Ranade A.A.,Deenananth Mangeshkar Hospital |
Joshi D.A.,Deenananth Mangeshkar Hospital |
Phadke G.K.,Deenananth Mangeshkar Hospital |
Patil P.P.,Deenananth Mangeshkar Hospital |
And 7 more authors.
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2013
Paclitaxel (Taxol), one of the most commonly used chemotherapeutic agents, is poorly soluble in water and requires cremophor, which often causes infusion reactions, as a solvent. Nanoxel, a nanoparticle formulation of the taxane, has been approved by the Indian regulatory authority. In the present article, we aim to describe the experience with the use of Nanoxel in India and its clinical and economic implications. We present three retrospective series in a common practice environment and an economic model. The first series shows no reactions in 596 Nanoxel infusions; the second series shows comparable adverse events other than infusion reactions between 83 patients who received Nanoxel and 32 treated with conventional paclitaxel. The third reveals comparable clinical outcomes for 51 patients treated with Nanoxel or conventional paclitaxel for gastroesophageal tumors. Finally, we describe an economic model which estimates savings of 21 580 Indian rupees per cycle with Nanoxel vis-á-vis conventional paclitaxel in the treatment of solid tumors in India. In conclusion, in an era in which the greatest challenge we face as medical oncologists is how to conciliate hard-won and incremental-but small-improvements in survival with exponentially rising drugs costs, it is refreshing to see a potential new formulation of a commonly used drug that may actually generate cost-savings while improving clinical outcomes and patient well-being. Further studies are clearly warranted to determine the optimal dose and schedule for Nanoxel as well as its comparative effectiveness to cremophor-based paclitaxel. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. Source
Lopes G.,The Johns Hopkins Singapore International Medical Center |
Lopes G.,Johns Hopkins University |
Burke T.,Merck And Co. |
Pellissier J.,Merck And Co. |
And 3 more authors.
Value in Health Regional Issues | Year: 2012
Background: Aprepitant (a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist), in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) and dexamethasone, has demonstrated superior efficacy on end points related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with standard care (combination 5-HT3 RA and dexamethasone).Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of an aprepitant-containing regimen compared with current clinical practice for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in Singapore. Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess the costs and outcomes associated with an aprepitant-containing regimen compared with standard care in the prevention of CINV following HEC. Three scenarios were modeled on the basis of results of four double-blind randomized clinical trials of aprepitant. CINV event probabilities were calculated on the basis of the occurrence of nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue medication in the 5 days following a single cycle of HEC. The analysis was conducted from the Singapore health care system perspective. Results: Aprepitant reduced emesis and nausea, resulting in small but clinically important improvements when measured in quality-adjusted life-years. The aprepitant-containing regimen was associated with higher acquisition costs but lower costs relating to patient management, hospitalization, and use of rescue medication. Across the scenarios, the incremental cost per emetic event avoided ranged from cost saving to Singapore $63 (US $51). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from cost saving to Singapore $49,800 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (US $40,600). The analysis was relatively insensitive to changes in the inputs. Conclusions: Aprepitant is a clinically important and cost-effective therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients treated with HEC in Singapore. © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Source