Value in health regional issues · 2024
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.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Badarudin Nurul Suhaida, Mohamed Shah Noraida, Mohd Tahir Nurul Ain, Ahmat Azmi Nor Mohd Farez, Ismail Fuad, Islahudin Farida, Yusak Suhana, Muhammad Syahir, Mohd Kassim Kamarun Neasa Begam
Аннотация
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.
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.