What cost effectiveness data are available regarding use of aprepitant or fosaprepitant for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting? What evidence is available on outcomes such as length of stay or need for admission?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

Cost-effectiveness data for aprepitant and fosaprepitant in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prevention are limited, and formal economic evaluations are largely lacking. A 2023 retrospective study in bariatric surgery patients found that fosaprepitant reduced overall antiemetic medication and administration costs (approximately $46.47 vs. $25.69 per patient) and improved patient satisfaction, although 12.5% required an additional dose. A 2024 retrospective analysis reported that aprepitant (80 mg) reduced rescue antiemetic use and was associated with a modest but statistically significant decrease in length of stay (1.19 vs. 1.33 days). Outside of these findings, most studies focus on clinical efficacy rather than healthcare utilization, and a 2022 review identified no dedicated cost-effectiveness analyses and minimal impact on length of stay.

Background

While a lot of studies evaluated aprepitant and fosaprepitant, the research has focused primarily on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) incidence, vomiting rates, rescue antiemetic use, and adverse events rather than healthcare utilization metrics. Evidence shows that aprepitant reduces nausea, vomiting, and rescue antiemetic requirements, with enhanced effects when combined with dexamethasone and ondansetron, and appears more effective at preventing vomiting than nausea. Fosaprepitant, particularly when added to standard prophylaxis in high-risk patients, lowers PONV incidence, emetic episodes, and rescue antiemetic use, though it may increase intraoperative hypotension. Network meta-analyses rank NK₁ receptor antagonists among the most effective single agents for vomiting prevention, with drug combinations generally showing greater efficacy. Overall, serious adverse events are uncommon, and safety profiles are favorable, but no studies reported outcomes such as cost-effectiveness, length of stay, or need for hospital admission. [1], [2], [3], [4]

A 2022 review evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for preventing PONV in patients with refractory PONV or at risk of life-threatening complications from emesis. No studies were found assessing cost-effectiveness or guidelines for these populations, and clinical effectiveness evidence was limited to three studies in patients undergoing craniotomy or bariatric surgery. Evidence showed that aprepitant reduced post-operative vomiting compared with ondansetron but had little-to-no effect on nausea, and the combination of aprepitant and ondansetron may reduce the need for rescue antiemetics. Severity of PONV may be lower with aprepitant, while length of stay and overall quality of life were largely unchanged. Methodological limitations, variability in interventions and outcomes, and limited generalizability restrict the certainty of conclusions, highlighting a need for further research. [5]

Although these findings relate to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and cannot be directly extrapolated to post-operative settings, a 2021 systematic review analyzed 13 studies on the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for CINV prevention. The review found that adding aprepitant to a standard antiemetic regimen with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone was generally cost-effective. While medication costs increased initially, overall healthcare costs decreased due to lower rates of nausea, vomiting, and reduced need for additional interventions. Comparisons with other antiemetics suggested that aprepitant was often more cost-effective or offered similar economic value, though netupitant/palonosetron and olanzapine were sometimes more favorable depending on the context. [6]

A 2023 retrospective chart review evaluated the impact of fosaprepitant on perioperative antiemetic utilization, treatment cost, and patient satisfaction in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. This investigation involved 400 patients from the Orlando Health Medical Center, divided into two groups: one receiving the standard of care antiemetic regimen and the other administered fosaprepitant. The standard regimen included scopolamine, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and promethazine for preoperative prophylaxis, as well as ondansetron and promethazine postoperatively. In contrast, the fosaprepitant group received a 75 mg intravenous dose preoperatively, with the potential for an additional dose postoperatively. Use of fosaprepitant in place of a standard antiemetic regimen was associated with lower overall PONV-related medication and administration costs. Total medication costs decreased from approximately $46.47 to $25.69 per patient, with reductions observed across commonly used agents including ondansetron, promethazine, scopolamine, and dexamethasone. Administration-related costs were also lower in the fosaprepitant group. A subset of patients (12.5%) required an additional dose due to persistent symptoms. Patient satisfaction improved by 11.6% with fosaprepitant use. [7]

A 2024 investigation explored the efficacy of aprepitant (80 mg) in preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. This retrospective chart review analyzed data from 354 patients at a community hospital who underwent the procedure between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: those receiving standard antiemetic prophylaxis and those receiving an additional 80 mg dose of aprepitant. The standard regimen included a scopolamine patch, IV dexamethasone, and IV ondansetron. The results demonstrated a significant reduction in antiemetic administration in the aprepitant group at various postoperative intervals, including within one hour of admission to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), as well as at 12 and 24 hours postoperatively. Specifically, the aprepitant group required fewer antiemetic doses (365 vs. 581 for the control group) and showed a reduction in the average length of stay (1.19 days compared to 1.33 days in the control group). Statistical analysis confirmed the significance of these findings, with p-values of less than 0.001 for total antiemetic doses and length of stay, suggesting that aprepitant effectively reduces PONV and shortens hospital stays. This study supports the consideration of aprepitant as a complementary treatment to existing PONV prophylaxis in bariatric surgery patients. [8]

