Leslie Wilson1, Jun Tang2, Lixian Zhong2, Gregory Balani2, Gregory Gipson2, Pin Xiang2, Dawn Yu2, Sandy Srinivas3. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA WilsonL@pharmacy.ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abiraterone, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide compared to placebo for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision-tree model compared three treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients over 18 months from a societal perspective in 2012 USD. Chance nodes included baseline pain as a severity indicator, significant adverse effects (neutropenia, cardiac events, or seizures), and survival. Probabilities, survival rates, and health utilities were from clinical trials (COU-AA, TROPIC, and AFFIRM) and other published studies. Survival of enzalutamide was adjusted to match placebo groups across trials. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses, acceptability curves and net benefit calculations were performed. RESULTS: Abiraterone was the most cost-effective of the treatments ($123.4 K/quality-adjusted life year) compared to placebo, enzalutamide was $437.6 K/quality-adjusted life year compared to abiraterone, and cabazitaxel was $351.9 K/quality-adjusted life year compared to enzalutamide. Enzalutamide and cabazitaxel were not cost-effective compared to placebo at $154.3 K/quality-adjusted life year and $163.2 K/quality-adjusted life year, respectively. Acceptability curves showed abiraterone was cost-effective 29.3% of the time with a willingness to pay threshold of $100 K. The model was sensitive to changes in cost of the drugs, life expectancy, and survival rate. Sensitivity analysis shows that enzalutamide can become the most cost-effective option if the price of the medication decreased by 26% and other drug costs remained the same. CONCLUSION: Based on the cost-effective analysis, and survival adjustments necessary to match placebo groups, we would recommend abiraterone for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer despite not quite falling under the usually accepted willingness to pay threshold. Further analysis should examine comparative survival across the three drugs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abiraterone, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide compared to placebo for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision-tree model compared three treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancerpatients over 18 months from a societal perspective in 2012 USD. Chance nodes included baseline pain as a severity indicator, significant adverse effects (neutropenia, cardiac events, or seizures), and survival. Probabilities, survival rates, and health utilities were from clinical trials (COU-AA, TROPIC, and AFFIRM) and other published studies. Survival of enzalutamide was adjusted to match placebo groups across trials. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses, acceptability curves and net benefit calculations were performed. RESULTS:Abiraterone was the most cost-effective of the treatments ($123.4 K/quality-adjusted life year) compared to placebo, enzalutamide was $437.6 K/quality-adjusted life year compared to abiraterone, and cabazitaxel was $351.9 K/quality-adjusted life year compared to enzalutamide. Enzalutamide and cabazitaxel were not cost-effective compared to placebo at $154.3 K/quality-adjusted life year and $163.2 K/quality-adjusted life year, respectively. Acceptability curves showed abiraterone was cost-effective 29.3% of the time with a willingness to pay threshold of $100 K. The model was sensitive to changes in cost of the drugs, life expectancy, and survival rate. Sensitivity analysis shows that enzalutamide can become the most cost-effective option if the price of the medication decreased by 26% and other drug costs remained the same. CONCLUSION: Based on the cost-effective analysis, and survival adjustments necessary to match placebo groups, we would recommend abiraterone for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer despite not quite falling under the usually accepted willingness to pay threshold. Further analysis should examine comparative survival across the three drugs.
Authors: Chengfei Liu; Cameron M Armstrong; Wei Lou; Alan P Lombard; Vito Cucchiara; Xinwei Gu; Joy C Yang; Nagalakshmi Nadiminty; Chong-Xian Pan; Christopher P Evans; Allen C Gao Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Alicia K Morgans; Thomas Hutson; Alice Kai Dan Guan; David Garcia; Anna Zhou; Edward Drea; Nicholas J Vogelzang Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Lorie A Ellis; Marie-Hélène Lafeuille; Laurence Gozalo; Dominic Pilon; Patrick Lefebvre; Scott McKenzie Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2015-06
Authors: Thomas Grochtdreis; Hans-Helmut König; Alexander Dobruschkin; Gunhild von Amsberg; Judith Dams Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 3.240