Evaluación positiva de medicamentos: febrero, marzo y abril 2023 / Positive assessment of drugs: february, march and april 2023

Se reseñan los medicamentos evaluados y con dictamen positivo por comisión de expertos de la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios o de la Agencia Europea del Medicamento hechos públicos en febrero, marzo y abril de 2023 considerados de mayor interés para los profesionales sanitarios. Se trata de opiniones técnicas positivas que son previas a la autorización y puesta en el mercado del medicamento. (AU)

The drugs assessed by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products or European Medicines Agency issued in February, March and April 2023, and considered of interest to healthcare professionals, are reviewed. These are positive technical reports prior to the authorization and placing on the market of the product. (AU)

Evaluación positiva de medicamentos: febrero, marzo y abril 2023 / Positive assessment of drugs: february, march and april 2023

Se reseñan los medicamentos evaluados y con dictamen positivo por comisión de expertos de la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios o de la Agencia Europea del Medicamento hechos públicos en febrero, marzo y abril de 2023 considerados de mayor interés para los profesionales sanitarios. Se trata de opiniones técnicas positivas que son previas a la autorización y puesta en el mercado del medicamento. (AU)

The drugs assessed by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products or European Medicines Agency issued in February, March and April 2023, and considered of interest to healthcare professionals, are reviewed. These are positive technical reports prior to the authorization and placing on the market of the product. (AU)

El índice nutricional pronóstico como factor pronóstico independiente para la respuesta al tratamiento, la supervivencia y la elección del fármaco en el cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castración tratado con acetato de abiraterona o enzalutamida / Prognostic nutritional index is an independent prognostic factor for treatment response, survival and drug choice in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide

Objetivo El objetivo del presente artículo fue identificar el valor pronóstico del índice nutricional pronóstico (INP) basal en pacientes con cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración metastásico (CPRCm) tratados con acetato de abiraterona o enzalutamida. Métodos Se incluyeron 101 pacientes de CPRCm. El INP se calculó mediante la fórmula 10×valor de albúmina sérica (g/dl)+0,005×recuento total de linfocitos (mm3). Se utilizó el análisis ROC para determinar el valor pronóstico del INP. Resultados El valor de corte estadísticamente significativo para el INP fue 46,62. La respuesta inicial del PSA y la cinética del PSA (respuesta precoz por PSA y respuesta por PSA del 30-50-90% en cualquier momento) fueron mucho mejores en el grupo INP>46,62 que en el grupo INP≤46,62 (p<0,01). En el análisis multivariante, el INP basal >46,62 fue un predictor independiente de la SLP por PSA (HR: 0,42; p<0,01), la SLP radiológica (HR: 0,53; p<0,01) y la SG (HR: 0,42; p<0,01). En el grupo de INP≤46,62, la mediana de la SG fue de 7,4 meses (IC 95%: 4,1-10,7) para el subgrupo de acetato de abiraterona frente a 17,6 meses (IC 95%: 10,1-25,1) para los subgrupos de enzalutamida (p<0,01). Conclusión El INP es un marcador pronóstico útil e independiente para los pacientes con CPRCm tratados con acetato de abiraterona o enzalutamida. El uso del INP previo al tratamiento puede ayudar a los médicos en la predicción de la supervivencia y en la elección de acetato de abiraterona o enzalutamida (AU)

Purpose We designed this study to identify the prognostic value of baseline prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Methods One hundred one mCRPC patients were included. PNI was calculated using formula 10 × serum albumin value (g/dl)+.005 × total lymphocyte count (per mm3). ROC analysis was used for determining prognostic PNI value. Results The statistically significant cut-off value for PNI was 46.62. Initial PSA response and PSA kinetics (early PSA response and 30-50%-90% PSA response at any time) were much better in PNI>46.62 group than the PNI ≤46.62 group (P<.01). In multivariate analysis, baseline PNI level >46.62 was an independent predictor of PSA-PFS (HR: .42; P<.01), radiologic PFS (HR: .53; P<.01), and OS (HR: .42; P<.01). In the PNI≤46.62 group, median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI: 4.1-10.7) for the abiraterone acetate subgroup vs. 17.6 months (95% CI: 10.1-25.1) for enzalutamide subgroups (P<.01). Conclusion PNI is a useful, independent prognostic marker for mCRPC patients treated with either abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Using pre-treatment PNI may help clinicians in the prediction of survival and decision making based on abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide (AU)

Prognostic nutritional index is an independent prognostic factor for treatment response, survival and drug choice in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide.

PURPOSE: We designed this study to identify the prognostic value of baseline prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. METHODS: 101 mCRPC patients were included. PNI was calculated using formula 10 x serum albumin value (gr/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (per mm3). ROC analysis was used for determining prognostic PNI value. RESULTS: The statistically significant cut-off value for PNI was 46.62. Initial PSA response and PSA kinetics (early PSA response and 30 %-50%-90% PSA response at any time) were much better in PNI > 46.62 group than the PNI ≤ 46.62 group (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, baseline PNI level >46.62 was an independent predictor of PSA-PFS (HR: 0.42, p < 0.01), radiologic PFS (HR: 0.53, p < 0.01), and OS (HR: 0.42, p < 0.01). In the PNI ≤ 46.62 group, median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI: 4.1-10.7) for the abiraterone acetate subgroup vs. 17.6 months (95% CI: 10.1-25.1) for enzalutamide subgroups (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PNI is a useful, independent prognostic marker for mCRPC patients treated with either abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Using pre-treatment PNI may help clinicians in the prediction of survival and decision making based on abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide.

