Cost-effectiveness analysis of LHRH agonists in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer in Italy

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Triptorelin, Goserelin, and Leuprolide in the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Societal Perspective

OBJECTIVES

Metastatic prostate cancer is the most common malignant cancer and the second leading cause of death due to various types of cancer among men after lung cancer. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of triptorelin, goserelin, and leuprolide in the treatment of the patients with metastatic prostate cancer from the societal perspective in Iran in 2020.

METHODS

This is a cost-effectiveness study in which a 20-year Markov transition modeling was applied. In this study, local cost and quality-of-life data of each health state were gathered from cohort of patients. The TreeAge pro 2020 and Microsoft Excel 2016 software were used to simulate cost-effectiveness of each treatment in the long term. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed to measure robustness of the model outputs.

RESULTS

The findings indicated that the mean costs and utility gained over a 20-year horizon for goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprolide treatments were $ 13 539.13 and 6.365 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), $ 18 124.75 and 6.658 QALY, and $ 26 006.92 and 6.856 QALY, respectively. Goserelin was considered as a superior treatment option, given the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of the present study, goserelin was the most effective and cost-effective strategy versus 2 other options. It could be recommended to policy makers of the Iran healthcare system to prioritize it in clinical guidelines and reimbursement policies.

Utilization of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists in the Treatment of Metastatic and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer - Comparisons of Practices from Three European Countries

Introduction: Prostate cancer is one of the most common health threats for men in the developed world. With the advent of prostate cancer screening using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, prostate cancer mortality has declined at the expense of substantial disease overtreatment. Modern prostate cancer therapy is performed according to certain guidelines. Antiandrogens are compounds that inhibit the action of androgens in prostate cancer cells by blocking receptors and preventing the binding of hormones to them. Aim: The aim of this research is to analyze the use of registered forms of LHRH agonists used in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer in the last five years to examine trends in prescribing this group of drugs in Serbia whose patients gravitate towards the Urology Clinic at the UCC Kragujevac. Material and method: Using the ATC/DDD methodology, the use of LHRH agonists at the Urology Clinic of the UCC Kragujevac. A retrospective study of the use of this group of drugs according to the ATC classification was performed on the basis of data obtained from the hospital pharmacy for the period from year 2016 to year 2021, and the results are expressed by the number of DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day (1000/inhabitants/day). In the observed period, 1361 patients with a diagnosis of C61 (malignant prostate tumor) were treated at the Clinic of Urology. Results: In the observed period, a preparation containing triptorelin in a dose sufficient for one month of therapy was most often used. The total consumption of gonadorelin was lower compared to the rest of Serbia and EU countries, which was expected due to the protocol and the number of patients who gravitated towards the UCC Kragujevac. Conclusion: Despite certain limitations, this evaluation represents the first attempt to summarize the available evidence on the prescribing of LHRH agonists in Serbia. It was found that the consumption in UCCKG is lower compared to the consumption of these drugs in Serbia, Croatia and Italy at the same time intervals, for the same observed diagnosis.

The current status of hormone treatment for prostate cancer patients in Korean real-world practice: a multi-institutional observational study

We aimed to evaluate the current nationwide trend, efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) profiles of hormone treatment in real-world practice settings for prostate cancer (PCa) patients in Korea. A total of 292 men with any biopsy-proven PCa (TanyNanyMany) from 12 institutions in Korea were included in this multi-institutional, observational study of prospectively collected data. All luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists were allowed to be investigational drugs. Efficacy was defined as (1) the rate of castration (serum testosterone ≤50 ng dl⁻¹) at 4-week visit and (2) breakthrough (serum testosterone >50 ng dl⁻¹ after castration). Safety assessments included routine examinations for potential adverse events, laboratory tests, blood pressure, body weight, and bone mineral density (BMD, at baseline and at the last follow-up visit). QoL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26). The most common initial therapeutic regimen was LHRH agonist with anti-androgen (78.0%), and the most commonly used LHRH agonist for combination and monotherapy was leuprolide (64.0% for combination and 58.0% for monotherapy). The castration and breakthrough rates were 78.4% and 6.6%, respectively. The laboratory results related to dyslipidemia worsened after 4 weeks of hormone treatment. In addition, the mean BMD T-score was significantly lower at the last follow-up (mean: −1.950) compared to baseline (mean: −0.195). The mean total EPIC-26 score decreased from 84.8 (standard deviation [s.d.]: 12.2) to 78.3 (s.d.: 8.1), with significant deterioration only in the urinary domain (mean: 23.5 at baseline and 21.9 at the 4-week visit). These findings demonstrate the nationwide trend of current practice settings in hormone treatment for PCa in Korea.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with androgen-deprivation therapy from a Chinese perspective

