Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30710243›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2019

Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan.

Ikuto Tsukiyama, Masahiko Ando, Sumiyo Tsukiyama, Masayuki Takeuchi, Masayuki Ejiri, Yusuke Kurose, Hiroko Saito, Ichiro Arakawa, Tadao Inoue, Etsuro Yamaguchi and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ikuto TsukiyamaFaculty of Pharmacy, Meijo University, Nagoya, Japan.
Masahiko AndoCenter for Advanced Medical and Clinical Research, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Sumiyo TsukiyamaDepartment of Pharmacy, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Nagakute, Japan.
Masayuki TakeuchiDepartment of Pharmacy, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Nagakute, Japan.
Masayuki EjiriDepartment of Pharmacy, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Nagakute, Japan.
Yusuke KuroseDepartment of Pharmacy, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Nagakute, Japan.
Hiroko SaitoDepartment of Pharmacy, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Nagakute, Japan.
Ichiro ArakawaFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Teikyo Heisei University, Tokyo, Japan.
Tadao InoueSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ohu University, Koriyama, Japan.
Etsuro YamaguchiDivision of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, School of Medicine, Aichi Medical University, 1-1 Yazakokarimata, Nagakute, Aichi, 480-1195, Japan.
Akihito KuboDivision of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, School of Medicine, Aichi Medical University, 1-1 Yazakokarimata, Nagakute, Aichi, 480-1195, Japan. kuboa@aichi-med-u.ac.jp.
Aichi Medical University Hospital · JPAichi Medical University · JPNagoya University Hospital · JPOhu University · JPTeikyo Heisei University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNeurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK

methodsA decision-analytic model was developed according to the necessity of aprepitant and CINV responses in both acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy. Probabilities of health states and medical costs were derived from the results of the abovementioned trial.

resultIn patients who received HEC and needed aprepitant, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the regimen with no aprepitant, was 7912 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which was far below the commonly accepted threshold of 50,000 USD/QALY. The ICER was 27,457 USD/QALY in patients who received MEC and needed aprepitant. In contrast, in patients who received HEC or MEC but did not need aprepitant, the ICER was 175,959 or 478,844 USD/QALY, respectively.

conclusionRegardless of whether a patient received HEC or MEC, aprepitant use was highly cost-effective for patients who truly needed it. These results warrant further research to predict the necessity of NK

Indexed as

AntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsAprepitantCost-Benefit AnalysisEmeticsHumansJapanMiddle AgedNauseaNeurokinin-1 Receptor AntagonistsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsVomitingAntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsAprepitantEmeticsNeurokinin-1 Receptor AntagonistsAprepitantCost-effectivenessHighly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA)

Identifiers

PMID30710243
OpenAlexW2911586704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.