Role of the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated first-line with abiraterone. / Papel del índice neutrófilo/linfocito en pacientes con cáncer de próstata resistente a castración metastásicos tratados en primera línea con abiraterona.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with prostate cancer, high NLR seems to be associated with worse survival. Abiraterone acetate (AA) is a new generation hormonal treatment that has shown to increase PFS and OS in mCRPC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients treated with AA in our center (December 2012-September 2018). We analyzed the association of the NLR (< or ≥ 3) before and after 6 months of treatment with PSA response, PFS, OS, and hormone sensitivity prior to AA (< or> 12 months). RESULTS: We have treated 56 patients with a median age of 82 (62-94), of which 22 (39%) had NLR ≥ 3 before treatment. There is a statistically significant association between the NLR prior to treatment<3 and PSA response, OR=9,444, P=.001, and there was no association with the NLR at 6 months of treatment. Statistically significant differences were found between the groups of NLR 3 prior to treatment with abiraterone in PFS with 15 months of median vs. 9 and P=.008, and in OS with 20 months vs. 9 with P=.014. With respect to the determination of NLR at 6 months, there are no differences in the survival curves between both groups. There are significant differences between the NLR prior to treatment according to the length of hormone sensitivity (P=.026). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that NLR could provide relevant information and could act as an early and accessible prognostic marker in patients with mCRPC in first line treatment with Abiraterone.

Predictive factors for abiraterone withdrawal syndrome. / Factores predictivos del síndrome de retirada de abiraterona.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Abiraterone withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is characterized by a transient decrease in the PSA after abiraterone acetate (AA) treatment discontinuation in patients diagnosed with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of our study is to identify the possible predictive factors of AWS at diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 70 patients treated with AA at the Institut Català d'Oncologia - L'Hospitalet between 2015 and 2017. RESULTS: 11 patients presented AWS. The mean age at diagnosis was 65.73 years and the mean age of presentation was 74.18 years. Patients were in the ninth treatment cycle. The median PSA was: 30.5ng/ml at diagnosis, 33.24ng/ml in the AWS, and 15.78ng/ml before starting another treatment. The median follow-up period after AWS was 8.2 months. The predictive factors of AWS would be: high PSA (p=.002), ISUP≥4 (p=.002) and stage IV at diagnosis (p<.001). Patients with a T stage present high risk, but without statistical significance. An AUC of 0.84 was obtained, with a 95% CI between 0.77 and 0.92 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of AWS is not negligible, describing prolonged responses after AA withdrawal, including the possibility of increased overall survival. These results could entail new treatment schemes for mCRPC.

Hormone naïve metastatic prostate cancer: How to treat it?

OBJECTIVES: Recent landmark studies (GETUG-AFU 15, CHAARTED, STAMPEDE (docetaxel), LATITUDE and STAMPEDE (abiraterone)) have changed the treatment of hormone sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC) from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) only to combined therapy with either docetaxelor abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) together with ADT. In this Review we highlight current evidence and recommendations on how to treat men with newly diagnosed mHSPC beyond ADT. METHODS: Narrative overview of available evidence retrieved from pubmed searches, hand searches and authoritative texts. RESULTS: Docetaxel or AAP in combination with ADT improves overall survival (OS) in men fit for combined treatment presenting with newly diagnosed mHSPC. The strongest evidence is for men with high volume mHSPC (four or more bone metastases with at least one outside the axial skeleton and/or visceral metastases) or mHSPC with high risk features (A minimum of two out of three following high-risk features: Gleason score ≥ 8, ≥ 3 bone lesions or visceral metastasis) as per CHAARTED and LATITUDE criteria, respectively. While upfront docetaxel and AAP yield comparable OS improvement, docetaxel has not been shown to increase OS specifically for men with low volume/low risk mHSPC, whereas, a recent post-hoc analysis from the STAMPEDE (abiraterone) trial showed consistent overall survival benefit of AAP plus ADT independent of risk stratification. While these data are limited by their retrospective nature, they do suggest that patients with low-risk mHSPC should be offered AAP. In men with high volume/high risk mHSPC, choosing between six-cycles of docetaxel or AAP until disease progression relies on patient preference, cost and individual assessment of which drug side-effect profile is most suitable. CONCLUSION: Offer men presenting with newly diagnosed mHSPC fit enough for combined therapy either ADT plus docetaxel or AAP.

OBJETIVOS: Estudios de referencia recientes (GETUG-AFU 15, CHAARTED, STAMPEDE (docetaxel), LATITUDE y STAMPEDE (abiraterone)) han cambiado el tratamiento del cáncer de próstata hormonosensible metastásico (CPHSm) de la terapia de deprivación androgénica sola a la terapia combinada bien con docetaxel o abiraterona acetato y prednisona junto con deprivación androgénica. En esta revisión, destacamos la evidencia actual y recomendaciones sobrecómo tratar a los hombres con CPHSm de reciente diagnóstico más allá de la deprivación androgénica.MÉTODOS: Repaso narrativo de la evidencia disponible obtenida por busquedas en PubMed, búsquedas manuales y textos fidedignos. RESULTADOS: Docetaxel o abiraterona más prednisona en combinación con deprivación androgénica mejoran  la supervivencia global (SG) en pacientes adecuados para tratamiento combinado que presentan un CPHSm de reciente diagnóstico. La mejor evidencia es en varones con CPHSm de alto volumen (cuatro o más metástasis óseas con al menos una fuera del esqueleto axialy/o metástasis viscerales) o CPHSm con características de alto riesgo (un mínimo de dos de las tres siguientes características de alto riesgo: Puntuación de Gleason≥ 8, ≥ 3 lesiones óseas o metástasis viscerales) según los criterios de CHAARTED y LATITUDE respectivamente. Aunque docetaxel inicial y abiraterona más prednisona ofrecen una mejora comparable de la supervivenciaglobal, docetaxel no ha demostrado que mejore la supervivencia global específicamente en hombres con CPHSm de bajo volumen/bajo riesgo; mientras que un reciente análisis post-Hoc del estudio STAMPEDE (Abiraterona) mostró un beneficio consistente en supervivencia global de abiraterona más prednisona junto con deprivación androgénica independientemente de la estratificación por riesgo. Aunque estos datos están limitados por su naturaleza retrospectiva, sugieren que a los pacientes con CPHSm de bajo riesgo debería ofrecérseles abiraterona más prednisona. En varones con CPHSm de alto volumen/alto riesgo, elegir entre seis ciclos de docetaxel o abiraterona-prednisona hastaque la enfermedad progrese se basa en la preferencia del paciente, el coste y la evaluación individual sobre qué perfil de efectos colaterales farmacológicos es más adecuado. CONCLUSIONES: Ofrecer terapia de deprivación andrógénica con docetaxel o abiraterona + prednisona a los pacientes que presentan un CPHSm de recientediagnóstico.

