ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Netupitant Palonosetron for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Evidence from Economic Analyses.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study was conducted to systematically evaluate the economic profile of netupitant palonosetron(NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC). The goal is to provide evidence-based support for optimizing clinical medication decisions and standardizing future pharmacoeconomic research.
methodsLiterature was searched through different Chinese and English databases from database inception to March 16, 2025, with study quality assessed using the CHEERS checklist. Most evaluations utilized cost-utility analysis via Markov or decision tree models, primarily focusing on direct medical costs from healthcare payer or system perspectives.
resultsNine studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The results confirm the economic advantages of NEPA for CINV prophylaxis. In Western healthcare systems (UK, Spain, Italy, and the US), NEPA was frequently identified as a dominant strategy, providing greater health benefits (QALYs) at lower total costs. In China, NEPA was shown to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equivalent to one times the national GDP per capita. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of NEPA is highly sensitive to local drug pricing and variations in clinical practice.
conclusionNEPA is a cost-effective or even dominant strategy for CINV prophylaxis in both HEC and MEC populations. These findings provide a scientific basis for drug reimbursement negotiations and clinical pathway optimization. Future research should utilize real-world evidence across multiple chemotherapy cycles to further validate its long-term economic value and support value-based healthcare decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42207482What 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.