Decision analysis of dutasteride use for patients with negative prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the additional benefits of improved prostate cancer detection associated with 5α-reductase inhibitors are sufficient to warrant chemoprevention in the case where the degree of prostate cancer risk reduction is deemed inadequate. METHODS: We reanalyzed data from REDUCE, a randomized trial of dutasteride for prostate cancer chemoprevention in men with prior negative biopsy. We evaluated whether statistical models using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA velocity could help predict the result of repeat prostate biopsy separately for dutasteride and placebo groups. Area under the curve was evaluated by 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: PSA velocity improved discrimination at 4 years in the dutasteride group but not at 2 years nor in the placebo group. At 2 years, dutasteride improved discrimination of PSA slightly (0.616 vs. 0.603 for any grade cancer; 0.681 vs. 0.676 for high-grade disease). Between-group differences in cancer rates at 4 years were small. CONCLUSION: Clinicians who are willing to treat at least 23 patients with dutasteride for 2 years to avoid 1 prostate cancer diagnosis should offer dutasteride after initial negative biopsy. Clinicians not willing to do so might consider dutasteride for its additional benefit of reducing unnecessary biopsy, although this benefit is apparent only under very restrictive conditions. It is difficult to justify extending treatment with dutasteride for >2 years.

Dutasteride plus tamsulosin fixed-dose combination first-line therapy versus tamsulosin monotherapy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a budget impact analysis in the Greek healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the budget impact of dutasteride plus tamsulosin fixed-dose combination (DUT + TAM FDC) versus tamsulosin monotherapy, in the treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from the perspective of the Greek healthcare insurance system. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting DUT + TAM FDC within the Greek healthcare setting. The model, compared six mutually exclusive health states in two alternative treatment options: current standard of care and the introduction of DUT + TAM FDC in the market. The model used clinical inputs from the CombAT study; data on resource use associated with the management of BPH in Greece were derived from expert panel, and unit cost data were derived from official reimbursement tariffs. A payer perspective was taken into account. As patient distribution data between public and private sectors are not available in Greece two scenarios were investigated, considering the whole eligible population in each scenario. A 4 year time horizon was taken into account and included treatment costs, number of transurethral resections of the prostate (TURPs) and acute urinary retention (AUR) episodes avoided. RESULTS: The clinical benefit from the market adoption of DUT + TAM FDC in Greece was 1,758 TURPs and 972 episodes of AUR avoided cumulatively in a four year period. The increase in total costs from the gradual introduction of DUT + TAM FDC to the Greek healthcare system ranges from €1.3 million in the first year to €5.8 million in the fourth year, for the public sector, and €1.2 million to €4.0 million, for the private sector. This represents an increase of 1.91% to 7.94% for the public sector and 1.10% 3.29% in the private sector, during the 4-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Budget impact analysis (BIA) results indicated that the gradual introduction of DUT + TAM FDC, would increase the overall budget of the disease, however providing better clinical outcomes. DUT + TAM FDC drug acquisition cost is partly offset by the reduction in the costs associated with the treatment of the disease.

The efficacy and safety of 5α-reductase inhibitors in androgenetic alopecia: a network meta-analysis and benefit-risk assessment of finasteride and dutasteride.

INTRODUCTION: In the light of post-marketing reports of persistent sexual dysfunction with the use of finasteride, analysis of the extent of risk associated with 5α-reductase inhibitor treatment for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is warranted. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of 5α-reductase inhibitors using the outcomes hair count, global photographic assessment and patient self-assessment and evaluate the benefits of treatment versus the risk of global sexual dysfunction. METHODS: A systematic review identified all relevant randomized controlled trials of finasteride 1 mg, 5 mg and dutasteride 0.5 mg. The efficacy outcome hair count was analyzed using pair-wise meta-analysis, while the efficacy outcomes global photographic assessment and patient self-assessment as well as the safety outcome global sexual dysfunction were analyzed through network meta-analyses. A benefit-risk assessment was also performed. RESULTS: The active interventions were not significantly different than each other in efficacy and were not significantly different from placebo in eliciting sexual dysfunction. Benefit-risk analysis resulted in an arbitrary ranking due to the lack of statistically significant difference between active treatments. DISCUSSION: Analysis results reiterate the efficacy and safety of 5α-reductase inhibitors for the treatment of AGA and may support the approval of dutasteride 0.5 mg as an additional treatment option, following further study.