Avaliação da segurança e eficácia da abiraterona e enzalutamida pré e pós-quimioterapia no tratamento de pacientes com câncer de próstata metastático castração-resistente: revisão sistemática / Assessment of safety and treatment capacity and pre-treatment and post-treatment chemotherapy without treatment of patients with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer: systematic review

O câncer de próstata é no mundo e no Brasil. Alguns pacientes são diagnosticados em fase avançada um problema de saúde pública com alta prevalência ou progridem para tal após o tratamento inicial. Na fase do câncer de próstata metastático castração resistente (CPMCR), o emprego do acetato de abiraterona (AA) e enzalutamida (ENZ) surgem como alternativas de tratamento. O objetivo da tese foi sintetizar as evidências científicas disponíveis, através de uma revisão sistemática (RS), sobre a segurança e eficácia do AA e ENZ empregados em homens com CPMCR antes e após a quimioterapia. Procurou-se também avaliar os mesmos atributos das tecnologias em idosos com idade ≥ 75 anos e pacientes com metástase visceral. Foram pesquisadas cinco bases de dados bibliográficas eletrônicas ­ Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science ­ e duas bases de registros de ensaios clínicos - CENTRAL e ClinicalTrials. Foram utilizados descritores do Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) e termos livres correspondentes ao problema de saúde e às tecnologias de interesse, combinados com uso dos operadores booleanos AND e OR, sem restrição inicial de idioma. Foram incluídos artigos no período de janeiro de 2006 a dezembro de 2018. Todas as etapas da RS foram realizadas por dois revisores independentes. A qualidade metodológica foi avaliada utilizando-se a ferramenta da Colaboração Cochrane. Foram identificadas 9.465 referências, sendo que apenas 29 artigos seguiram para fase de análise dos textos completos. Na segunda fase, apenas 12 estudos foram incluídos, com seis correspondentes a ensaios clínicos fase III originais, quatro contemplando o uso da AA (dois utilizando AA antes da QT e outros dois após-QT) e dois com utilização de ENZ (um antes da QT e um após a QT). Outros seis estudos trataram da análise de subgrupos, idade > 75 anos e com presença de metástase visceral. A sobrevida global e o tempo livre de progressão radiológica mostraram resultados favoráveis ao uso de AA e ENZ, inclusive em indivíduos na faixa etária com mais de 75 anos e com presença de metástase visceral com ganho de sobrevida de aproximadamente quatro meses. Os medicamentos evidenciaram baixas taxas de eventos adversos de graus moderados e graves, não havendo diferença estatística em relação ao uso do placebo em relação a eventos adversos grau V (entre 3,5 e 3,7%), e na taxa de descontinuidade do tratamento, ao redor de 6 a 8%. Ambos os medicamentos AA e ENZ evidenciaram benefícios similares. A despeito dos resultados favoráveis, estes apoiam-se em poucos ECCR fase III, o que deve ser levado em conta em decisões de eventual incorporação ao Sistema Único de Saúde

Prostate cancer is a public health problem with high prevalence worldwide and in Brazil. Some patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage or progress to it after initial treatment. In the phase of castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer (CPMCR), the use of abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ) appear as treatment alternatives. The aim of the thesis was to synthesize the available scientific evidence through a systematic review (SR) on the safety and efficacy of AA and ENZ employed in men with CPMCR before and after chemotherapy (QT). We also sought to evaluate the same attributes of technologies in the elderly aged ≥ 75 years and patients with visceral metastasis. We searched five electronic bibliographic databases - Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science - and two clinical trial record databases - CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) descriptors and free terms corresponding to the health problem and the technologies of interest were used, combined with the use of AND and OR boolean operators, without initial language restriction. Articles were included from January 2006 to December 2018. All stages of RS were performed by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. 9,465 references were identified, and only 29 articles went to the full text analysis phase. In the second phase, only 12 studies were included, with six corresponding to original phase III clinical trials, four contemplating the use of AA (two using AA before QT and two after QT) and two using ENZ (one before QT and one after QT). Another six studies dealt with subgroup analysis, age> 75 years and visceral metastasis. Overall survival and time-free radiological progression showed favorable results for the use of AA and ENZ, even in individuals over 75 years of age and visceral metastasis with a survival gain of approximately four months. The drugs showed low rates of moderate and severe adverse events, with no statistical difference regarding placebo use compared to grade V adverse events (between 3.5 and 3.7%), and treatment discontinuation rate. , around 6 to 8%. Both AA and ENZ drugs showed similar benefits. Despite the favorable results, they are supported by few phase III ECCRs, which should be taken into account in decisions of eventual incorporation into the Unified Health System

Enzalutamida vs abiraterona en el manejo del cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración: comparación indirecta de tratamientos / Enzalutamide vs Abiraterone in Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer: Indirect Comparison of Treatments

