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

Abstract

10075 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. [Table: see text]