Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on STAMPEDE trial data.

Adding abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisolone (P) to standard of care (SOC) improves survival in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients starting hormone therapy. Our objective was to determine the value for money to the English National Health Service (NHS) of adding AAP to SOC. We used a decision analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of providing AAP in the English NHS. Between 2011-2014, the STAMPEDE trial recruited 1917 men with high-risk localised, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic PC starting first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and they were randomised to receive SOC plus AAP, or SOC alone. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using STAMPEDE trial data supplemented with literature data where necessary, adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. British National Formulary (BNF) prices (£98/day) were applied for AAP. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%/year. AAP was not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £149,748/QALY gained in the non-metastatic (M0) subgroup, with 2.4% probability of being cost-effective at NICE's £30,000/QALY threshold; and the metastatic (M1) subgroup had an ICER of £47,503/QALY gained, with 12.0% probability of being cost-effective. Scenario analysis suggested AAP could be cost-effective in M1 patients if priced below £62/day, or below £28/day in the M0 subgroup. AAP could dominate SOC in the M0 subgroup with price below £11/day. AAP is effective for non-metastatic and metastatic disease but is not cost-effective when using the BNF price. AAP currently only has UK approval for use in a subset of M1 patients. The actual price currently paid by the English NHS for abiraterone acetate is unknown. Broadening AAP's indication and having a daily cost below the thresholds described above is recommended, given AAP improves survival in both subgroups and its cost-saving potential in M0 subgroup.

PloS one. 2022 Jun 02*** epublish ***

Caroline S Clarke, Rachael M Hunter, Andrea Gabrio, Christopher D Brawley, Fiona C Ingleby, David P Dearnaley, David Matheson, Gerhardt Attard, Hannah L Rush, Rob J Jones, William Cross, Chris Parker, J Martin Russell, Robin Millman, Silke Gillessen, Zafar Malik, Jason F Lester, James Wylie, Noel W Clarke, Mahesh K B Parmar, Matthew R Sydes, Nicholas D James

Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom., Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands., MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom., Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom., Patient Representative, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom., University College London Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom., Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, United Kingdom., Department of Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom., Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom., Patient Representative, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom., Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom., Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Birkenhead, United Kingdom., South West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, United Kingdom., Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.

email news signup