RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel significantly improves clinical outcomes compared with a second androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel and an ARTA (abiraterone or enzalutamide), as demonstrated in the CARD trial (NCT02485691). We aimed to estimate healthcare costs avoided with the use of cabazitaxel as a third-line (3 L) treatment versus a second ARTA from a US payer perspective. METHODS: Model inputs were based on the CARD trial, published sources, and estimates of typical clinical care patterns by genitourinary oncologists (n = 3). Assessed time points were 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), and overall survival (OS); hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and costs (reported in 2020 US dollar [USD] and converted into Euro) to manage symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs), adverse events (AEs), and end-of-life care. RESULTS: At 18 months, in a cohort of 100 patients, the use of cabazitaxel was estimated to result in 9 more patients achieving rPFS, 2 more patients achieving PFS, and 17 more survivors versus a second ARTA. The costs of SSEs, AEs, and end-of-life care were $498,909 (424,073), $276,198 (234,768), and $808,785 (687,468), respectively, for cabazitaxel and $627,569 (533,434), $251,124 (213,455), and $1,028,294 (874,050), respectively, for a second ARTA. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be associated with a 21% reduction in both SSE management and end-of-life care costs. Hospitalization cost was $1,442,870 (1,226,440) for cabazitaxel and $1,728,394 (1,469,135) for a second ARTA, representing an estimated 17% reduction in these costs. Cabazitaxel, as compared with a second ARTA, was associated with 58 fewer hospitalization days and 2 fewer ICU days and was estimated to avoid $323,095 (274,630, 17%) in total costs, driven by SSEs management and end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: The use of cabazitaxel as a 3 L treatment after docetaxel and an ARTA in patients with mCRPC is estimated to result in clinical benefits (longer rPFS, PFS, and OS) and lower healthcare resource utilization (fewer hospitalization and ICU days), compared with a second ARTA.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Docetaxel/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologia , Receptores Androgênicos/uso terapêutico , Taxoides , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados UnidosRESUMO
PURPOSE: The stem cell mobilization agent plerixafor significantly improves CD34+ stem cell procurement in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplant. We compared mobilization success rates and costs of two regimens of plerixafor administration: pre-emptive (P-PL, initiated the evening prior to the first day of stem cell collection) and standard (S-PL, initiated the evening prior to the second day of stem cell collection in the event of inadequate collection on the first day). METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma undergoing mobilization were categorized as either P-PL or S-PL. Stem cell collection success was evaluated using logistic regression models. Associated costs were aggregated in terms of average collections per patient in each mobilization option (patient level), and escalated to a panel of 5000 patients (population level). RESULTS: 299 patients were evaluable; 241 received P-PL and 58 received S-PL. Patients receiving P-PL had higher median CD34+ count pre-collection and higher median total CD34+ cell harvest on the first collection (6.75 × 106/kg for P-PL, 1.96 × 106/kg for S-PL; P<0.01). In multivariable analyses, P-PL remained significantly associated with the ability to collect ≥2 × 106/kg CD34+ on the first day (OR = 4.05, 95% CI, 1.19-13.83, P = 0.03) and ≥5 × 106/kg CD34+ in total (OR = 3.09, 95% CI, 1.04-9.23, P = 0.04). P-PL saved $11,248 (46%) per patient compared with S-PL. CONCLUSION: P-PL significantly enhanced collection efficiency, with most patients completing collection in 1 day, resulting in substantial cost savings.