• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences >Economic analysis of palonosetron versus granisetron in the standard triplet regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Japan (TRIPLE phase III trial)
【24h】

Economic analysis of palonosetron versus granisetron in the standard triplet regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Japan (TRIPLE phase III trial)

机译：标准三联体方案中帕洛诺司琼与格拉司琼的经济分析，用于预防日本接受高度呕吐性化疗的患者中的化疗引起的恶心和呕吐（TRIPLE III期试验）

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background We conducted an economic assessment using test data from the phase III TRIPLE study, which examined the efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist as part of a standard triplet antiemetic regimen including aprepitant and dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods We retrospectively investigated all medicines prescribed for antiemetic purposes within 120?h after the initiation of cisplatin administration during hospitalization. In the TRIPLE study, patients were assigned to treatment with granisetron (GRA) 1?mg ( n =?413) or palonosetron (PALO) 0.75?mg ( n =?414). The evaluation measure was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) assessed as the cost per complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching and no rescue medication). The analysis was conducted from the public healthcare payer’s perspective. Results The CR rates were 59.1% in the GRA group and 65.7% in the PALO group ( P =?0.0539), and the total frequencies of rescue medication use for these groups were 717 (153/413 patients) and 573 (123/414 patients), respectively. In both groups, drugs with antidopaminergic effects were chosen as rescue medication in 86% of patients. The costs of including GRA and PALO in the standard triplet antiemetic regimen were 15,342.8 and 27,863.8 Japanese yen (JPY), respectively. In addition, the total costs of rescue medication use were 73,883.8 (range, 71,106.4–79,017.1) JPY for the GRA group and 59,292.7 (range, 57,707.5–60,972.8) JPY for the PALO group. The CERs (JPY/CR) were 26,263.4 and 42,628.6 for the GRA and PALO groups, respectively, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 189,171.6 (189,044.8–189,215.5) JPY/CR. Conclusions We found that PALO was more expensive than GRA in patients who received a cisplatin-based HEC regimen.
机译：背景我们使用来自三期TRIPLE研究的测试数据进行了经济评估，该研究检查了5-羟色胺3受体拮抗剂作为包括阿瑞哌汀和地塞米松在内的标准三联止吐方案的一部分在预防化疗引起的恶心和呕吐中的功效。接受以顺铂为基础的高度致癌化学疗法（HEC）。方法我们回顾性研究了住院期间开始使用顺铂后120分钟内所有止吐药物。在TRIPLE研究中，患者被分配接受格拉司琼（GRA）1？mg（n =？413）或帕洛诺司琼（PALO）0.75？mg（n =？414）的治疗。评估指标是成本效益比（CER），以每次完全缓解的成本（CR;无呕吐/呕吐，无急救药物）评估。该分析是从公共医疗保健支付者的角度进行的。结果GRA组CR发生率为59.1％，PALO组CR发生率为65.7％（P = 0.0539），这些组的急诊用药总频率为717（153/413例）和573（123/414）。患者）。在两组中，有86％的患者选择了具有抗多巴胺能作用的药物作为急救药物。在标准三联止吐方案中包括GRA和PALO的费用分别为15,342.8和27,863.8日元。此外，GRA组的抢救用药总费用为73,883.8日元（范围为71,106.4–79,017.1），而PALO组为59,292.7（范围为57,707.5–60,972.8）日元。 GRA组和PALO组的CER（JPY / CR）分别为26,263.4和42,628.6，两组之间的增量成本效益比（ICER）为189,171.6（189,044.8–189,215.5）JPY / CR。结论我们发现在接受基于顺铂的HEC方案的患者中，PALO比GRA贵。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号