost of Fosaprepitant (USD) | 29.56 | 0 | 29.56 | 42.56 | 0 | 42.56 |
Average Cost of Aprepitant (USD) | 0 | 14.54 | -14.54 | 0 | 88.17 | -88.17 |
Average Cost of Ondansetron (USD) | 2.17 | 2.19 | -0.02 | 483.49 | 489.09 | -5.6 |
Average Cost of Dexamethasone (USD) | 1.83 | 1.85 | -0.02 | 19.33 | 19.55 | -0.22 |
Average Cost of Rescue Medication (USD) | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.1 | 0 |
Average Cost of Hospitalisation (USD) | 0.38 | 1.14 | -0.76 | 70.43 | 212.82 | -142.38 |
Average Total Cost (USD) | 33.94 | 19.73 | 14.21 | 615.92 | 809.73 | -193.81 |
ICUR (USD/QALY) | -59,974.86 | 817,737.23 | ||||
NMB (USD) | -15.59 | 179.12 |
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 Disclosures
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Owais Mohammed
2020 ASCO Virtual Scientific Program
First Author: Wasamol Mahaparn
2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
First Author: Dali Edwards
2018 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Ikuto Tsukiyama