A systematic literature review of the impact of 5-HT3RA use on health care utilization in patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the United States.

Abstract

269 Background: Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can lead to nutrient depletion, diminished function, disruption of chemotherapy, and increased costs. Standard antiemetic therapy includes 5-HT3RAs for CINV prophylaxis, with palonosetron recommended in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), and ASCO guidelines as the preferred 5-HT3RA for CINV prophylaxis with MEC. There is evidence that using 5-HT3RAs can reduce costs but no comprehensive review of the evidence is available. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD databases, 4 conferences (Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, ASCO, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, MASCC), and bibliographies of included articles. We queried Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and key terms: “ondansetron,” “granisetron,” “palonosetron,” “dolasetron mesylate,” “costs,” “cost analysis,” and “economics.” Included records reported data on cost/utilization (rescue medication, outpatient/inpatient services) related to 5-HT3RA use for CINV in English, in human subjects, and published after 1997. Results: Of the 433 identified records, the 16 reporting utilization in the US were reviewed (excluded: 29 duplicates, 388 off-topic records). Studies varied significantly in designs, patients, 5-HT3RA regimens, and definition of outcomes. Twelve studies reported rescue medication use for CINV in patients using different 5-HT3RAs. In 5 studies, fewer patients treated with palonosetron required rescue medication versus ondansetron users (56% vs. 61%, 28% vs. 83%, 14% vs. 24%, 8% vs. 11%, 6% vs. 11%); 2 studies found palonosetron users had fewer outpatient services versus ondansetron users (5% vs. 10%, 8% vs. 10%). Four studies, with a variety of patients and outcomes, reported fewer patients treated with palonosetron versus ondansetron or other 5-HT3RAs used inpatient care (e.g., 0.2% vs. 0.4%, 16% vs. 23%, 7% vs. 10%, 0% vs. 5%), while 2 studies reported similar use (1% vs. 1%, 0% vs. 0%). Conclusions: CINV prophylaxis with palonosetron is generally associated with lower use of rescue medications, outpatient and inpatient services compared to ondansetron or other 5-HT3RAs. Use of palonosetron as a standard treatment may lead to reduced utilization of rescue medications and healthcare services for CINV and subsequent cost savings.