Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33409724›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients.

Ronald Chow, Leonard Chiu, Jørn Herrstedt, Matti Aapro, Michael Lock, Carlo DeAngelis, Rudolph M Navari

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Defining Clinical Utility of Germline Indicators of Toxicity Risk: A Perspective.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Article
  8. Olanzapine 5 mg vs 10 mg for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a network meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Ronald ChowOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. ronald.chow@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6195-8624
Leonard ChiuOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jørn HerrstedtZealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Matti AaproGenolier Cancer Center, Genolier, Switzerland.
Michael LockLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Carlo DeAngelisOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rudolph M NavariCancer Care Program, Central and South AmericaWorld Health Organization, AL, Birmingham, USA.
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAWestern University · CAClinique de Genolier · CHZealand University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOlanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC.

methodsA decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV.

resultsOlanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly.

conclusionOlanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

Indexed as

AntiemeticsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleNauseaOlanzapineVomitingAntiemeticsOlanzapineChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomitingCost-effectiveness analysisHighly emetogenic chemotherapyOlanzapine

Identifiers

PMID33409724
OpenAlexW3119723571

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.