The E3805 (CHAARTED) study found that docetaxel combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improved overall survival of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. This study aims to determine whether docetaxel combined with ADT is a cost-effective strategy for advanced prostate cancer in China. According to the E3805 study, two groups (docetaxel + ADT and ADT alone) and three health states [progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death] were analysed in a Markov model. All medical costs were calculated from the Chinese societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were applied as the primary outcome. Overall, the addition of docetaxel was estimated to increase the cost by $12 816.93, with a gain of 0.48 QALY. Additionally, for patients with high-volume disease, the increased cost and effectiveness were $14 627.75 and 0.69 QALYs in docetaxel + ADT group versus the ADT alone group, and the ICER was $21 199.63 per QALY. These ICERs are far more than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $20 301 per QALY in China. In spite of longer survival time, docetaxel combined with ADT is not a recommended cost-effective treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the Chinese setting.

Management of localized and advanced prostate cancer in Canada: A lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life-year analysis

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, the literature to date lacks studies examining lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of prostate cancer (PCa) management strategies that integrate localized and advanced disease. The objective of the current study was to assess lifetime costs and QALYs associated with contemporary PCa management strategies across risk groups by integrating localized and advanced disease.

METHODS

The authors' validated Markov chain Monte Carlo model was used to predict lifetime direct costs and QALYs. The health states modeled were active surveillance, initial treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy), PCa recurrence, PCa recurrence free, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and death (cause specific/other causes). Data regarding treatment distribution, state transition probabilities, adverse effects of management options, costs, utilities, and disutilities were derived from the published literature.

RESULTS

The total cost per patient for the overall cohort increased from $18,503 at 5 years to $28,032 and $39,143, respectively, at 10 years and 15 years. Furthermore, the results indicated the influence of risk group on total cost, with the high-risk group accruing the maximum per patient cost followed by the intermediate-risk and low-risk groups. Active surveillance was found to confer the most QALYs (12.5 years) and was the least costly strategy ($18,452) for individuals at low risk. For all risk groups, radical prostatectomy was less costly and conferred modestly more QALYs compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health care systems in Canada and elsewhere are operating under budget constraints to allocate finite resources. The findings of the current study might inform discussions concerning budget planning to provide health care services.

Investigating the Generalizability of Economic Evaluations Conducted in Italy: A Critical Review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the methodological quality of Italian health economic evaluations and their generalizability or transferability to different settings.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on the PubMed search engine to identify trial-based, nonexperimental prospective studies or model-based full economic evaluations carried out in Italy from 1995 to 2013. The studies were randomly assigned to four reviewers who applied a detailed checklist to assess the generalizability and quality of reporting. The review process followed a three-step blinded procedure. The reviewers who carried out the data extraction were blind as to the name of the author(s) of each study. Second, after the first review, articles were reassigned through a second blind randomization to a second reviewer. Finally, any disagreement between the first two reviewers was solved by a senior researcher.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one economic evaluations eventually met the inclusion criteria. Over time, we observed an increasing transparency in methods and a greater generalizability of results, along with a wider and more representative sample in trials and a larger adoption of transition-Markov models. However, often context-specific economic evaluations are carried out and not enough effort is made to ensure the transferability of their results to other contexts. In recent studies, cost-effectiveness analyses and the use of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a quite positive temporal trend, generalizability of results still appears as an unsolved question, even if some indication of improvement within Italian studies has been observed.

