Budget impact analysis of darolutamide for treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide, a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), has been shown to increase metastasis-free survival among men with nmCRPC compared with placebo. This treatment has a novel chemical structure that may also have safety, tolerability, and efficacy advantages for men with nmCRPC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the projected budget impact of including darolutamide on a U.S. payer formulary as a treatment option for men with nmCRPC. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to evaluate darolutamide for nmCRPC for a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 5-year period. Costs (drug acquisition, drug administration, and treatment-related adverse events [AEs]) were estimated for 2 scenarios: with and without darolutamide treatment for nmCRPC. The budget impact of darolutamide was calculated as the difference in costs for these 2 scenarios. An analysis for high-risk nmCRPC also was conducted. The model included treatments recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (e.g., apalutamide and enzalutamide) and potential comparators that are used but are not specifically indicated for nmCRPC. All treatments were assumed to be administered in combination with a weighted average androgen deprivation therapy comparator (consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists, LHRH antagonists, and first-generation antiandrogens). Market share estimates were derived from interviews with physicians treating men with nmCRPC. The model includes grade 3-4 AEs, and the rates were obtained from clinical trial data. Costs were taken from publicly available sources and varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: For a plan with 1 million lives, there were approximately 90 incident cases of nmCRPC (46 high risk) each year, with 332 (109 high risk) treatment-eligible cases by year 5. Darolutamide's market share increased from 3.6% in year 1 to 18% in year 5. Given the utilization of other agents, introducing darolutamide along with other targeted therapies was predicted to increase the total budget by $158,640 ($0.0132 per member per month [PMPM]) in year 1, which decreased over time to a cost savings of $149,240 ($0.0124 PMPM) by year 5. The scenario with darolutamide showed reduced AE costs each year. Similar results were observed for the high-risk nmCRPC population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding darolutamide to a U.S. payer formulary for the treatment of nmCRPC can result in a manageable increase in the budget that is partly offset by AE costs in the first 4 years, followed by a cost savings by year 5. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by RTI Health Solutions under the direction of Bayer U.S. and was funded by Bayer U.S., which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Miles and Purser (and/or their institutions) are employees of RTI Health Solutions and received research funding from Bayer U.S. to develop the budget impact model. Appukkuttan and Farej are employees of Bayer U.S. Wen was an employee of Bayer U.S. at the time of the study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 20-24, 2020.

Guideline-discordant androgen deprivation therapy in localized prostate cancer: patterns of use in the medicare population and cost implications.

Background Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in localized prostate cancer improves overall survival and is recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in certain situations. However, ADT is without benefit in other situations and can actually cause harm. This study examines recent trends in the ADT use and quantifies the cost of guideline-discordant ADT. Patients and methods Patients, aged 66-80 years, in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database with non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2007 were included for analysis. Prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and stage were used to define D'Amico risk categories. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with guideline-discordant ADT. Annual direct cost was estimated using 2011 Medicare reimbursement for ADT. Results Of 28 654 men included, 12.4% received guideline-discordant ADT. In low-risk patients, 14.9% received discordant ADT, mostly due to simultaneous ADT with radiation. Discordant use was seen in 7.3% of intermediate and 14.9% of high-risk patients, mostly from ADT as primary therapy. The odds of receiving guideline-discordant ADT decreased over time (2007 versus 2004; OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.62-0.76). The estimated annual direct cost from discordant ADT is $42 000 000. Conclusion Approximately one in eight patients received ADT discordant with published guidelines. Elimination of discordant use would result in substantial savings.

Health care cost associated with prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy and bone complications.

PURPOSE: We ascertained the health care costs of androgen deprivation therapy and related skeletal events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits Database, we identified cases with International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision codes indicating a diagnosis of prostate cancer who initiated androgen deprivation therapy between 1999 and 2002. The control group consisted of patients with prostate cancer with no androgen deprivation therapy use, matched by age, geographic region, insurance plan and index year. All had followup data for at least 36 months. The occurrence and cost of osteoporosis and any bone fracture were assessed using a propensity score matched sample. RESULTS: Of the 8,577 eligible men with prostate cancer, 3,055 initiated androgen deprivation therapy and 5,522 did not. At the time of androgen deprivation therapy initiation those on androgen deprivation therapy had more severe comorbidity (3.1 vs 2.6, p <0.001) and proportionally more bone metastases (2.8% vs less than 0.6%, p <0.001) but no difference in fracture rate. After 3 years of followup the androgen deprivation therapy group experienced significantly more fractures (18.7% vs 14.6%, p <0.001). The mean unadjusted total cost of health care during the 36-month period was $48,350 per person for cases and $26,097 for controls. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with prostate cancer, those on androgen deprivation therapy cost the health care system almost twice as much as those not on androgen deprivation therapy. After controlling for differences in health status, the majority of the excess cost is attributable to androgen deprivation therapy and then to a lesser extent, the fractures. These results suggest that the bone complications of osteoporosis and fractures in men on androgen deprivation therapy have important economic consequences.

A new look at an old option in the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: hormone therapy as an alternative to watchful waiting.

Watchful waiting is an attractive option in the management of early-stage, low-grade prostate cancer because of the high financial costs and complication risks associated with surgery and radiotherapy. Despite the drawbacks of current local therapy, neither treatment can demonstrate a discernible survival benefit over observation alone. Even the slowest progressing disease, however, can potentially develop into a deadly medical problem. As a result, physicians and patients frequently have difficulty accepting untreated cancer. Therefore, we propose that another option be considered in cases of prostate cancer that would otherwise qualify for observation alone: the use of two oral hormonal agents, flutamide and finasteride, to achieve complete androgen blockade. Some evidence exists which suggests that such therapy may improve symptom-free survival, and perhaps overall survival as well. This 'aggressive' form of 'conservative' therapy may satisfy patient concerns that are not adequately addressed by current forms of therapy.