Cost-effectiveness of single-dose tamsulosin and dutasteride combination therapy compared with tamsulosin monotherapy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of single-dose dutasteride/tamsulosin combination therapy as a first-line treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov state transition model was developed to estimate healthcare costs and patient outcomes, measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for patients aged ≥50 years with diagnosed BPH and moderate to severe symptoms. Costs and outcomes were estimated for two treatment comparators: oral, daily, single-dose combination therapy (dutasteride 0.5 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg), and oral daily tamsulosin (0.4 mg) over a period up to 25 years. The efficacy of comparators was taken from results of the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin (CombAT) trial. RESULTS: Cumulative discounted costs per patient were higher with combination therapy than with tamsulosin, but QALYs were also higher. After 25 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for combination therapy was £12,219, well within the threshold range (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY) typically applied in the NHS. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of combination therapy being cost-effective given the threshold range is between 78% and 88%. CONCLUSION: Single-dose combination dutasteride/tamsulosin therapy has a high probability of being cost-effective in comparison to tamsulosin monotherapy in the UK's NHS.

Clinical effects and economical impact of dutasteride and finasteride therapy in Italian men with LUTS.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences in the risk of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)- related hospitalization, for surgical and non-surgical reasons, and of new prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis between patients under dutasteride or finasteride treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from record-linkage of administrative databases. Men aged ≥ 40 years old who had received a prescription for at least 10 boxes/year (index years: 2004-06) were included. The association of the outcomes was assessed using a multiple Cox proportional hazard model. Propensity score matched analysis and a 5-to-1, greedy 1:1 matching algorithm were performed. The budget impact analysis of dutasteride vs finasteride in BPH-treated patient was performed. RESULTS: From an initial cohort of about 1.5 million of Italian men, 19620 were selected. The overall hospitalization for BPH-non surgical reasons, for BPH-related surgery and for new detection of PCa incidence rates (IRs) were 8.20 (95% CI, 7.62-8.23), 18.0 (95% CI, 17.12-18.93) and 8.62 (95% CI, 8.03-9.26) per 1000 person-years, respectively. The multivariate analysis after the propensity score-matching showed that dutasteride was associated with an independent reduced likelihood of hospitalization for BPH-related surgery (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.93; p = 0.0025) and of newly detected PCa (HR: 0.76,95% CI, 0.65-0.85; p = 0.0116). The IR for BPH-non surgical reasons was 8.07 (95% CI, 7.10-9.17) and 9.25 (95% CI, 8.19-10.44) per 1000 person-years, respectively. The IR for BPH-related surgery was 18.28 (95% CI, 17.17-20.32) and 21.28 (95% CI, 19.24-23.06) per 1000 person-years among patients under dutasteride compared with those under finasteride, respectively. For new-onset PCa, the IR was 8.01 (95% CI, 7.07-9.08) and 9.38 (95% CI, 8.32-10.58) per 1000 person-years The pharmacoeconomical evaluation showed that the net budget impact of the use of dutasteride vs. finasteride in 1000 BPH-treated patient for 1 year induces a saving of 3933 €. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effects of dutasteride and finasteride are slightly different. The likelihood of hospitalization for BPH-related surgery and of newly detected PCa seems to be in favor of dutasteride. The budget impact analyses showed a slightly benefit for dutasteride. Comparative prospective studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Hormonal manipulation of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We provide new viewpoints of hormonal control of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The latest treatment findings with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) finasteride and dutasteride, refined indications, efficacy, and safety are discussed and compared. We also discuss potential new 5-ARIs and other hormonal treatments. RECENT FINDINGS: Finasteride and dutasteride have equal efficacy and safety for the treatment and prevention of progression of BPH. 5-ARIs are especially recommended for prostates greater than 40 ml and PSA greater than 1.5 ng/ml. Combination therapy is the treatment of choice in these patients, but with prostate volume greater than 58 ml or International Prostate Symptom Score of at least 20, combinations have no advantage over 5-ARI monotherapy. Updates on the recent developments on BPH therapy with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonist are also reviewed and analyzed. Preclinical studies suggest that growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) antagonists effectively shrink experimentally enlarged prostates alone or in combination with LHRH antagonists. SUMMARY: New 5-ARIs seem to be the promising agents that need further study. Preclinical studies revealed that GHRH and LHRH antagonists both can cause a reduction in prostate volume. Recent data indicate that prostate shrinkage is induced by the direct inhibitory action of GHRH and of LHRH antagonists exerted through prostatic receptors. The adverse effects of 5ARIs encourage alternative therapy.