Treatment costs for advanced prostate cancer using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists: a solid biodegradable leuprorelin implant versus other formulations

AIM

To compare treatment costs with alternative luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist preparations and determine whether a leuprorelin solid implant is associated with potential cost savings.

PATIENTS & METHODS

A hypothetical population of 1000 prostate cancer patients was apportioned between the three most commonly-prescribed LHRH agonist preparations. Differentiated annual costs for 1- and 3-monthly formulations were calculated for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK (EU5) and Sweden, and compared with the leuprorelin solid implant.

RESULTS

Compared with alternative formulations, leuprorelin solid implants had potential annual cost savings/1000 patients of €353,000 (EU5) and €699,000 (Sweden; 1-month formulations), and €259,000 (EU5) and €300,000 (Sweden; 3-month formulations).

CONCLUSION

The leuprorelin solid implant was associated with potential cost savings compared with the most commonly used LHRH agonist preparations.

Management and characteristics of patients with metastatic prostate cancer in a cohort of New Zealand men

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to (1) characterise men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer, (2) describe their management and (3) look at their survival.

METHODS

We identified patients registered with prostate cancer in the New Zealand Cancer Registry in the Midland Cancer Network region in 2009-2012 and examined these patients' clinical records to identify the metastatic cases. We investigated the patients' characteristics and the treatment pattern. All-cause survival was estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Of the 2,127 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, 234 (26 Maori/Pacific and 208 non-Maori/non-Pacific) were diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. After the diagnosis, 194 (82.9%) patients received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), 5 had chemotherapy and 104 (44.4%) had radiotherapy. Of the patients treated with ADT, 46 (23.7%) had no monitoring prostate-specific antigen tests. Fifty-nine percent of the patients were alive after 12 months and 35% after 24 months. The hazard ratio for the Maori/Pacific men was 1.49.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was poor. There seems to be a strong case for the development of New Zealand guidelines on the management of metastatic disease including the use of first-line treatments, the ongoing monitoring for the development of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and the treatment of CRPC.

Leuprolide acetate 1-, 3- and 6-monthly depot formulations in androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer in nine European countries: evidence review and economic evaluation

Objective

Leuprolide is an established luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist used as first-line treatment in advanced prostate cancer. As different formulations and dosing schedules are likely to have economic implications, we aimed to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and costs in nine European countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal.

Methods

Database searches identified 13 clinical trials of leuprolide 1- (1 M), 3- (3 M) and 6-monthly (6 M). Only data on leuprolide with Atrigel were compared for all three formulations, which had the same efficacy, safety, and adherence. Cost-minimization analysis accounting for cost of Eligard®, specialist consultations, and diagnostics during up to 12 months follow-up was conducted. The perspective was that of public payers.

Results

No significant differences were observed in the percentages of intention-to-treat patients achieving testosterone levels ≤ 50 ng/dL following treatment with Eligard® 1 M (93.3%), 3 M (98.3%), and 6 M (97.3%) (P > 0.05), and adverse event profiles of the three formulations were comparable. Overall, 6 M was the least expensive, with average total annual costs from €788 (Belgium) to €1839 (Portugal). The 3 M option was between 2.5% (Hungary) and 37.6% (Belgium) more expensive than 6 M; 1 M formulation was the most expensive, with costs 15.5% and 151.6% more expensive than 6 M for those countries, respectively. The 3 M option was 11.2%–45.3% less expensive than 1 M. Total costs were associated with frequency of visits for injection and monitoring. The 1 M required twelve visits, 3 M 4.4–4.8 visits, and 6 M 2.1–2.3 visits. Up to 50% additional visits could be funded with the savings resulting from switching eligible patients from 1 M and 3 M to 6 M. Results were stable in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Eligard® formulations offer comparable efficacy and safety, but different dosing schedules require different number of visits. The 6 M formulation offers the greatest cost savings and should be considered the treatment of choice in eligible patients in Europe.