Introducción Actualmente se dispone de nuevos medicamentos que aumentan la supervivencia en pacientes con cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración. Entre ellos están la Enzalutamida y la Abiraterona. Actualmente no se dispone de experimentos clínicos comparativos. Este estudio tiene como objetivo identificar las diferencias entre la Enzalutamida y la Abiraterona, a través de un modelo de comparación indirecta de tratamientos en pacientes con cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castración. Materiales y Métodos Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura incluyendo ensayos clínicos aleatorizados, en pacientes con cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración que recibieron manejo con Enzalutamida y Abiraterona; tomando como desenlace la supervivencia global y libre de progresión radiológica. Se realizó una comparación de la información y un modelo de Bucher para datos indirectos. Resultados Se incluyeron 2 experimentos clínicos fase 3 de manejo pre quimioterapia y 2 en manejo postquimioterapia. Se involucraron 1418 pacientes en el grupo de estudio prequimioterapia y 1596 en el grupo de estudio postquimioterapia. Al comparar la Enzalutamida versus Abiraterona, no se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas. En la prequimioterapia, la supervivencia global con HR 0,87 (95%IC 0,70­1,09) (p = 0,94), supervivencia libre de progresion radiológica con HR 0,35 (95% IC 0,28­0,44) (p = 0,81) y en postquimioterapia, supervivencia global con HR 0,85 (95% IC 0,67­1,06) (p = 0,82) y supervivencia libre de progresión radiológica con HR 0,60 (95% IC 0,49­0,74) (p = 0,82). Conclusiones No existe una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en la supervivencia global y libre de progresión radiológica entre los dos medicamentos.

Introduction and Objective From translational medicine, development of new drugs that increase survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer is obtained. Among these are abiraterone and Enzalutamide, with different mechanisms of action, but with an aplication in the same clinical stage. Currently, there are no comparative clinical trials between these drugs. This study aims to identify the differences between Enzalutamide and Abiraterone through a model of indirect comparison of treatment in patients with castration resistant prostate cancer in pre and post chemotherapy stages. Materials and Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted including randomized phase 3 clinical trials in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving management with Enzalutamide and Abiraterone compared with placebo or corticoid in pre and post chemotherapy stages, taking as outcome overall survival and radiologic progression-free survival. In addition to the demographic analysis, a comparison of information and a modified model of Bucher for indirect data was performed, with the statistical program Stata version 12 and ICT CADTH program. Results 2 Phase III clinical trials were included in the pre chemotherapy stage and 2 in postchemotherapy stage. 1418 patients in the study group prechemotherapy and 1596 in the post- chemotherapy group study were involved. Control groups involved 1387 and 796 cases respectively. When comparing Enzalutamide vs Abiraterone in the pre chemotherapy group, no statistically significant difference was noted in overall survival HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.70 - 1.09) (p = 0.94) and radiologic progression-free survival HR 0.35 (95 % CI 0.28 to 0.44) (p = 0.81). In post-chemotherapy group, overall survival HR 0.85 (95 % CI 0.67 - 1.06) (p = 0.82) and radiologic progression-free survival HR 0.60 (95 % CI 0.49 to 0.74 ) (p = 0.82) no statistically significant difference was noted. Conclusions There is no statistically significant difference in overall survival and radiologic progression-free survival between the two drugs. The indirect comparison of treatments offers a valid alternative in the absence of direct comparative clinical experiences.

Una sola tableta de Abiraterona con comida en vez de 4 tabletas en ayuno para pacientes con cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castración: perspectivas fármaco-económicas en un país en desarrollo / One Pill of Abiraterone with Food Instead of Four Pills in Fasting State for Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients: Pharmaco-economic Perspectives in a Developing Country

Recientemente se publicó en el Journal of Clinical Oncology un estudio prospectivo aleatorizado fase II, que comparó dosis bajas de Abiraterona (250mg) administrada con comida vs la dosis estándar de dicho medicamento (1000mg), en pacientes con cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castración (mCRPC)1 y concluyó que la dosis baja no es inferior a la dosis estándar en cuanto a la respuesta de PSA y a la supervivencia libre de progresión (PFS).

A prospective randomized phase II study comparing low dose Abiraterone (250 mg) administered with food versus the standard dose (1000 mg) in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, was recently published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology. It concluded that the low dose was non-inferior compared to the standard dose for the endpoints prostate specific antigen (PSA) response and progression free survival (PFS).

Acetato de abiraterona en cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castración / Abiraterone acetate in prostate cancer metastatic castration-resistant