[Chemoprevention of prostate cancer - a plea]. / Chemoprävention des Prostatakarzinoms - Ein Plädoyer.

The high disease prevalence, the presentation in older age, a frequently slowly progressing course of disease, and high costs make the diagnosis of and therapy for prostate cancer a special challenge for urologists. Effective prevention of the disease may help to improve some of the problems mentioned above. Two randomised, controlled studies have proved that effective chemoprevention of prostate cancer is viable using 5α-reductase inhibitors (finasteride, dutasteride). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that other compounds, e. g., selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), NSAIDs and statins might also be effective. This review investigates potential risks and benefits of chemoprevention including a consideration of health economical aspects. The authors conclude that the options of chemoprevention should be investigated in an open and unbiased way.

[Cost-effectiveness of the combination therapy of dutasteride and tamsulosin in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperlasia in Spain]. / Coste-efectividad de la combinación dutasterida y tamsulosina en el tratamiento de la hiperplasia benigna de próstata en España.

OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin (DUT+TAM) as initiation treatment versus the most used drug in Spain, tamsulosin (TAM), in the treatment of moderate to severe benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with risk of progression. METHODS: a semi-Markov model was developed using 4-year and 35-year time horizons and from the Spanish National Healthcare Service perspective. Data were obtained from the CombAT trial. Effectiveness was measured in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Health care resources were defined by an experts' panel, and unitary costs were obtained from published Spanish sources. Pharmacologic cost is expressed in PTP(WAT); in the case of TAM, the generic price is used, in the case of DUT+TAM the price of a fixed dose combination is used. Costs are expressed in 2010 Euros. RESULTS: combination therapy with DUT+TAM produces an incremental effectiveness of 0.06QALY at year 4 and 0.4QALY at year 35. DUT+TAM represents an incremental cost of € 810.53 at 4 years and € 3,443.62 at 35 years. Therefore, the ICER for DUT+TAM versus TAM is € 14,023.32/QALY at year 4 and € 8,750.15/QALY at year 35. CONCLUSIONS: initiation treatment with DUT+TAM represents a cost-effective treatment versus TAM, the most used treatment in Spain, due to the fact the ICER is below the threshold that usually allows a technology to be considered as cost-effective.

Cost utility of prostate cancer chemoprevention with dutasteride in men with an elevated prostate specific antigen.

BACKGROUND: In the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) trial, dutasteride reduced the relative risk of prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis over a 4-year period by 22.8%, but questions remain regarding the cost-effectiveness of widespread utilization. We evaluated the cost utility of chemoprevention using dutasteride in men at elevated risk for CaP. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model with probabilistic sensitivity analysis was designed to determine the lifetime prostate-health-related costs, beginning at age 50, for men treated with dutasteride compared with placebo who are at elevated risk for CaP. Model assumptions were based on data in REDUCE; surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results program; literature review of costs, utilities, and transition rates among various prostate cancer health states; and local institutional cost data. RESULTS: Under the assumptions of the base case analysis, dutasteride chemoprevention is associated with a gain of 108 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per 1,000 men and the quality-adjusted cost-effectiveness ratio for dutasteride compared with men not receiving chemoprevention was $140,240 per QALYs. At a cost of $626 per year, down from the current cost of $1,400, the model predicts a cost benefit from dutasteride with a willingness-to-pay threshold lower than $50 K. Assuming a 15% period prevalence renders, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $576,630 per QALYs and a 30% period prevalence would yield a $98,059 per QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Dutasteride is unlikely to be cost effective when considering the impact on survival differences among treated versus untreated groups. However, chemoprevention may be cost effective in high-risk populations when taking into consideration adjustments for the impact on quality of life.

Prostate cancer: a serious disease suitable for prevention.

