Docetaxel chemotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: cost of care in Medicare and commercial populations

Armstrong, Andrew J.; Bui, Cat N.; Fitch, Kate; Sawhney, Tia Goss; Brown, Bruce Alan; Flanders, Scott C.; Balk, Mark; Deangelis, Julie; Chambers, James D.

doi:10.1080/03007995.2017.1308919

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of the included CEA/MEE originated from the United States (US; n = 12) [62–73], three originated from the United Kingdom (UK) [56, 59, 75], two were multi-country [60, 61], one originated from Canada (CAN) [58] and one from the Netherlands [54], respectively. The included COIA originated majorly from the US (n = 6) [74, 75, 78, 80, 84, 87] and CAN (n = 5) [77, 79, 81, 85, 86] as well as from Japan (n = 2) [55, 82], Ireland (n = 1) [76] or Sweden (n = 1) [83], respectively. The included BIA originated from the US (n = 4) [88–91] and the UK (n = 1) [56], respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine CEA/MEE reported varying lengths of follow-up from 12 to 120 months. The COIA were based majorly on retrospective cohort studies (n = 9) [55, 74, 75, 78, 80–84]. Three COIA used a model approach [76, 79, 86], two were based on randomized controlled trials [85, 87], and one was based on a prospective cohort study [77].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three COIA used a model approach [76, 79, 86], two were based on randomized controlled trials [85, 87], and one was based on a prospective cohort study [77]. A length of follow-up varying per patient was reported by seven COIA [74, 78, 80–84], whereas the remaining COIA reported a length of follow-up from six to 24 months [55, 75–77, 85, 87] or a lifetime follow-up [79, 86].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The COIA fulfilled 61% to 90% of the criteria methodological quality checklist for COIA [44] (S4 Table). Only 47% of the studies identified eligible patients based on objective diagnostic criteria [55, 74, 75, 78, 80, 81, 84] and only 27% of the studies included the costs restricted to those definitely attributable to CRPC [79, 83, 86]. Furthermore, only 17% of the applicable studies discounted future costs [83, 86] and only 20% conducted univariate and/or probabilistic sensitivity analyses [79, 82, 86].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall annual direct costs of patients with CRPC and mCRPC ranged from $2,474 [85] to $50,537 [74] and from $26,707 [87] to $67,957 [75], respectively. The annual cancer-specific costs of patients with CRPC and mCRPC ranged from $14,335 [80] to $77,725 [76] and from $3,067 [86] to $73,270 [84], respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTreatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.ResultsIn total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

ModraDoc006, an oral docetaxel formulation in combination with ritonavir (ModraDoc006/r), in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer patients: A phase Ib study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: ModraDoc006 is an oral formulation of docetaxel, which is co-administered with the cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. Weekly treatment with ModraDoc006/r had been evaluated in phase I trials in patients with different types of advanced solid tumors, but up to this point in time not in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).Aim: We assessed safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ModraDoc006/r to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) in patients with mCRPC.Methods: mCRPC patients, treatment naïve or following abiraterone or enzalutamide treatment, were included. Dose-escalation of ModraDoc006/r was based on safety and docetaxel PK. Antitumor activity was assessed by serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and radiological evaluation.Results: Cohort 1 (n = 5) received once weekly ModraDoc006 30 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the morning, and ModraDoc006 20 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (30-20/100-100). The mean docetaxel area under the plasma concentrationtime curve (mAUC0-inf) was 461 ng/mL × h with 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT); grade 3 alanine transferase increase. In cohort 2 (n = 6, ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-200), the mAUC0-inf was 1687 ng/mL × h with 2 DLTs; grade 3 diarrhea and mucositis. In cohort 3A (n = 6, ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-100), the mAUC0-inf was 1517 ng/ mL × h with 1 DLT; grade 3 diarrhea. In cohort 3B (n = 3, ModraDoc006/r 20-20/ 200-100), the mAUC0-inf was 558 ng/mL × h without DLTs. The mAUC0-inf exceeded estimated exposures of intravenous docetaxel in cohort 2 and 3A, was lower in cohort 1 and was in range in cohort 3B. PSA decreases of >50% occurred in 6/10 evaluable patients throughout the various cohorts. In five radiological evaluable patients, two confirmed partial responses were observed.

show abstract

Treatment-Related Healthcare Costs of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in Germany: A Claims Data Study

Kreis

Horenkamp-Sonntag

Schneider

et al. 2020

PharmacoEconomics Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Treatments for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have expanded rapidly. They include the chemotherapies docetaxel and cabazitaxel, hormonal drugs abiraterone and enzalutamide, and best supportive care (BSC). Cabazitaxel has proven to be the last life-prolonging option, associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events. Given the lack of real-world evidence, we aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs in patients with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel, docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and BSC. Methods We used 2014-2017 claims data from a large German statutory health insurance fund, the Techniker Krankenkasse, to identify patients with mCRPC. Patient allocation to individual therapy regimens was based on clinical knowledge and included therapy cycles, duration of therapy, and continuous treatment. The study period lasted from the first claim until death, the end of data availability, a drug switch, or discontinuation of therapy, whichever came first. Multivariate regression models were used to compare monthly all-cause and mCRPC-related HRU and costs across cohorts by adjusting for baseline covariates (including age and comorbidities). Results The 3944 identified patients with mCRPC initiated treatment with cabazitaxel (n = 240), docetaxel (n = 539), abiraterone (n = 486), enzalutamide (n = 351), or BSC (n = 2328). In most domains, HRU was highest in the cabazitaxel cohort and lowest in the BSC group. Accordingly, the highest all-cause and mCRPC-related costs per month, respectively, were observed in patients receiving cabazitaxel (€7631/€6343), followed by abiraterone (€5226/€4579), enzalutamide (€5079/€4416), docetaxel (€2392/€1580), and BSC (€959/€438). Cost variations were mostly attributable to drugs, inpatient treatment, and sick leave payments. Conclusion mCRPC treatment imposes a high economic burden on statutory health insurance. Cabazitaxel is associated with substantially higher expenses, resulting from higher drug costs and a greater need for inpatient treatment. As mCRPC continues to be incurable, decision makers and clinician leaders should carefully evaluate public access to innovative agents and optimal treatment strategies.

show abstract

Docetaxel chemotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: cost of care in Medicare and commercial populations

Abstract: The majority of docetaxel episode costs in Medicare and commercial mCRPC populations were non-docetaxel drug costs. Future research should evaluate the total cost of care in mCPRC.

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

ModraDoc006, an oral docetaxel formulation in combination with ritonavir (ModraDoc006/r), in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer patients: A phase Ib study

Treatment-Related Healthcare Costs of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in Germany: A Claims Data Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About