Clinician-Reported Outcome Measure for Palonosetron Versus Standard of Care in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Egypt
Author(s)
Elattar M1, Abdelaziz AH2, Eshaak B3, Shash E4, El-Zawahery H5, Tawfik H6, Saad I5, Kamal KAA2, Elgazzar M4, Alkady MS2, Shehata S7, Hashem T8, Nada Y9, Elsisi G10
1HTA Office, Middle East and North Africa, Cairo, GZ, Egypt, 2Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, C, Egypt, 3Cairo Cure Center, Cairo, C, Egypt, 4Breast Cancer Institute, New Cairo, C, Egypt, 5Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, G, Egypt, 6Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, G, Egypt, 7Faculty of Medicine, Assuit University, Assuit, A, Egypt, 8Faculty of Medicine, Mennoufia University, Mennoufia, M, Egypt, 9Medical Oncology Department , Maadi Armed Forces Medical Compound, Oncology and Hematology Hospital, Cairo, C, Egypt, 10The American University in Cairo, cairo, C, Egypt
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to compare between palonosetron and standard antiemetics in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in patients with different tumor types allocated on high/moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (H/MEC) using clinician reported outcome (ClinRO) measure.
METHODS: Four online-surveys were sent to 11 Egyptian reputable oncology experts from different representative institutions all over Egypt to compare between palonosetron and standard of care (SoC; ondansetron, granisetron, aprepitant, or ondansetron/granisetron+dexamethasone) in patients completed at least three cycles of H/MEC within the last 6 months. Four different health related quality of life (HRQoL) domains (performance of daily activities and being mentally and emotionally well, effect of anti-emetic failure and discontinuation, appetite, acceptance and trust toward anti-emetics) were measured. Adherence, resources utilization, use of rescue medications, factors impact the physicians during prescription of prophylactic anti-emetic were considered. Statistical analyses were performed.
RESULTS: The total score of ClinRO of palonosetron vs SoC in MEC were 21.4 vs 20 out of 27, respectively. Palonosetron has a better response in functioning capability and emotionally better, significant food tolerance and less severe hardship after treatment failure due to less severe nausea/vomiting (N/V) episodes. In HEC, palonosetron compared to SoC generated a ClinRO score of 22.4 vs 20.1 out of 27, respectively. Palonosetron has a better response in functioning capability and emotionally well-being, patient continuity on their anti-emetics, and less severe hardship after treatment failure due to less N/V episodes. Palonosetron showed better adherence, less use of rescue medications and more delayed CINV. Thus, palonosetron improves some specified HRQoL domains in patients allocated on both M/HEC compared to SoC.
CONCLUSIONS: Administration of palonosetron as a prophylactic anti-emetic in ambulatory chemotherapy settings and assessment of its effect over specified HRQoL domains resulted in HRQoL improvement within H/MEC among different types of cancer compared to SoC in CINV.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 11, S2 (December 2023)
Code
CO92
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Clinician Reported Outcomes, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
Drugs, Oncology