Prostate cancer is among the most common causes of death from cancer in men, and accounts for 10% of all new male cancers worldwide. The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer place a substantial physical and emotional burden on patients and their families, and have considerable financial implications for healthcare providers and society. Given that the risk of prostate cancer continues to increase with age, the burden of the disease is likely to increase in line with population life-expectancy. Reducing the risk of prostate cancer has gained increasing coverage in recent years, with proof of principle shown in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial with the type 2 5alpha-reductase (5AR) inhibitor, finasteride. The long latency period, high disease prevalence, and significant associated morbidity and mortality make prostate cancer a suitable target for a risk-reduction approach. Several agents are under investigation for reducing the risk of prostate cancer, including selenium/vitamin E and selective oestrogen receptors modulators (e.g. toremifene). In addition, the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events trial, involving >8000 men, is evaluating the effect of the dual 5AR inhibitor, dutasteride, on the risk of developing prostate cancer. A successful risk-reduction strategy might decrease the incidence of the disease, as well as the anxiety, cost and morbidity associated with its diagnosis and treatment.

Dutasteride vs finasteride: assessment of differences in acute urinary retention rates and surgical risk outcomes in an elderly population aged > or =65 years.

OBJECTIVE: To determine comparative differences on rates of acute urinary retention (AUR) and prostate-related surgeries among patients aged > or =65 years treated with dutasteride or finasteride. METHODS: For this retrospective analysis, medical/pharmacy claims data from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2006, were analyzed for enlarged prostate patients aged > or =65 years treated with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) regardless of alpha-blocker use. Charlson Comorbidity Index, Thomson Medstat Disease Staging, and propensity score matching techniques were used for comparative analysis. RESULTS: A total of 5090 patients met selection criteria. After 1 year of 5ARI therapy, the AUR rate was lower for dutasteride (12%) when compared with finasteride (14.7%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; P = .0042). Risks for prostate-related surgeries were also lower among dutasteride-treated patients (3.9% vs 5.1%, respectively; OR, 0.77; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Important therapeutic outcome differences exist between dutasteride and finasteride. Patients treated with dutasteride were significantly less likely to experience AUR and prostate-related surgeries than finasteride patients.

5-Alpha reductase inhibitors in men with an enlarged prostate: an evaluation of outcomes and therapeutic alternatives.

This article presents background information and highlights key findings from a managed care perspective related to enlarged prostate (EP) in Medicare-eligible patients. This article does not provide a comprehensive review of EP but instead attempts to increase the current understanding of EP through discussion of its prevalence in men aged > or =65 years, its associated economic burden, and some available treatment options. This supplement includes 3 additional articles, all of which present data from a naturalistic, managed care setting. The article by Fenter et al assesses differences in outcomes between elderly EP patients treated with finasteride and those treated with dutasteride in relation to the risks of acute urinary retention and prostate-related surgery. Issa et al conduct a comparative analysis of the combined use of alpha-blockers and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors to treat EP. The final article compares medical costs incurred within the first year of initiating treatment for EP patients receiving finasteride versus dutasteride. This supplement is intended to assist managed care formulary decision makers in evaluating key clinical and economic data that differentiate dutasteride and finasteride within the Medicare-aged population. Although the information presented is not designed to illustrate the superiority of one product over the other, it answers important questions in relation to treating EP in elderly men and raises substantial issues beyond medication costs.

Comparative analysis of alpha-blocker utilization in combination with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors for enlarged prostate in a managed care setting among Medicare-aged men.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the likelihood of alpha-adrenergic antagonist (alpha-blocker) discontinuation in combination with dutasteride or finasteride among patients aged > or =65 years with enlarged prostate. METHOD: This retrospective analysis used 2003-2006 data representing more than 30 million managed care members. Medical/pharmacy claims were used to select patients, matched 1:1 using propensity scoring. The proportion remaining on alpha-blocker therapy more than 12 months and time to discontinuation were compared between groups, controlling for covariates using survival analysis. RESULTS: The matched sample included 1674 patients. Alpha-blocker therapy discontinuation was observed at 90 days (86.9% dutasteride patients and 91.8% finasteride patients remained on alpha-blocker therapy). After 12 months, more dutasteride patients discontinued (38.1% remained) alpha-blocker therapy than finasteride patients (56.3% remained). CONCLUSIONS: Patients discontinued alpha-blocker therapy as early as 3 months. Those taking dutasteride were 64% more likely to discontinue alpha-blocker therapy than patients taking finasteride. Dutasteride's impact on discontinuation may have important implications and should be examined further.