INTRODUCCIÓN: Este documento técnico se realiza a solicitud del Hospital Nacional Arzobispo Loayza, a través de la Gerencia Macro Regional Centro Medio del Seguro Integral de Salud. OBJETIVO: Describir la evidencia científica disponible sobre la eficacia y seguridad de AA para el tratamiento de mCPRC. METODOLOGÍA: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática en Medline (Pubmed), The Cochrane Library y LILACS. Ésta se complementó con la búsqueda de evidencia en páginas institucionales de agencias gubernamentales y buscadores genéricos. Los componentes de la pregunta PICO fueron P: pacientes con mCPRC; I: AA+PRE; C: placebo (PL) + PRE, ENZ; O: sobrevida global, sobrevida libre de progresión, retraso en inicio de quimioterapia, calidad de vida y eventos adversos (EA). Se priorizó la identificación y selección de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECAs), revisiones sistemáticas (RS) de ECAs, con o sin meta-análisis (MA), guías de práctica clínica (GPC), evaluaciones de tecnología sanitaria (ETS) y evaluaciones económicas (EE) de América Latina. La calidad de la evidencia se valoró usando AMSTAR 2 para RS, la herramienta propuesta por la colaboración Cochrane para ECAs, y AGREE II para GPC. RESULTADOS: Se identificó una RS, dos ECAs informados en catorce publicaciones, siete ETS, dos GPC y una EE que respondieron a la pregunta PICO de interés. CONCLUSIONES: -El tratamiento con AA+PRE en pre-Qx y post-Qx mostró ser más eficaz que PL+PRE, aumentando ≈4 meses la sobrevida y retrasando la progresión de la enfermedad, el deterioro de la calidad de vida y la progresión del dolor. En pre-Qx, se observó un incremento del riesgo de EA graves, mientras que en post-Qx se presentó mayor riesgo de EA asociados con niveles elevados de mineralocorticoides. ENZ se asoció con una eficacia similar a AA+PRE, pero produjo un menor riesgo de progresión de la enfermedad; -Las ETS incluidas muestran decisiones discordantes respecto a la cobertura de AA, mientras que un análisis de impacto presupuestal realizado en Perú recomienda evaluar la inclusión del medicamento dependiendo de la aprobación de un requerimiento presupuestal adicional; -Ambas GPC incluidas recomiendan el uso de AA+PRE en mCPRC, sin preferencia sobre otros medicamentos, incluido enzalutamida; -La RS fue considerada como nivel de confianza críticamente bajo. Los ECA presentaron bajo riesgo de sesgo. Las GPC obtuvieron una valoración global de calidad del 79,5% y 75,5%.

Análise de custo-efetividade da abiraterona para câncer de próstata metastático resistente à castração em pacientes com uso prévio de quimioterapia / Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone for metastatic, castrateresistant prostate cancer following previous chemotherapy

Objetivo: Avaliar a custo-utilidade e o impacto orçamentário (IO) da abiraterona para o tratamento de câncer de próstata resistente à castração, em pacientes previamente tratados com docetaxel. Métodos: Foi construído um modelo de Markov com ciclos mensais sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), em um horizonte temporal de cinco anos e taxa de desconto de 5%. A estimativa de efetividade foi oriunda do principal ensaio clínico dessa condição de saúde. Para dados de utilidade, aplicaram-se estimativas internacionais, enquanto para custos se utilizaram tabelas de remuneração do SUS. Para o IO, a população-alvo foi estimada com base em dados do Departamento de Informática do SUS (DATASUS). Resultados: A abiraterona ocasionou ganho de 1,045 ano de vida ajustado para qualidade (QALY) e 1,609 ano de vida ganho (AVG), enquanto para o placebo esses valores foram de 0,763 e 1,299, respectivamente. O custo total na estratégia abiraterona foi de R$ 83.295 e para o placebo, de R$ 2.895. A relação de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) foi de R$ 284.416 por QALY ganho. Em nenhuma das análises de sensibilidade os valores ficaram abaixo de R$ 100.000 por QALY. Mesmo quando variados simultaneamente seis parâmetros, todos no seu limite mais favorável à abiraterona, os resultados seguiram elevados, com RCEI de R$ 98.330 por QALY. O IO foi de R$ 270 milhões em cinco anos no cenário mais conservador (tempo médio de tratamento de 7,4 meses e 10% de novos casos/ano). Conclusão: A abiraterona se mostrou pouco custo-efetiva nesta situação clínica, com RCEI superior a nove vezes o PIB per capita por QALY, sendo os resultados robustos em análise de sensibilidade.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility and the budget impact (BI) of abiraterone in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. Methods: A Markov model was constructed, with monthly cycles, under the perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS), in a 5-year time horizon, and with a 5% discount rate. The effectiveness estimate was obtained from the pivotal clinical trial for abiraterone in this health condition. For utility data, international estimates were applied; while for costs, SUS reimbursement information were used. In the BI analysis, the target population was estimated with claims data from DATASUS. Results: Abiraterone resulted in a gain of 1.045 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and 1.609 life years gained (LYG), while for placebo these values were 0.763 and 1.299, respectively. The total cost for the abiraterone strategy was BRL 83,295, and for placebo, BRL 2,895. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was BRL 284,416 per QALY gained. None of the estimates from the sensitivity analysis was below BRL 100,000 per QALY. Even when six parameters were variated simultaneously in the range more favorable to abiraterone, the results were still elevated, with an ICER of BRL 98,330 per QALY. The BI was BRL 270 million in 5 years in the most conservative scenario (average time of the treatment of 7.4 months and 10% of the new cases/year). Conclusion: Abiraterone shows unfavorable cost-effective results for this clinical condition in Brazil, with an ICER above 9 times the per capita per QALY. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis.

Supervivencia del cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración en la práctica clínica y el papel del tratamiento / Survival of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in Clinical Practice and the Role of Treatment

