Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Surgery, Urology Unit and Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Drug Policy Program, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics, CONACyT, Aguascalientes, Mexico.
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Nov;2(6):649-655. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.01.004. Epub 2019 Jan 30.
Following the recent publication of results from randomized trials that have demonstrated a survival benefit for the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone acetate to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, it is important to assess whether the benefits of treatment with these agents outweigh their costs.
To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate docetaxel or abiraterone acetate treatment in addition to ADT in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PC).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed a state-transition model to simulate the natural progression of metastatic PC. Model parameters were derived from the published literature and through calibration to observed epidemiological data. Following diagnosis, a hypothetical cohort of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC could be treated with docetaxel+ADT, abiraterone+ADT, or ADT alone. Once disease progresses to castration-resistant PC, treatment with one of the approved therapies in this setting was initiated.
The outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from a US private payer, health sector perspective.
Compared to treatment with ADT alone, docetaxel and abiraterone resulted in a discounted quality-adjusted survival gain of 3.6 and 22.0mo, respectively. Using standard cost-effectiveness metrics, treatment with docetaxel and ADT provides high value for money (ie, is cost effective) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $34723, compared to an ICER of $295212 for abiraterone. The monthly cost of abiraterone would have to be less than $3114 for it to be cost effective.
Docetaxel+ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment option for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC. Although potentially more effective than docetaxel, the costs of abiraterone would have to be considerably lower to match the cost effectiveness of docetaxel+ADT.
This study evaluated the balance of costs and benefits for treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), abiraterone plus ADT, or ADT alone. We found that treatment with docetaxel plus ADT likely represents the most cost-effective option in this setting.
最近发表的随机试验结果表明,在转移性前列腺癌的治疗中,加入多西他赛或阿比特龙可延长生存时间,因此有必要评估这些药物治疗的益处是否超过其成本。
评估在转移性激素敏感型前列腺癌(PC)患者中,立即给予多西他赛或阿比特龙联合 ADT 治疗的成本效益。
设计、地点和参与者:我们开发了一个状态转移模型来模拟转移性 PC 的自然进展。模型参数来自已发表的文献,并通过与观察到的流行病学数据进行校准而得出。诊断后,一组假设的转移性激素敏感型 PC 男性患者可以接受多西他赛+ADT、阿比特龙+ADT 或 ADT 单独治疗。一旦疾病进展为去势抵抗性 PC,就开始使用该治疗方案中的一种批准药物进行治疗。
从美国私人支付者和卫生部门的角度出发,测量了质量调整生命年(QALYs)和成本。
与 ADT 单独治疗相比,多西他赛和阿比特龙分别使生存质量调整时间延长了 3.6 个月和 22.0 个月。使用标准的成本效益衡量标准,多西他赛联合 ADT 治疗具有高性价比(即具有成本效益),增量成本效益比(ICER)为 34723 美元,而阿比特龙的 ICER 为 295212 美元。如果阿比特龙的月费用低于 3114 美元,那么它就具有成本效益。
多西他赛+ADT 可能是转移性激素敏感型 PC 男性最具成本效益的治疗选择。尽管阿比特龙可能比多西他赛更有效,但它的成本必须低得多,才能与多西他赛+ADT 的成本效益相匹配。
本研究评估了转移性激素敏感型前列腺癌采用多西他赛联合雄激素剥夺治疗(ADT)、阿比特龙联合 ADT 或 ADT 单独治疗的成本效益平衡。我们发现,在这种情况下,多西他赛联合 ADT 治疗可能是最具成本效益的选择。