Cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide versus apalutamide versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in Canada
- Additional Document Info
- View All
AimsThere are no direct comparisons of the relative cost-effectiveness of second-generation anti-androgens (enzalutamide and apalutamide) used in managing metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) in Canada. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide versus apalutamide versus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone (standard of care) in patients with mCSPC from the Canadian public payer perspective using a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon.
Materials and methodsEfficacy data for enzalutamide and ADT alone were informed by the ARCHES and ENZAMET clinical trials, while a Bayesian network meta-analysis enabled comparison with apalutamide and ADT alone.
ResultsOver the 15-year period, enzalutamide achieved the highest number of life-years (LY, 7.6) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY, 5.62) compared with apalutamide (LY, 6.1; QALY, 4.59) and ADTs (LY, 4.9; QALY, 3.61). Enzalutamide incurred the most costs ($349,345) compared with apalutamide ($294,349) and ADT ($162,550). Sequential analysis showed that enzalutamide lies on the cost-effectiveness frontier with ADT alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $92,868/QALY), with apalutamide extendedly dominated through enzalutamide and ADT alone.
LimitationsLimitations include the heterogeneity of the studies included in the network meta-analysis and the validations for the treatment sequencing assumptions in the modeling.
ConclusionsEnzalutamide was the most effective treatment option for mCSPC in the Canadian market, with the greatest LYs and QALYs, and incurred the most costs.
has subject area