Resumen Objetivo: Evaluar en un contexto de práctica clínica la ventaja de supervivencia para pacientes con cáncer de próstata resistente a castración (CPRC) tratado activamente con diversos tratamientos que incluyen acetato de abiraterona (AA) y prednisona con o sin docetaxel. Material y método: Se analiza la supervivencia de pacientes con CPRC y se compara un grupo tratado con AA y prednisona (n = 33) con un control histórico formado por pacientes consecutivos tratados una década antes en la misma institución exclusivamente con retirada de antiandrógeno y medidas paliativas (n = 31). Se analizan variables clínico-patológicas predictivas de pronóstico en la población activamente tratada. Se evalúa la respuesta global a AA y el intervalo libre de progresión radiológica. Resultados: La supervivencia cáncer específica a 2 años fue 79% para pacientes tratados activamente y 17,2% para control (log-rank, p < 0,0001). Cinco de 13 pacientes con AA post-docetaxel (38,5%) recibieron después de AA quimioterapia de segunda línea (4 cabazitaxel y 1 vinorelbina) y 1 (7,7%) hormonoterapia con enzalutamida. Tres de 20 pacientes tratados con AA sin quimioterapia (15%) recibieron enzalutamida y solo 1 (5%) fue tratado con docetaxel. Los pacientes de menor edad (<65años; p = 0,02) y sin metástasis al diagnóstico (p = 0,04) tuvieron mejor pronóstico. Aquellos de PSA más alto (>45ng/ml; p = 0,09) y patrón de Gleason 5 en la biopsia se comportaron de manera más desfavorable. Globalmente el 75,8% tuvieron respuesta a AA (80% pre- y 69,2% post-quimioterapia; p = 0,1) y el 52,4% estuvieron libre de progresión radiológica al año (47,9% pre y 49,8% post-quimioterapia; log-rank, p = 0,3). Conclusión: El tratamiento de pacientes con CPRC prolonga la expectativa de supervivencia en un entorno de práctica clínica y es posible identificar factores predictivos de pronóstico en estos pacientes.

Abstract Purpose: To assess, in a clinical practice context, the survival advantages of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) actively treated with several treatments that include abiraterone acetate (AA) and prednisone, with or without docetaxel. Material and Methods: An analysis was performed on patient survival with CRPC, and was compared to a group treated with AA and prednisone (n = 33), with a historical control treated exclusively with anti-androgen withdrawal and palliative measures (n = 31). In the population actively treated, variables predictive of prognosis were analysed, as well as an evaluation of the overall response to AA and radiographic progression-free survival. Results: Cancer-specific survival at 2 years was 79% for patients actively treated and 17.2% for control group (P<.0001). Five (38.5%) of 13 patients treated with AA post-docetaxel received second-line chemotherapy after AA (4 cabazitaxel, 1 vinorelbine), and one (7.7%) enzalutamide. Three (15%) of 20 patients treated with AA without chemotherapy received enzalutamide and 1(5%) docetaxel. The younger patients (<65yrs; P=.02) without metastases at diagnosis (P=.04) had better prognoses. Patients with higher PSA levels (>45 ng/ml; P=.09) and a Gleason pattern 5 in the biopsy had less favourable outcomes. There was a 75.8% over response to AA (80% preand 69.2%post-chemotherapy; P=.1), and 69.2%post-chemotherapy; P=.1), and 52.4% were radiographic progression-free at 1 year of treatment (47.9% pre- and 49.8% post-chemotherapy; P=.3). Conclusion: Treatment of CRPC patients extends survival expectations in a clinical practice setting and prognostic predictors can be identified in these patients.

Análise de custo-efetividade do acetato de abiraterona associado à prednisona pós-terapia de privação androgênica, seguido de enzalutamida pós-quimioterapia versus a sequência oposta para o tratamento de pacientes com câncer de próstata metastático resistentes à castração sob a perspectiva do Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro / Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in the post-androgen deprivation therapy setting followed by enzalutamide in the post-chemotherapy setting versus the opposite treatment sequence in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer patients under the Brazilian Private Healthcare System perspective

Objetivo: O acetato de abiraterona e a enzalutamida são utilizados no tratamento de câncer de próstata metastático pós-terapia de privação androgênica, em pacientes resistentes à castração. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar o custo-efetividade de abiraterona mais prednisona pós-terapia de privação androgênica, seguidos de docetaxel e enzalutamida pós-quimioterapia com a sequência oposta de tratamento no Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro. Métodos: Um modelo de Markov foi desenvolvido para comparar o custo-efetividade das duas sequências em um tempo horizonte lifetime. Os parâmetros de eficácia e probabilidades de transição foram derivados de estudos clínicos. Foram considerados os custos diretos dos medicamentos, administração, monitoramento e eventos adversos. A medida de efetividade foram anos de vida ganhos, estimados pela extrapolação de dados dos estudos clínicos. Os resultados foram apresentados em custos e anos de vida ganho a cada sequência. Resultados: O estado pós-terapia de privação androgênica representou a maior parte dos custos de tratamento, e os eventos adversos tiveram pequeno impacto nos custos totais. O uso de abiraterona nesse estado reduziu 7,3% dos custos. A sequência abiraterona mais prednisona pós-terapia de privação androgênica, seguida de enzalutamida pós-quimioterapia, foi dominante em relação à oposta; apresentou menor custo (R$ 262.801 versus R$ 274.165) e efetividade levemente maior, com estimados 3,367 anos de vida ganhos versus 3,282. Conclusão: O uso da abiraterona mais prednisona pós-terapia de privação androgênica e enzalutamida pós-quimioterapia demonstrou-se dominante em relação à sequência oposta no tratamento de pacientes com câncer de próstata metastático resistentes à castração, no Sistema de Saúde Suplementar brasileiro.

Objective: Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide are important options in the treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. The objective of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of the use of abiraterone plus prednisone post-ADT, followed by docetaxel and enzalutamide post-chemotherapy (Abi+Doce+Enza) with the opposite treatment sequence (Enza+Doce+Abi) under the perspective of the Brazilian private healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of both sequences in a lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities and efficacy data were drawn from clinical studies. Cost parameters included drug acquisition and administration, disease monitoring and adverse events were considered. Effectiveness was measured as life years gained, derived from clinical trials. Results were presented as total costs and life years gained in each sequence. Results: Post-ADT state represented the majority of the treatment costs, and adverse events had little impact in total costs. The sequence Enza+Doce+Abi was dominated by Abi+Doce+Enza. The sequence Abi+Doce+Enza generated a reduction of 7,3% in total treatment costs compared to Enza+Doce+Abi (R$ 262,801 vs R$ 274,165). Effectiveness was slightly higher, with an estimated 3.367 life-years gained in the Abi+Doce+Enza sequence compared with 3.282 life-years gained in the Enza+Doce+Abi sequence. Conclusion: The use of abiraterone plus prednisone post-ADT and enzalutamide in post-chemo had lower treatment costs and higher effectiveness when compared to the opposite sequence in the treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, under the Brazilian Private Health System perspective.

