OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to summarize the current evidence base of reported utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs.
METHODS: A structured electronic search combining terms for utility, utility valuation methods and generic terms for cancer treatment was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2011. Inclusion criteria were: (1) elicitation of utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs and (2) primary data. Two reviewers identified studies and extracted data independently. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria from the 853 abstracts initially identified, collectively reporting 218 utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. All 18 studies used short descriptions (vignettes) to obtain the utility values, with nine studies presenting the vignettes used in the valuation exercises. Of the 218 utility values, 178 were elicited using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO) approaches, while 40 were elicited using visual analogue scales (VAS). There were 169 utility values of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs (with the top ten being anaemia [34 values], nausea and/or vomiting [32 values], neuropathy [21 values], neutropenia [12 values], diarrhoea [12 values], stomatitis [10 values], fatigue [8 values], alopecia [7 values], hand-foot syndrome [5 values] and skin reaction [5 values]) and 49 of non-specific chemotherapy-related adverse events. In most cases, it was difficult to directly compare the utility values as various definitions and study-specific vignettes were used for the ADEs of interest.
LIMITATIONS: This review was designed to provide an overall description of existing literature reporting utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. The findings were not exhaustive and were limited to publications that could be identified using the search strategy employed and those reported in the English language.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified wide ranges in the utility values reported for broad categories of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs. There were difficulties in comparing the values directly as various study-specific definitions were used for these ADEs and most studies did not make the vignettes used in the valuation exercises available. It is recommended that a basic minimum requirement be developed for the transparent reporting of study designs eliciting utility values, incorporating key criteria such as reporting how the vignettes were developed and presenting the vignettes used in the valuation tasks as well as valuing and reporting the utility values of the ADE-free base states. It is also recommended, in the future, for studies valuing the utilities of chemotherapy-related ADEs to define the ADEs according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) definitions for chemotherapy-related ADEs as the use of the same definition across studies would ease the comparison and selection of utility values and make the overall inclusion of adverse events within economic models of chemotherapy agents much more straightforward.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 110 Malaysian breast cancer patients were enrolled in the present study, and their blood samples were investigated for different single nucleotide polymorphisms using polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism. AEs were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
RESULTS: Fatigue, nausea, oral mucositis, and vomiting were the most common nonhematologic AEs. Rash was associated with heterozygous and mutant genotypes of ABCB1 3435C>T (P < .05). Moreover, patients carrying the GG genotype of ABCB1 2677G>A/T reported more fatigue than those carrying the heterozygous genotype GA (P < .05). The presence of ABCB1 3435-T, ABCC2 3972-C, ABCC2 1249-G, and ABCB1 2677-G alleles was significantly associated with nausea and oral mucositis. The coexistence of ABCB1 3435-C, ABCC2 3972-C, ABCC2 1249-G, and ABCB1 2677-A was significantly associated with vomiting (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of nonhematologic AEs in breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel has been relatively high. The variant allele of ABCB1 3435C>T polymorphism could be a potential predictive biomarker of docetaxel-induced rash, and homozygous wild-type ABCB1 2677G>A/T might predict for a greater risk of fatigue. In addition, the concurrent presence of specific alleles could be predictive of vomiting, nausea, and oral mucositis.
METHODS: Patients receiving cancer-related treatment regimes underwent screening of cardiac involvement with CMR, either within 3 months (early Tx) or >12 months (late Tx) post-treatment. T1 and T2 mapping, cardiac function, strain, ischaemia-testing, scar-imaging and serological cardiac biomarkers were obtained.
