The utility of a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of degarelix versus leuprolide in the therapy of hormone-dependent advanced prostate cancer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7175/fe.v14i3.700Keywords:
Prostate carcinoma, Modeling, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Degarelix, Leuprolide, Androgen deprivation therapyAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is a very common tumor among men: in Italy its prevalence in 2006 was 0.9%. Androgen deprivation therapy is a way to treat hormone-responsive PC by decreasing testosterone levels. GnRH-analogues, including GnRH-agonists and GnRH-antagonists, are effective for this purpose. AIM: This article presents a cost-effectiveness analysis based on a semi-Markov model comparing the GnRH-antagonist degarelix and GnRH-agonist leuprolide in the treatment of hormone-dependent advanced prostate cancer from the perspective of the Regional Health Service in Veneto Region (Italy).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Effectiveness data were retrieved by a 12-month phase III non-inferiority clinical trial, comparing degarelix and 7,5 mg leuprolide in 610 patients treated for hormone-dependent prostate cancer. Epidemiological data came from a national database and were referred to Veneto Region. The values of the healthcare resources were calculated using regional and national prices (€ 2012). The model considers 3 exhaustive and mutually exclusive health status: first-line treatment, further-lines treatment and death. It lasts 10 years, with 28 days per cycle. The entry in the model is hypothesized at the age of 70 (the age with most PCs in Veneto Region). Effectiveness endpoints were life years saved and quality-adjusted life years, using 3% social discount rate. The incremental cost per QALY was related to the range of acceptability proposed by the Associazione Italiana di Economia Sanitaria (€ 25,000-40,000). The budget impact was calculated on a 5-year time horizon. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed on every hypothesis of the model.
RESULTS: Degarelix resulted in minor costs if compared to 7.5 mg leuprolide (€ 20,511.64 vs 22,256.49). The cost-driver was chemotherapic care (32.45% degarelix vs 44.30% 7.5 mg leuprolide). Life years saved were the same for both the alternatives (5.58), while QALYs obtained were higher in degarelix vs. 7.5 mg leuprolide (4.41 vs. 4.10). QALY better data probably could results from greater delay to disease progression in castrate resistant phase with degarelix than comparator and also due to superior symptoms relief. Therefore degarelix is dominant compared to the agonist. The probability for degarelix to be cost-effective increases with the increasing of the threshold for incremental QALY, being 69.95%, 93.76%, 95.55%, and 97.42% for threshold values equal to € 0, € 25,000, € 40,000, and € 100,000, respectively. The use of degarelix in Veneto Region instead of 7.5 mg leuprolide would result, after a five-year period, in total savings for the Regional Health Service equal to € 4,783, considering the treatment of 259 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of hormone-dependent advanced prostate cancer PC, degarelix is thought to be an economically rational investment of resources for the Regional Health Service of Veneto Region because it’s dominant, in term of cost-effectiveness, to the comparator (agonist) thanks to superior QALY and reduced costs.
References
Tornøe CW, Agersø1 H, Senderovitz T, et al. Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modelling of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis following treatment with GnRH analogues. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63: 648-64; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02820.x
Carteni G, Pappagallo G. Carcinoma della prostata resistente alla castrazione in Italia: un unmet medical need in via di risoluzione? Italian Journal of Public Health 2011; 8 (Suppl. 4): S3-S8
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC (Eds). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
Drummond MF, Schulper MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
EMEA/H/C/986. Relazione pubblica di valutazione europea (EPAR). Firmagon. Sintesi destinata al pubblico. Disponibile all’indirizzo http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/it_IT/document_library/EPAR_-_Summary_for_the_public/human/000986/WC500023254.pdf (ultimo accesso marzo 2013)
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology, 2013
Doehn C, Sommerauer M, Jocham D. Degarelix and its therapeutic potential in the treatment of prostate cancer. Clin Interv Aging 2009; 4: 215-23; http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S3503
Klotz L, Boccon-Gibod L, Shore ND, et al. The efficacy and safety of degarelix: a 12-month, comparative, randomized, open-label, parallel-group phase III study in patients with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008; 102: 1531-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08183.x
Drudge-Coates L. GnRH blockers: a changing paradigm in the management of prostate cancer, Int J Urol Nurs 2009; 3: 85-92; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-771X.2009.01081.x