Número necessário a tratar (NNT) e custo por evento evitado (COPE) de enzalutamida e acetato de abiraterona para o tratamento de câncer de próstata resistente à castração que falharam a terapia de privação de androgênio / Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost of preventing an event (COPE) of enzalutamide vs. abiraterone acetate plus prednisone for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who failed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)

Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo foi estimar o número necessário a tratar (NNT) e custo por evento evitado (COPE) de enzalutamida (ENZ) em comparação com abiraterona+prednisona (AA+P) em 12 e 24 meses sob perspectiva do sistema de saúde suplementar em pacientes com câncer de próstata resistente à castração metastático (CPRCM) sem quimioterapia prévia. Métodos: O NNT é calculado pelo inverso da diferença do risco absoluto de uma intervenção versus placebo; adicionalmente, o COPE representa o NNT multiplicado pelo custo de tratamento total de um período determinado. O risco absoluto de ENZ e AA+P e seus respectivos controles foram obtidos das curvas de sobrevida livre de progressão radiográfica (SLPr) e sobrevida global (SG) dos estudos PREVAIL e COU-AA-302, respectivamente. A duração de tratamento média no horizonte de 24 meses foi estimada utilizando a área sob a curva das respectivas curvas de SLPr. Os resultados foram a comparação entre ENZ e AA+P versus seus respectivos placebos em 12 e 24 meses para NNT e COPE. O custo total de tratamento consistiu em custos de medicamento, monitoramento, e manejo de eventos adversos (≥1%, eventos de interesses especiais). Resultados: A análise de 12 meses resultou em NNTSG/ENZ= 12,79; NNTSLPr/ENZ= 2,59; NNTSG/AA+P= 116,28; NNTSLPr/AA+P= 4,72 e COPESG/ENZ= BRL 1.626.583; COPESLPr/ENZ= BRL 329.701; COPESG/AA+P= BRL 15.144.886; COPESLPr/AA+P= BRL 614.368. Para a análise de 24 meses, os resultados foram: NNTSG/ENZ= 11,00; NNTSLPr/ENZ= 3,58; NNTSG/AA+P= 16,56; NNTSLPr/AA+P= 5,00 e COPESG/ENZ= BRL 1.965.454; COPESLPr/ENZ= BRL 639.327; COPESG/AA+P= BRL 2.833.580; COPESLPr/AA+P= BRL 855.741. Conclusão: Para ambos horizontes de tempo, os resultados foram favoráveis para ENZ vs. AA+P em pacientes com CPRCM.

Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the NNT and COPE of enzalutamide (ENZ) in comparison with abiraterone acetate+prednisone (AA+P) over a 12-month and 24-month period from the Supplementary Health System perspective in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients who are chemotherapy naïve (MCRPC). Methods: The NNT is calculated by the inverse of the absolute risk reduction of an intervention vs. control; additionally, COPE represents the NNT multiplied by total cost of treatment in a pre-defined period. The absolute risk of ENZ and AA+P, and their respective control treatments, were obtained from the Kaplan Meier curves for the co-primary end points of radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) from the clinical studies PREVAIL and COU-AA-302, respectively. Mean treatment duration was estimated utilizing the area under curve (AUC) technique from the respective intervention rPFS curves. The results analyzed ENZ or AA+P versus its respective placebo at 12 and 24 months for NNT and COPE. Total treatment cost consisted of drug cost, monitoring cost and adverse event (>=1% incidence and special interest adverse events) related cost. Results: The 12 month analysis resulted in NNTOS/ENZ= 12.79; NNTrPFS/ENZ= 2.59; NNTOS/AA+P= 116.28; NNTrPFS/AA+P= 4.72 and COPEOS/ENZ= BRL 1,626,583; COPErPFS/ENZ= BRL 329,701; COPEOS/AA+P= BRL 15,144,886; COPErPFS/AA+P= BRL 614,368. For the 24-month analysis, the results were: NNTOS/ENZ= 11.00; NNTrPFS/ENZ= 3.58; NNTOS/AA+P=16.56; NNTrPFS/AA+P= 5.00 and COPEOS/ENZ= BRL 1,965,454; COPErPFS/ENZ= BRL 639,327; COPEOS/ AA+P= BRL 2,833,580; COPErPFS/AA+P= BRL 855,741. Conclusion: Across the 12- and 24-month time horizons, the NNT and COPE was favorable for ENZ vs. AA+P in patients with MCRPC.

Informe de adopción de ETS: abiraterona para cáncer de próstata / ETS adoption report: abiraterone for prostate cancer

El uso de acetato de abiraterona en combinación con prednisona para el tratamiento de cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a castración, en pacientes sin quimioterapia previa, es un tratamiento alternativo a la quimioterapia que ha probado beneficio en la sobrevida global, la sobrevida libre de progresión, el retraso de uso de quimioterapia, la calidad de vida y eventos adversos similares a los obtenidos con el tratamiento a base de prednisona sola. El uso de acetato de abiraterona en combinación con prednisona para el tratamiento de cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a castración, en pacientes que han progresado a un solo régimen de quimioterapia a base de docetaxel., es un tratamiento que, en comparación con prednisona sola, ha probado tener beneficio en la sobrevida global, mejora en la calidad de vida y eventos adversos tolerables. Se recomienda la cobertura del medicamento acetato de abiraterona en combinación con prednisona para el tratamiento de cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a castración, en pacientes sin quimioterapia previa, bajo la modalidad de cobertura con restricciones y cobertura con generación de evidencia. Se recomienda la cobertura del medicamento acetato de abiraterona en combinación con prednisona para el tratamiento de cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a castración, en pacientes que han progresado a un solo régimen de quimioterapia a base de docetaxel, bajo la modalidad de cobertura con restricciones y cobertura con generación de evidencia.(AU)

