Ambica Parmar1,2, Narhari Timilshina2,3, Urban Emmenegger1,4, Martin Smoragiewicz1, Beate Sander2,3,5,6, Shabbir Alibhai2,7, Kelvin K W Chan1,3,8. 1. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Ontario Health, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto Health Economic and Technology Assessment Collaboration, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Public Health Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Canadian Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Earlier application of oral androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has established improvements in overall survival, as compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Recently, the use of apalutamide plus ADT has demonstrated improvement in mCSPC-related mortality vs. ADT alone, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, the cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic option remains unknown. METHODS: We used a state-transition model with probabilistic analysis to compare apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, for mCSPC patients over a time horizon of 20 years. Primary outcomes included expected life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), lifetime cost (2020 Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Parameter and model uncertainties were assessed through scenario analyses. Health outcomes and cost were discounted at 1.5%, as per Canadian guidelines. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, expected LY for ADT and apalutamide plus ADT were 4.11 and 5.56, respectively (incremental LY 1.45). Expected QALYs were 3.51 for ADT and 4.84 for apalutamide plus ADT (incremental QALYs 1.33); expected lifetime cost was $36 582 and $255 633, respectively (incremental cost $219 051). ICER for apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, was $164 700/QALY. Through scenario analysis, price reductions ≥50% were required for apalutamide in combination with ADT to be considered cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Apalutamide plus ADT is unlikely to be cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare perspective unless there are substantial reductions in the price of apalutamide treatment.
INTRODUCTION: Earlier application of oral androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has established improvements in overall survival, as compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Recently, the use of apalutamide plus ADT has demonstrated improvement in mCSPC-related mortality vs. ADT alone, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, the cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic option remains unknown. METHODS: We used a state-transition model with probabilistic analysis to compare apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, for mCSPC patients over a time horizon of 20 years. Primary outcomes included expected life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), lifetime cost (2020 Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Parameter and model uncertainties were assessed through scenario analyses. Health outcomes and cost were discounted at 1.5%, as per Canadian guidelines. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, expected LY for ADT and apalutamide plus ADT were 4.11 and 5.56, respectively (incremental LY 1.45). Expected QALYs were 3.51 for ADT and 4.84 for apalutamide plus ADT (incremental QALYs 1.33); expected lifetime cost was $36 582 and $255 633, respectively (incremental cost $219 051). ICER for apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, was $164 700/QALY. Through scenario analysis, price reductions ≥50% were required for apalutamide in combination with ADT to be considered cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Apalutamide plus ADT is unlikely to be cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare perspective unless there are substantial reductions in the price of apalutamide treatment.
Authors: Kim N Chi; Neeraj Agarwal; Anders Bjartell; Byung Ha Chung; Andrea J Pereira de Santana Gomes; Robert Given; Álvaro Juárez Soto; Axel S Merseburger; Mustafa Özgüroğlu; Hirotsugu Uemura; Dingwei Ye; Kris Deprince; Vahid Naini; Jinhui Li; Shinta Cheng; Margaret K Yu; Ke Zhang; Julie S Larsen; Sharon McCarthy; Simon Chowdhury Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kim N Chi; Andrew Protheroe; Alfredo Rodríguez-Antolín; Gaetano Facchini; Henrik Suttman; Nobuaki Matsubara; Zhangqun Ye; Bhumsuk Keam; Ronaldo Damião; Tracy Li; Kelly McQuarrie; Bin Jia; Peter De Porre; Jason Martin; Mary B Todd; Karim Fizazi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nicholas D James; Johann S de Bono; Melissa R Spears; Noel W Clarke; Malcolm D Mason; David P Dearnaley; Alastair W S Ritchie; Claire L Amos; Clare Gilson; Rob J Jones; David Matheson; Robin Millman; Gerhardt Attard; Simon Chowdhury; William R Cross; Silke Gillessen; Christopher C Parker; J Martin Russell; Dominik R Berthold; Chris Brawley; Fawzi Adab; San Aung; Alison J Birtle; Jo Bowen; Susannah Brock; Prabir Chakraborti; Catherine Ferguson; Joanna Gale; Emma Gray; Mohan Hingorani; Peter J Hoskin; Jason F Lester; Zafar I Malik; Fiona McKinna; Neil McPhail; Julian Money-Kyrle; Joe O'Sullivan; Omi Parikh; Andrew Protheroe; Angus Robinson; Narayanan N Srihari; Carys Thomas; John Wagstaff; James Wylie; Anjali Zarkar; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher J Sweeney; Yu-Hui Chen; Michael Carducci; Glenn Liu; David F Jarrard; Mario Eisenberger; Yu-Ning Wong; Noah Hahn; Manish Kohli; Matthew M Cooney; Robert Dreicer; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Joel Picus; Daniel Shevrin; Maha Hussain; Jorge A Garcia; Robert S DiPaola Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jean-Michel Lavoie; Kevin Zou; Daniel Khalaf; Bernhard J Eigl; Christian K Kollmannsberger; Joanna Vergidis; Krista Noonan; Muhammad Zulfiqar; Daygen Finch; Kim N Chi Journal: Prostate Date: 2018-10-28 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Pedro Nazareth Aguiar; Pui San Tan; Sarah Simko; Carmelia Maria Noia Barreto; Bárbara de Souza Gutierres; Auro Del Giglio; Gilberto de Lima Lopes Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2019-03-07