Cost comparison of finasteride and dutasteride for enlarged prostate in a managed care setting among Medicare-aged men.

OBJECTIVE: To assess cost differences between dutasteride and finasteride use within the first year of initiating treatment for enlarged prostate (EP) among men aged > or =65 years in a managed care setting. METHODS: For this retrospective analysis, medical/pharmacy claims data from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2006, were analyzed for EP patients aged > or =65 years who were treated with dutasteride or finasteride. Analysis of average monthly costs over each patient's 1-year follow-up period incorporated total charges for EP-related medical care, including physician, inpatient and outpatient hospital care, emergency department, and other ancillary services. RESULTS: A total of 4498 patients met selection criteria, with comparable demographics between treatment cohorts. Patients taking dutasteride incurred $51 less per month in medical expenses than finasteride-treated patients ($122 vs $173; P <.001), attributable to lower monthly inpatient hospitalization costs ($55.84 vs $70.34), outpatient costs ($22.07 vs $44.25), and physician office visit costs ($40.69 vs $51.10). CONCLUSION: Medicare-aged patients treated with dutasteride incurred $51 less per month in medical costs than those treated with generic finasteride, suggesting that the higher price of dutasteride may be offset by decreased medical resource consumption.

Long-term cost analysis of treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the costs of dutasteride, finasteride, tamsulosin and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from a Norwegian health service perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the clinical progression that a cohort of 1000 men would undergo and the care they would receive over 4- and 15.5-year periods. Transitions between health states [BPH symptoms, improvement in symptoms, acute urinary retention (AUR), TURP, prostate cancer and death] were estimated from the published literature and knowledge of the Norwegian healthcare system. Sensitivity analyses were conducted of indirect costs, discount rates, the costs and probabilities of AUR and TURP and the probability of symptom improvement. RESULTS: The total costs of BPH management for patients initially treated with dutasteride, finasteride, tamsulosin or TURP at 4 years were NOK 13,946 (1703 Euro), NOK 16,111 (1967 Euro), NOK 16,833 (2054 Euro) and NOK 46,309 (5655 Euro), respectively and at 15.5 years NOK 32,137 (3924 Euro), NOK 37,173 (4539 Euro), NOK 40,528 (4946 Euro) and NOK 50,471 (6164 Euro), respectively. One- and multi-way sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter the relative order of the total costs. CONCLUSIONS. Given the conservative nature of the model and the robustness of the sensitivity analysis, it is concluded that dutasteride is less costly than finasteride, TURP or tamsulosin at both 4 and 15.5 years. Therefore, considering cost containment restraints in Norway, dutasteride is an appropriate choice of therapy for patients with moderate/severe symptoms and an enlarged prostate (>30 ml).

A large retrospective analysis of acute urinary retention and prostate-related surgery in BPH patients treated with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors: dutasteride versus finasteride.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the rates of acute urinary retention (AUR) and surgery after initiating 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) therapy and to compare the 2 currently available 5ARIs, dutasteride and finasteride, in a real-world, managed care setting. This study constitutes the first direct comparison of therapeutic outcome between a mono 5ARI (finasteride) and a dual 5ARI (dutasteride). METHODS: This is a retrospective descriptive and comparative analysis of the rates of AUR and prostate surgery in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treated with 5ARI therapy, either dutasteride or finasteride. Data were obtained from the PharMetrics Integrated Medical and Pharmaceutical Database (PIMPD) (Watertown, Mass) during a 6-year period. The PIMPD is a large national healthcare database that represents a total of 85 managed health plans and covers more than 45 million patients. The data analysis included all patients aged 50 years or older diagnosed with BPH who were treated with 5ARIs (dutasteride 0.5 mg/day or finasteride 5 mg/day) for up to 12 months during the 6-year period of January 1, 1999, to March 1, 2005. Patients meeting the selection criteria were evaluated for a total of 12 months with regard to the likelihood of experiencing AUR or prostate-related surgery. RESULTS: After 5 months of 5ARI therapy, the rate of AUR during months 5 to 12 was found to be significantly lower in the dutasteride group compared with the finasteride group (5.3% vs 8.3%). After controlling for background covariates, dutasteride-treated patients were 49.1% less likely to experience AUR than patients treated with finasteride (P = .0207). Patients treated with dutasteride were also less likely to undergo prostate-related surgery, with 1.4% of dutasteride treated patients and 3.4% of patients receiving finasteride undergoing surgery; differences in surgery rates, however, were not statistically significant (P = .0745), even after controlling for background covariates. CONCLUSTION: Although the 2 drugs, dutasteride and finasteride, belong to the same category of 5ARIs, this large retrospective multivariate analysis potentially indicates differences in therapeutic outcomes. In this study, patients treated with dutasteride were less likely to experience AUR and demonstrated a trend toward being less likely to experience surgery than patients treated with finasteride.