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer, 2013
AIOM. Linee guida carcinoma della prostata, 2013
Perez-Marrero R, Tyler RC. A subcutaneous delivery system for the extended release of leuprolide acetate for the treatment of prostate cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2004; 5: 447-57; http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/14656566.5.2.447
Seidenfield J, Samson DJ, Aronson N, et al. Relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods of androgen suppression in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Evid Rep Technol Assess 1999: i–x, 1-246
Seidenfield J, Samson DJ, Hasselblad V, et al. Single-therapy androgen suppression in men with advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 566-77; http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-132-7-200004040-00009
Akaza H. Leuprorelin acetate depot: Results of a multicentre Japanese trial. J Int Med Res 1990; 18 Suppl 1: 90-102
Akaza H. Long-term clinical study on luteinising hormone-releasing hormone against depot formulation in the treatment of stage D prostatic cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1992; 22: 177-84
Bischoff W. 3.75 and 7.5 mg leuprorelin acetate depot in the treatment of advanced prostatic cancer: preliminary report. J Int Med Res 1990; 18 Suppl 1: 103-13
Mazzei T, Mini E, Eandi M, et al. Pharmacokinetics, endocrine and antitumour effects of leuprolide depot (TAP-144-SR) in advanced prostatic cancer: a dose-response evaluation. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1989; 15: 373-87
Mazzei T, Mini E, Rizzo M, et al. Human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of leuprorelin acetate depot in prostatic cancer patients. J Int Med Res 1990; 18(Suppl1): 42-56
O’ Brien A, Hibberd M. Clinical efficacy and safety of a new leuprorelin acetate depot formulation in patients with advanced prostatic cancer. J Int Med Res 1990: 57-68
Rizzo M, Mazzei T, Mini E, et al. Leuprorelin acetate depot in advanced prostatic cancer: a phase II multicentre trial. J Int Med Res 1990; 18(Suppl1): 114-25
Debruyne FM, Dijkman GA, Lee DC, et al. A new long acting formulation of the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue goserelin: results of studies in prostate cancer. J Urology 1996; 155: 1352-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66264-5
Dijkman GA, Debruyne FM, Fernandez del Moral P, et al. A randomised trial comparing the safety and efficacy of the Zoladex 10.8-mg depot, administered every 12 weeks, to that of the Zoladex 3.6-mg depot, administered every 4 weeks, in patients with advanced prostate cancer. The Dutch South East Cooperative Urological Group. Eur Urol 1995; 27: 43-6
Fernandez del Moral P, Dijkman GA, Debruyne FM, et al. Three-month depot of goserelin acetate: clinical efficacy and endocrine profile. Dutch South East Cooperative Urological Group. Urology 1996; 48: 894-900; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00300-7
Fujii Y, Yonese J, Kawakami S, et al. Equivalent and sufficient effects of leuprolide acetate and goserelin acetate to suppress serum testosterone levels in patients with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008; 101: 1096-100; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07374.x
Sharifi R, Browneller R. Serum testosterone suppression and potential for agonistic stimulation during chronic treatment with monthly and 3-month depot formulations of leuprolide acetate for advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 2002; 168: 1001-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64560-0
Tunn UW, Bargelloni U, Cosciani S, et al. Comparison of LH-RH analogue 1-month depot and 3-month depot by their hormone levels and pharmacokinetic profile in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Urol Int 1998; 60(Suppl1): 9-16; http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000056540
Wechsel HW, Zerbib M, Pagano F, et al. Randomized open labelled comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of leuprorelin acetate 1M and 3M depot in patients with advanced prostatic cancer. Eur Urol 1996; 30(Suppl1): 7-14
Zinner NR, Bidair M, Centeno A, et al. Similar frequency of testosterone surge after repeat injections of goserelin (Zoladex) 3.6 mg and 10.8 mg: results of a randomized open-label trial. Urology 2004; 64: 1177-81; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.07.033
Curto A, Lo Muto R, Casadei G. Health Technology Assessment a livello regionale: fra mito e realtà. Quaderni di Farmacoeconomia 2012; 17: 22-32
Bayoumi AM, Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of androgen suppression therapies in advanced prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1731-9; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.21.1731
Hollingworth W, Gray DT, Martin BI, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing cancer-related low back pain. A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 303-12
Ekman M, Johnell O, Lidgren L. The economic cost of low back pain in Sweden in 2001. Acta Orthopaedica 2005; 76: 275-84; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016470510030698
Fattore G. Proposta di linee guida per la valutazione economica degli interventi sanitari in Italia. PharmacoEconomics Italian Research Articles 2009; 11: 83-93
