269 Background: Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can lead to nutrient depletion, diminished function, disruption of chemotherapy, and increased costs. Standard antiemetic therapy includes 5-HT3RAs for CINV prophylaxis, with palonosetron recommended in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), and ASCO guidelines as the preferred 5-HT3RA for CINV prophylaxis with MEC. There is evidence that using 5-HT3RAs can reduce costs but no comprehensive review of the evidence is available. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD databases, 4 conferences (Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, ASCO, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, MASCC), and bibliographies of included articles. We queried Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and key terms: “ondansetron,” “granisetron,” “palonosetron,” “dolasetron mesylate,” “costs,” “cost analysis,” and “economics.” Included records reported data on cost/utilization (rescue medication, outpatient/inpatient services) related to 5-HT3RA use for CINV in English, in human subjects, and published after 1997. Results: Of the 433 identified records, the 16 reporting utilization in the US were reviewed (excluded: 29 duplicates, 388 off-topic records). Studies varied significantly in designs, patients, 5-HT3RA regimens, and definition of outcomes. Twelve studies reported rescue medication use for CINV in patients using different 5-HT3RAs. In 5 studies, fewer patients treated with palonosetron required rescue medication versus ondansetron users (56% vs. 61%, 28% vs. 83%, 14% vs. 24%, 8% vs. 11%, 6% vs. 11%); 2 studies found palonosetron users had fewer outpatient services versus ondansetron users (5% vs. 10%, 8% vs. 10%). Four studies, with a variety of patients and outcomes, reported fewer patients treated with palonosetron versus ondansetron or other 5-HT3RAs used inpatient care (e.g., 0.2% vs. 0.4%, 16% vs. 23%, 7% vs. 10%, 0% vs. 5%), while 2 studies reported similar use (1% vs. 1%, 0% vs. 0%). Conclusions: CINV prophylaxis with palonosetron is generally associated with lower use of rescue medications, outpatient and inpatient services compared to ondansetron or other 5-HT3RAs. Use of palonosetron as a standard treatment may lead to reduced utilization of rescue medications and healthcare services for CINV and subsequent cost savings.
The impact of COVID‐19 on dermatology outpatient services in England in 2020
