Lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic for prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients (pts) with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastases (BM): United States managed care perspective.

Abstract

e15172 Background: Denosumab (Dmab) is superior to zoledronic acid (ZA) for prevention of SREs in pts with CRPC and BM. As Dmab is not cleared renally, it can be used in pts regardless of renal status or concomitant use of nephrotoxic drugs. Previous economic analyses were limited as the analyses were based on short duration-trial based perspectives and/or did not account for disutility associated with IV vs SC administration of ZA and Dmab, respectively. These analyses assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of Dmab vs ZA in pts with CRPC and BM from a US managed care perspective, with extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed, with efficacy of Dmab vs ZA in SRE prevention from a head-to-head phase 3 trial; clinical practice SRE rate in ZA pts from a large commercial claims database analysis; SRE and mode of administration (IV vs SC) quality adjusted life-year (QALY) decrements estimated using the time trade-off method; and SRE costs estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were also included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% per year. Scenario analyses (including adverse events, drug discontinuation, etc), one-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Dmab reduced the number of SREs and increased pts’ QALY vs ZA. In the base case and the scenario analyses, cost per QALY gained was below $50,000, which is commonly considered good value. Cost per SRE avoided was below $9,000. In one-way sensitivity analyses, drug costs and SRE rate were the most influential variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probabilities of Dmab being cost-effective vs ZA were 0.83, 0.94, and 0.98 with willingness-to-pay of $100,000, $150,000 and $200,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions: Dmab is a cost-effective treatment option in preventing SREs in pts with CRPC and BM compared with ZA from a US managed care perspective. The overall value of Denosumab is based on superior efficacy and more efficient administration.