Comparative clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade, docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy and ADT alone for the treatment of mHSPC in China

Cost-effectiveness analysis of androgen deprivation therapy with relugolix for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Relugolix treatment of advanced prostate cancer (APC), like other gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonists, results in rapid decrease in testosterone concentrations without the risk of flare, as seen in leuprolide. Despite this benefit over leuprolide, no economic evaluation assessment to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of relugolix has been conducted. Therefore, this study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with 120 mg relugolix against 7.5 mg leuprolide for the treatment of APC.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to assess and compare the costs of APC treatment from a health care payer's perspective and the effectiveness of ADT with relugolix and leuprolide at the three lines of APC treatment among modified intent-to-treat patients. Relative progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated. Outcomes measured in the analyses included costs of the drugs and therapies, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness acceptability, and probability curves.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness analysis showed the ICER for ADT with relugolix to be US $49,571.1 per QALY. At the ICER value, the sensitivity analysis indicated that ADT with leuprolide was dominant in 100% of the simulations. ADT acceptance with relugolix was 100% when a willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US $100,000/QALY. At 5-years, the relative PFS and OS rates for relugolix at the first line of therapy were 72.7% and 86.0%, respectively, compared to 61.0% and 85.90% for leuprolide.

CONCLUSION

Though the influence of adverse events was not considered in the analysis, ADT with relugolix was not a cost-effective choice for APC management. While the analysis revealed a slight chance of sustaining testosterone suppression with relugolix, ADT with relugolix provided no significant survival advantages over ADT with leuprolide. Therefore, this analysis confirms no need for further assessment of APC interventions to make informed decisions beneficial to the APC patients, oncologists, and other stakeholders.

Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

The management of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has been significantly modified by the availability of innovative but expensive treatments, increasing the economic burden of prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to systematically identify and review published economic evaluations (EEs) related to the treatment of mHSPC and assess their quality. A systematic search was performed of the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Three reviewers independently selected EEs by defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. They extracted all data from each EE (general information, study population, data about the EE, interventions and comparators, and outcomes). They also assessed the quality of the selected EEs according to Drummond's checklist. Fourteen EEs published between 2016 and 2021 were eligible for the systematic review. The EEs found ADT + docetaxel to be the most cost-effective of all available treatments as a first-line strategy for mHSPC (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide). Five EEs showed that a simple price reduction of abiraterone acetate of 50% to 75% could change the results to render this treatment also cost-effective relative to that with docetaxel. Twelve EEs were of high quality, with a Drummond score ≥ 7. Analysis of the 14 EEs identified by our systematic review, amongst which 78.6% met high quality standards, showed that ADT + docetaxel tends to be the most cost-effective alternative for mHSPC. These results were assessed by sensitivity analysis. The data provided by this systematic review help to provide a better understanding of these treatments and the better use of healthcare resources.

Survival modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

In metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment, survival benefits have been shown by adding docetaxel or recent androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs) abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the optimal treatment strategy in terms of costs and effects is unclear, not least due to high ARAT costs.

METHODS

To assess treatment cost-effectiveness, we developed a Markov cohort model with health states of progression-free disease, progressive disease and death for men with newly diagnosed mHSPC, with a 30-year time horizon. Survival data, adverse events and utilities were informed by randomized controlled trial results, our meta-analysis of re-created individual patient survival data, and publicly available sources of unit costs. We applied a Swiss healthcare payer perspective and discounted costs and effects by 3%.

RESULTS

We found a significant overall survival benefit for ADT+abiraterone versus ADT+docetaxel. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was predicted to be EUR 39,814 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide incurred higher costs and lower QALYs compared to ADT+abiraterone. For all ARATs, drug costs constituted the most substantial cost component. Results were stable except for a large univariable reduction in the pre-progression utility under ADT+abiraterone and very large variations in drug prices.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model projected ADT+abiraterone to be cost-effective compared to ADT+docetaxel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 70,400/QALY (CHF 100,000 applying purchasing power parities). Given lower estimated QALYs for ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide compared to ADT+abiraterone, the former only became cost-effective (the preferred) treatment option(s) at substantial 75-80% (80-90%) price reductions.

Adding Enzalutamide to First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic profile of adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) from the US and Chinese payers' perspectives.

Materials and Methods: A Markov model with three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, was constructed. All patients were assumed to enter the model in the PFS state and transit according to the transition structure. Efficacy data were derived from the ENZAMET trial and Weibull distribution curves were modeled to fit the survival curves. Costs in the model included cost of drugs, best-supportive care (BSC), follow-up, tests, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatments. The primary endpoint of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the impact of several key parameters on the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Overall, ICERs were $430,933.95/QALY and $225,444.74/QALY of addition of enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) vs. ADT from the US and Chinese payers' perspective, respectively. The most influential factors were the utility for the PFS state and the cost of enzalutamide. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000.00/QALY in the US and $28,988.40/QALY in China, the probability of adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment being a cost-effective option for mHSPC was 0%.

Conclusions: Based on the data from the ENZAMET trial and the current price of enzalutamide, adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment is not cost-effective for patients with mHSPC from the US and Chinse payers' perspectives.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus folfirinox in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer in china

OBJECTIVES

Nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane®) plus gemcitabine (AG) and Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have shown significant clinical benefit and been widely used as 1^st-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) in China. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of AG versus FOLFIRINOX regimen for the treatment of mPC patients in China.

METHODS

Markov model was developed with a lifetime survival projection in Microsoft Excel® to simulate the progression of the mPC over time. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resource consumption in the health care sector and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

AG regimen provided an effectiveness of 1.35 QALY at an average cost of USD 22,300 whereas FOLFIRINOX regimen brought 0.82 QALY at a cost of USD 22,980 in lifetime horizon. Therefore, AG regimen was dominant with an ICER of USD -1300 compared with FOLFIRINOX regimen. AG arm generated less drug cost, medical cost, hospitalization cost, and end-of-life cost than FOLFIRINOX arm did. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of base case findings.

CONCLUSIONS

AG is likely a cost-effective option for the 1^st-line mPC treatment compared with FOLFIRINOX in China from the perspective of healthcare system.