Protocolo de evaluación rápida de tecnología sobre seguridad y efectividad del uso de Acetato de Abiraterona en el tratamiento de cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castración sin quimioterapia previa / Protocol of rapid evaluation of technology on safety and effectiveness of the use of Abiraterone Acetate in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer resistant to castration without prior chemotherapy

El cáncer constituye un problema de salud pública a nivel mundial, en la región de las Américas y en nuestro país, por su alta mortalidad como por la discapacidad que produce. El Estado Peruano ha declarado de interés nacional la atención integral del cáncer y el mejoramiento del acceso a los servicios oncológicos poniendo en marcha en Noviembre del año 2012 el Plan Nacional para la Atención Integral del Cáncer y Mejoramiento del Acceso a los Servicios Oncológicos del Perú denominado Plan Esperanza (D.S. N° 009-2012-SA). El Fondo Intangible Solidario de Salud solicita la evaluación de la tecnología sanitaria acetato de abiraterona como tratamiento en hombres adultos con cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castración en los cuales la quimioterapia no está aún clínicamente indicada, la cual a su vez fue solicitada Hospital Nacional Hipólito Unánue, a raíz de un caso. Luego de una primera revisión, se determina que la tecnología acetato de abiraterona, comercializada en el Perú como Zytiga 250 mg, supera la tolerancia al riesgo para evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias en el Seguro Integral de Salud, por lo se consideró sea evaluada por el área de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias en el SIS Central.(AU)

Evaluación de la efectividad de abiraterona en el tratamiento del cáncer de próstata metastásico / Evaluation of the effectiveness of abiraterone in treatment of metastatic prostate cáncer

Objetivo: estudiar el perfil de efectividad y seguridad de abiraterona en la práctica clínica, en pacientes con cáncer de próstata metastásico hormonoresistente. Métodos: se diseñó un estudio descriptivo retrospectivo de los pacientes diagnosticados con cáncer de próstata metastásico que recibieron tratamiento con abiraterona durante los mese de febrero 2012 a abril 2013. Las variables estudiadas fueron sexo, edad, escala del Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), tratamiento previo con docetaxel, antígeno prostático especifico (PSA) y supervivencia libre de progresión. La información se obtuvo de las historias clínicas, el programa de prescripción Savac® y el programa de validación farmacéutica Farmis‒Oncofarm®. Resultados: los 24 pacientes incluidos contaban una mediana de edad de 70 años. El estado funcional fue ECOG<2 en el 58,3 por ciento y ECOG≥2 en el 41,7 por ciento de los pacientes. El PSA disminuyó un 50 por ciento o más de su valor basal en el 52 por ciento de los pacientes. En cuanto a la supervivencia libre de progresión la mediana fue de 166 días (5,5 meses). En los pacientes con un ECOG≤2 la mediana fue de 231 días (7,7 meses) mientras que para los pacientes con ECOG˃2 fue de 106 días (3,5 meses). Abiraterona presentó pocas reacciones adversas por lo que resulta un fármaco seguro, a pesar de presentar algunas reacciones de suma importancia. Conclusiones: los resultados obtenidos en nuestra práctica clínica difieren con los obtenidos en los estudios pivotales. Se observan mayor supervivencia libre de progresión en los pacientes con un ECOG≤1 y en los que nunca habían recibido quimioterapia previa(AU)

Objectives: to study the efficacy and safety profile of abiraterone in clinical practice to treat patients with hormone-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. Methods: retrospective and descriptive study of patients who were diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer and were treated with abiraterone since February 2012 to April 2013. The studied variables were gender, age, level of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale, prior treatment with docetaxel, prostate specific antigen (PSA), progression-free survival (PFS). Data sources included medical records, the Savac® prescription and the Farmis-Oncofarm® pharmaceutical validation programs. Results: twenty-four patients were included, with average age of 70 years. The ECOG performance status was less than 2 in 58,3 percent of patients whereas 41,7 percent of the patients showed ECOG equal to 2 or higher. The PSA decreased by 50 percent or more its basal value in 52 percent of the patients. As regards to PFS, the median was 166 days (5,5 months) in progression-free survival. In patients with ECOG≤2, the median PFS was 231 days (7,7 months), whereas for patients with ECOG˃2,it was 106 days (3,5 months). Abiraterone has fewer side effects, so it may be considered a safe drug, although some are significant. Conclusions: the results obtained in our clinical practice differ from the ones obtained in the pivotal trials . Increased progression-free survival was observed in patients with an ECOG≤1 or less, and in those who had never received prior chemotherapy(AU)

Abiraterona para tratamento de câncer de próstata resistente à castração: evidências sobre a eficácia e segurança / Abiraterone for castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment: evidence of efficacy and safety

O câncer de próstata é o segundo tipo de câncer mais frequente em homens. Aproximadamente 62% dos casos de câncer da próstata diagnosticados no mundo referem-se a homens com idades igual ou superior a 65 anos, sendo 1,6 vez mais comum em homens negros do que em brancos. O câncer de próstata pode ser considerado de bom prognóstico se diagnosticado e tratado oportunamente. Há um tipo de câncer denominado câncer de próstata metastático resistente à castração para o qual tem sido utilizado um novo fármaco, o acetato de abiraterona, associado à prednisona ou prednisolona.