References: [1] Grigio TR, Timmerman H, Dos Santos NP, Pereira JEG, Sousa AM, Wolff AP. Aprepitant and fosaprepitant as a prophylactic antiemetic for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2025;80:100783. doi:10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100783
[2] Liu Y, Chen X, Wang X, et al. The efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(29):e34385. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000034385
[3] Huang Q, Wang F, Liang C, et al. Fosaprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a randomised trial. Br J Anaesth. 2023;131(4):673-681. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2023.06.029
[4] Weibel S, Rücker G, Eberhart LH, et al. Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10(10):CD012859. Published 2020 Oct 19. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2
[5] Tingley K, Severn M; Authors. Aprepitant for the Prevention of Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting in Refractory or High-Risk Patients: Rapid Review [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2022 May. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK605083/
[6] Qiu T, Men P, Sun T, Zhai S. Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles. Front Public Health. 2021;9:660514. Published 2021 Aug 25. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.660514
[7] Aghazarian GS, Lind R, Motola D, et al. Impact of Emend on Perioperative Bariatric Surgery Antiemetic Utilization, Patient Satisfaction, and Costs. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2023;33(3):265-269. Published 2023 Jun 1. doi:10.1097/SLE.0000000000001101
[8] Dahman M, Ratermann C, Rozzo A. Use of aprepitant (80 mg) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Innovations in Surgery and Interventional Medicine. 2024;4(2024):1-5. doi:10.36401/ISIM-23-04
Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 1 study investigating the researchable question:

What cost effectiveness data are available regarding use of aprepitant or fosaprepitant for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting? What evidence is available on outcomes such as length of stay or need for admission?

Level of evidence

C - Multiple studies with limitations or conflicting results  Read more→



Please see Table 1 for your response.


Incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting after endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy procedures and the role of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists: a retrospective cohort study
Design

Retrospective cohort study

N= 404

Objective To evaluate whether the administration of NK-1 antagonists reduces PONV risk in patients undergoing EMBT procedures
Study Groups NK-1 antagonist administered (n= 119) NK-1 antagonist not administered (n= 285)
Inclusion Criteria Adult patients who underwent an initial TORe or ESG under general anesthesia at our institution between May 5, 2018, to August 1, 2023, and were transferred from the endoscopy suite to the PACU
Exclusion Criteria Patients who were not administered both a selective serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone during the procedure
Methods Patients were divided into those administered or not administered an NK-1 antagonist. Rates of PONV were analyzed, defined as rescue antiemetics during anesthesia recovery. Propensity score was calculated, and outcomes were assessed using generalized estimating equations with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)
Duration May 5, 2018, to August 1, 2023
Outcome Measures

Primary: Incidence of PONV

Secondary: Association of NK-1 antagonist administration with PONV reduction

Baseline Characteristics   No NK1 (n= 285) NK1 (n= 119) Std Diff
Age, years 51 (44, 58) 50 (40, 58) 0.128
Sex - Male 58 (20%) 14 (12%) 0.235
Sex - Female 227 (80%) 105 (88%) 0.235
Body mass index, kg/m2 38.6 (33.9, 43.7) 40.8 (35.6, 46.4) 0.223
Charlson comorbid score 2 (1, 3) 2 (1, 3) 0.030
Current smoker 17 (6%) 2 (2%) 0.225
Type of surgery - Transoral outlet reduction via endoscopy 169 (59%) 87 (73%) 0.295
Type of surgery - Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty 116 (41%) 32 (27%) 0.295
Ketamine 88 (31%) 58 (49%) 0.371
Volatile agent 172 (60%) 64 (54%) 0.133
Other antiemetics - 5-HT3, Dex 26 (9%) 5 (4%) 0.198
Other antiemetics - 5-HT3, Dex, Hal 56 (20%) 8 (7%) 0.389
Other antiemetics - 5-HT3, Dex, Scop 34 (12%) 36 (30%) 0.461
Other antiemetics - 5-HT3, Dex, Hal, Scop 169 (59%) 70 (59%) 0.010
Surgical duration, minutes 112 (92, 136) 109 (91, 129) 0.081
Propofol infusion, mcg/kg/min 119 (100, 135) 112 (93, 126) 0.212
Intraoperative opioids, IVME mg 17.5 (13.0, 19.0) 16.0 (13.0, 19.0) 0.068
Results        

Incidence of PONV

No NK1 (%) NK1 (%) P-value
Unadjusted 74 35 0.19 (0.12, 0.30)  
IPTW 76 35 0.18 (0.10, 0.31)  
Adverse Events No specific adverse events related to NK-1 antagonist administration were reported
Study Author Conclusions EBMT has a high incidence of PONV during anesthesia recovery. Administration of a NK-1 antagonist as part of a multiagent PONV prophylaxis regimen dramatically reduces risk for this common adverse event
Critique The study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of NK-1 antagonists in reducing PONV in EBMT procedures. However, the retrospective design and single-center setting may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study did not quantify the severity of PONV, which could provide more nuanced insights into the effectiveness of the intervention
References:
[1] VanderWielen BA, Storm AC, Schroeder DR, Sprung J, Weingarten TN. Incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting after endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy procedures and the role of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2024;38(12):7227-7232. doi:10.1007/s00464-024-11327-3