Zambon P. Tumori in età>70 anni: dati dal Registro Tumori del Veneto. Padova, 6 ottobre 2011. Disponibile su: http://www.registrotumoriveneto.it [Ultimo accesso Giugno 2012]
Registro Tumori del Veneto. I tumori per fasce di età. Disponibile su: http://www.registrotumoriveneto.it [Ultimo accesso Giugno 2012]
Tombal B, Miller K, Boccon-Gibod L, et al. Additional analysis of the secondary end point of biochemical recurrence rate in a phase 3 trial (CS21) comparing degarelix 80 mg versus leuprolide in prostate cancer patients segmented by baseline characteristics. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 836-42; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.029
Pintilie M. Competing risks. A practical perspective. Chichester: Wiley, 2006; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470870709
ISTAT – Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. Demo-Geodemo. Mappe, Popolazione, Statistiche Demografiche dell’ISTAT. Disponibile su: www.demoistat.it [Ultimo accesso Giugno 2012]
ISS. Centro Nazionale di Epidemiologia, Sorveglianza e Promozione della Salute – Reparto di Epidemiologia dei tumori. Disponibili su: http://www.tumori.net/it3/banca_dati/query.php [Ultimo accesso Giugno 2012]
Guest JF, Ruiz FJ, Greener MJ, et al. Palliative care treatment patterns and associated costs of healthcare resource use for specific advanced cancer patients in the UK. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2006; 15: 65-73; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2005.00623.x
Regione del Veneto. Decreto della Giunta Regionale n. 1 del 11 Gennaio 2012. Gara d’appalto telematica a mezzo procedura aperta per la fornitura di medicinali (prodotti farmaceutici) in fabbisogno alle Aziende Sanitarie della Regione Veneto. Aggiudicazione definitiva. Regione del Veneto: Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Veneto, 2012
IPASVI – Federazione Nazionale Collegi Infermieri professionali, Assistenti sanitari, Vigilatrici d’infanzia. Nomenclatore Tariffario Nazionale 2002. Roma: Consiglio nazionale della Federazione dei Collegi Ipasvi, Marzo 2002
Presidente della Repubblica. Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 28 luglio 2000, n. 270. Regolamento di esecuzione dell’accordo collettivo nazionale per la disciplina dei rapporti con i medici di medicina generale. Supplemento ordinario N. 165/L alla Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 230 del 2 Ottobre 2000, Serie Generale. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato
Regione del Veneto. Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 859 del 21 Giugno 2011. Aggiornamento del Nomenclatore Tariffario Regionale delle prestazioni di specialistica ambulatoriale e utilizzo di diverso regime erogativo. Supplemento ordinario alla Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 216 del 14 Settembre 1996, Serie generale. Regione del Veneto: Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Veneto, 2011
Regione del Veneto. Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 916 del 28 Marzo 2006. Tariffario per la remunerazione delle prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera secondo la versione 19° del Grouper, in vigore dal 1.1.2006. Regione del Veneto: Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Veneto, 2006
Regione del Veneto. Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 204 del 3 febbraio 2009. Aggiornamento del tariffario per la remunerazione delle prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera a seguito dell’adozione della versione italiana 2007 dell’International Classification of Disease 9th edition – Clinical Modification (ICD9CM) e della 24° versione del sistema di classificazione dei Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG). Parziale modifica dell’allegato A della DGR n.916 del 28 Marzo 2006. Regione del Veneto: Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Veneto, 2009
IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics (dati forniti all’azienda Ferring S.p.A.)
Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Technology Assessment 1999; 3: 1-134
Lazzaro C per il GISESCaPI. Managing patients with prostate cancer in Italy during the first year after diagnosis. A cost description based on a sample of 8 urological wards. Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia 2003; 75: 138-49
Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care. Merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 172-214
Stamatiou KN. Elderly and prostate cancer screening. Urol J 2011; 8: 83-7
Jönsson B. Changing health environment: the challenge to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of new compounds. PharmacoEconomics 2004; 22 (Suppl. 4): S5-S10; http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422004-00003
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. The Publication Agreement can be downloaded here, and should be signed by the Authors and sent to the Publisher when the article has been accepted for publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
- Authors are permitted to post their work online after publication (the article must link to publisher version, in html format)