RESULTS: Compared to age/gender matched controls (n = 57), patients (n = 115, age (yrs): median(IQR) 48(28-60), females, n = 60(52%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) and strain, and higher native T1 and T2. The early Tx group (n = 52) had significantly higher native T1, T2 and troponin levels compared to the late Tx group, indicating myocardial inflammation and oedema (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study. A total of 96 patients receiving LEC (52 with and 42 without granisetron) were randomly selected from the full patient list generated using the e-Hospital Information System (e-His). The rates of complete control (no CINV from days 1 to 5) and complete response (no nausea or vomiting in both acute and delayed phases) were identified through patient diaries which were adapted from the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Selected covariates including gender, age, active alcohol consumption, morning sickness and previous chemotherapy history were controlled using the multiple logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant difference with LEC regimens (p<0.001). No differences were found in age, gender, ethnic group and other baseline characteristics. The granisetron group indicated a higher complete response rate in acute emesis (adjusted OR: 0.1; 95%CI 0.02-0.85; p=0.034) than did the non-granisetron group. Both groups showed similar complete control and complete response rates for acute nausea, delayed nausea and delayed emesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron injection used as the primary prophylaxis in LEC demonstrated limited roles in CINV control. Optimization of the guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens may serve as a less costly alternative to protect patients from uncontrolled acute emesis.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central systematically for the randomised control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The primary outcome was any grade of OM. Secondary outcomes were mild-moderate OM, severe OM and adverse events, such as taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016052489.
RESULTS: A total of 29 RCTs with 2348 patients (median age, 56.1 years; 57.5% male) were included. Cryotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of OM than control (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68), and zinc sulphate (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97), but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. No significant differences were observed between cryotherapy and control for taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. Palifermin was associated with the highest risk of taste disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS: This NMA suggests that cryotherapy was the most effective intervention for preventing chemotherapy-induced OM with a safety profile similar to control, but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. Large RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.
RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.
METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.
DESIGN: Single-blind, controlled, randomized cross-over study. Patients received 5-day aromatherapy treatment using either ginger essential oil or fragrance-matched artificial placebo (ginger fragrance oil) which was instilled in a necklace in an order dictated by the treatment group sequence.
SETTING: Two oncology clinics in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VAS nausea score, frequency of vomiting and HRQoL profile (EORTC QLQ-C30 scores).
RESULTS: Sixty female patients completed the study (age=47.3±9.26 years; Malay=98.3%; on highly emetogenic chemotherapy=86.7%). The VAS nausea score was significantly lower after ginger essential oil inhalation compared to placebo during acute phase (P=0.040) but not sustained for overall treatment effect (treatment effect: F=1.82, P=0.183; time effect: F=43.98, P<0.001; treatment×time effect: F=2.04; P=0.102). Similarly, there was no significant effect of aromatherapy on vomiting [F(1, 58)=0.29, P=0.594]. However, a statistically significant change from baseline for global health status (P<0.001) was detected after ginger essential oil inhalation. A clinically relevant 10 points improvement on role functioning (P=0.002) and appetite loss (P<0.001) were also documented while patients were on ginger essential oil.
CONCLUSION: At present time, the evidence derived from this study is not sufficiently convincing that inhaled ginger aromatherapy is an effective complementary therapy for CINV. The findings for HRQoL were however encouraging with significant improvement in several domains.
METHODS: This observational retrospective study was conducted on files of all solid cancer patients who admitted to a general hospital between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006. All data were categorical and analyzed for association with neutropenia.
RESULTS: 117 neutropenic patients were studied, 83 (70.9%) of them suffering from fever ranging between 38.5-39 °C, with hypotension (53; 27.3%) and headache 51 (26.3%) as the most common clinical signs. Only 34 (29.1%) neutropenic patients underwent culture testing and only 14 (41.2%) showed positive growth, gram negative types predominating (9; 64.2%), mainly Escherichia coli (5; 35.7%), with gram positive only in 5 (35.7%). Significant associations were found for fever and clinical signs with neutropenia severity (P<0.05), but not neutropenia onset (P>0.05). Logistic regression results showed strong significant association between presence of fever (P=0.02, OR=1.3) (95% confidence interval (CI)) hypotension and headache (P=0.001, OR=1.148) (95% CI) with neutropenia severity.
CONCLUSION: Fever and clinical signs specifically headache and hypotension are symptoms associated with severe neutropenia in solid cancer patients. Both may primarily result from bacterial infection, particularly gram negative forms.