Selecting an NK1 RA should be driven by clinical considerations and supported by operational efficiencies
The importance of assessing the impact of operational advantages
- Lower acquisition costs of generic antiemetics can provide short-term savings, but there is more to consider than just the cost of the product when determining the right NK1 RA for your practice
- Product selection for CINV prophylaxis should also be driven by the desire to deliver efficient patient care
Limitations of other IV NK1 RAs1-3
Administered as IV infusions over longer durations of 20-30 minutes
Prepared and mixed in infusion bags
Require additional steps, time, and supplies
vs CINVANTI, the only IV NK1 RA approved as a 2-minute IV Push
Study background1
- A large multisite community oncology practice with more than 80 providers1
- More than 700 employees who staff 13 infusion centers1
- An OCM-based practice with the goal of improving patient care, increasing overall value, and reducing the impact on patient cost1,4
Study objectives
Time, motion, and cost evaluation1
A physician-owned community oncology practice conducted a time, motion, and cost evaluation to determine the overall impact and operational advantages of adopting CINVANTI 2-minute IV Push.*
The study focused on the precise timing of each step in the process of preparing and administering 30-minute IV infusions vs 2-minute IV Push, and how stakeholders were impacted in the separate workflow steps.†1
Key data points assessed were1:
Staff time saved/expended
Supplies saved/consumed
What could be accomplished with reallocated time for impacted disciplines
*This study was funded by Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
†Thirty-minute IV infusions of NK1 RAs included fosaprepitant or CINVANTI (aprepitant), as the practice was transitioning between the 2 products during the study period.1
CINV=chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; IV=intravenous; NK1 RA=neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist; OCM=Oncology Care Model.