ArticleBMJ open2017
Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Economic Value of Fosaprepitant-Containing Regimen in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in China: Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Trial
- Cost-utility analysis of palonosetron in the antiemetic regimen for cisplatin-containing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Japan.BMC health services research · 2019Trial
- Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Netupitant Palonosetron for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Evidence from Economic Analyses.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of fosnetupitant in patients receiving cisplatin in Japan: analysis based on real-world data.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Review
- A Meal Replacement Program for the Treatment of Obesity: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Swiss Payer's Perspective.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) relative to aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a trial-based analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).
settingOncology hospital department in Italy.
methodsA Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered.
resultsNEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC).
conclusionsNEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.