Differences in alpha blocker usage among enlarged prostate patients receiving combination therapy with 5 ARIs.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to directly assess the likelihood and timing of alpha blocker discontinuation in patients receiving combination therapy with dutasteride or finasteride plus an alpha blocker. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the PharMetrics Integrated Medical and Pharmaceutical Database (Watertown, Mass) was conducted to assess differences in alpha blocker discontinuation rates for patients initiated on 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) therapy. The database is nationally representative, encompassing more than 45 million patients from 85 managed healthcare plans. Male patients aged >50 years with a diagnosis of enlarged prostate (EP) who were receiving alpha blocker therapy and who began 5ARI treatment (dutasteride or finasteride) between January 1, 1999, and March 1, 2005, were included. Patients were studied for up to 12 months to evaluate the likelihood and timing of alpha blocker discontinuation. RESULTS: Overall, 56.7% of the patients remained on alpha blocker therapy for 6 months. At 1 year, more dutasteride patients had discontinued alpha blocker therapy (48.9% remained on alpha blocker) than finasteride patients (58.7% remained on alpha blocker). After controlling for background covariates, dutasteride patients were 19.9% more likely to discontinue alpha blocker therapy over 365 days. CONCLUSION: Patients with EP who are taking an alpha blocker and 5ARI in combination for urinary symptom relief discontinue their alpha blocker 19.9% earlier when taking dutasteride than when taking finasteride. The ability to discontinue alpha blocker therapy earlier could reduce the costs of pharmacotherapy while continuing to provide an adequate level of symptom control and disease modification, which may result in cost savings to healthcare plans.

Finasteride versus dutasteride: a real-world economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the economic differences between dutasteride and finasteride patients within the first year of initiating treatment. METHODS: A retrospective analysis using the PharMetrics Integrated Medical and Pharmaceutical Database (Watertown, Mass) was conducted to assess economic differences in patients who were initiated on dutasteride or finasteride. The database is nationally representative, encompassing administrative claims from more than 45 million patients within 85 managed healthcare plans. Male patients aged >50 years with a diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia who began 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) treatment (dutasteride or finasteride) between January 1, 1999, and March 1, 2005, were identified. Patients eligible for study inclusion were matched (1 dutasteride: 3 finasteride) on 4 variables (measured during the 6-month period before their first 5ARI prescription): age, presence of acute urinary retention, total amount of enlarged prostate (EP)-specific charges (+/- $1), and the duration of follow-up (measured in months). EP-specific charges were defined as the total amount charged for EP-specific physician visits, inpatient hospitalizations, outpatient hospital care, emergency department visits, and other ancillary services during the follow-up period for each patient, expressed as average monthly costs. RESULTS: Overall, patients incurred $121.04 in EP-specific charges per month, with inpatient hospitalizations making up 39.1% ($47.29) of the total costs of care. Physician office visits constituted 33.6% ($40.66) of monthly charges. When comparing differences among patients taking the two 5ARIs, patients taking dutasteride incurred $20.50 less per month in EP-specific charges than patients taking finasteride ($105.67 vs $126.17, P = .0007). This reduction in overall medical utilization resulted from a lower amount of inpatient hospitalization charges for dutasteride patients. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with dutasteride incurred $20.50 less per month in medical costs than patients treated with finasteride. Healthcare plans should consider the incremental differences in medical costs along with the difference in pharmaceutical expenditures when evaluating these two 5ARIs.