Cost effectiveness of chemoprevention for prostate cancer with dutasteride in a high-risk population based on results from the REDUCE Clinical trial
- 68 Downloads
The REDUCE trial examined whether chemoprevention with the dual 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, dutasteride, reduced risk of prostate cancer (PCa) detection on biopsy.
We examined the cost effectiveness of dutasteride compared with placebo in preventing PCa in men at increased risk as seen in REDUCE, from a US payer perspective.
A Markov model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of chemoprevention with dutasteride 0.5 mg/day or placebo with usual care in men aged 50–75 years, with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 2.5–10 ng/mL (men aged <60 years) or 3.0–10 ng/mL (men aged ≥60 years), and with a single negative prostate biopsy in the prior 6 months. The model simulated the REDUCE cohort annually through different health states over 4-, 10-year and lifetime time horizons. Risks of PCa for men receiving placebo and dutasteride were obtained from REDUCE. Rates of acute urinary retention events and benign prostate hyperplasia-related surgeries also came from REDUCE. Costs and utilities were obtained from published literature. All costs are reported in $US, year 2009 values.
The model indicated that, over 10 years, dutasteride patients would experience fewer PCas (251 vs 312 per 1000 patients) at increased cost ($US15341 vs $US12316) than placebo patients. Although life-years were not substantially affected, the model calculated an increase in QALYs of 0.14 for dutasteride patients. Chemoprevention with dutasteride appeared to be cost effective, with an incremental cost per QALY of $US21 781 and cost per PCa avoided of $US50 254. The 4-year and lifetime incremental costs per QALY were $US18 409 and $US22498, respectively.
Despite increased cost due to taking a drug for prevention, dutasteride 0.5 mg/day may be cost effective in men at increased risk for PCa.
- 5.National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. SEER*Stat databases: incidence-SEER 13 Regs public-use, November 2004 sub for expanded races (1992–2002), and incidence-SEER 13 Regs excluding AK public-use, November 2004 sub for Hispanics (1992–2002), released April 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://seer.cancer.gov/canques/incidence.html [Accessed 2010 Feb 17]Google Scholar
- 8.Red book. Vol 52. Greenwood Village (CO): Micromedex, Inc., 2009Google Scholar
- 10.American Medical Association. Current procedural terminology CPT 2001. Chicago (IL): AMA Press, 2008Google Scholar
- 11.Ingenix, Inc. The essential RBRVS: a comprehensive listing of RBRVS values for CPT and HCPCS codes. New York: St. Anthony Publishing, 2008Google Scholar
- 12.Commisson on Cancer. National Cancer Data Base. Benchmark reports (v2.0) [online]. Available from URL: http://cromwell.facs.org/BMarks/BMPub/Ver10/DxRx/BMPub_DxRx.cfm [Accessed 2010 Feb 17]
- 16.US Department of Labor, US Bureau of Labor Statistics. US city average, not seasonally adjusted medical care [online]. Available from URL: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu [Accessed 2010 Feb 16]
- 24.Noe L, Becker R, Williamson T, et al. A pharmacoeconomic model comparing two long-acting treatments for over-active bladder. J Managed Care Pharm 2002; 8(5): 343–52Google Scholar
- 25.National Vital Statistics. Reports. Deaths: final data for 2005. Table 5: number of deaths and death rates by age, and age-adjusted death rates by specified Hispanic origin, race for non-Hispanic population, and sex: United States, 2005. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2005; 56(10): 23Google Scholar
- 29.Weinstein MC. From cost-effectiveness ratios to resource allocation: where to draw the line. In: Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care: costs, benefits, and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and other medical technologies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995Google Scholar
- 32.Hefland BT, Evans RM, McVary KT. Medical treatment of LUTS/BPH: analysis of 8.7 million American men [abstract]. J Urol 2009; 181(4 Suppl.): 647Google Scholar