Clarke, Caroline;
Brawley, Christopher B;
Ingleby, Fiona C;
Gabrio, Andrea;
Dearnaley, David P;
Matheson, David;
Attard, Gert;
... James, Nicholas D; + view all
(2020)
Addition of abiraterone to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): Model to estimate long-term survival, quality-adjusted survival, and cost-effectiveness.
Presented at: 2020 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Preview |
Text
2020 02 05b CLARKE Stampede Abi CEA poster FINAL.pdf - Submitted Version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Results from randomised trials show adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) to standard of care (SOC) improves disease-free and overall survival in men with prostate cancer (PC) starting long-term hormone therapy for first time. Formal assessment is required of whether funding AAP here shows appropriate use of resources. This cost-effectiveness decision model tests if giving AAP to these patients is cost-effective using costs from English National Health Service, the largest nation where STAMPEDE recruited. / Methods: Health outcomes and costs were modelled using patient data from AAP comparison of STAMPEDE (recruitment 2011-14). This included 1917 men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting 1st-line hormone therapy. SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 years with radiotherapy in pre-selected patients. If allocated to research group, AAP (AA 1000mg/day, P 5mg/day) was added to SOC. The model makes lifetime predictions of survival, costs and quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), with costs and QALYs discounted at 3.5% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed. / Results: The model predicted AAP would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 2.68y (1.46 QALYs) for metastatic patients and 0.30y (0.29 QALYs) for non-metastatic. The cost of AAP means it is not currently cost-effective in this setting, including with Patient Access Scheme costs for AAP and enzalutamide and similar reductions for cabazitaxel and Ra. If AAP’s price reduces after patent expiry as expected (90% reduction on BNF cost), it would be cost-effective in both patient groups, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below £10,000 (US$12,665) per QALY. AAP could also dominate in non-metastatic patients (i.e. lower costs and higher QALYs than SOC alone). / Conclusions: AAP could be cost-effective for patients with non-metastatic and metastatic disease with expected future pricing and may be cost-saving in the former. Policymakers should encourage license submissions and generic price reductions to facilitate use of AAP given cost-saving potential in addition to improving survival. / Clinical trial information: NCT00268476.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
