Abiraterone acetate and docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy in high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China: an indirect treatment comparison and cost analysis

Abstract

BackgroundTo conduct an indirect treatment comparison of patients with high-volume mHSPC and a cost analysis between Abi-ADT and Doc-ADT therapies in China.MethodsThe Bucher technique for indirect treatment comparison was used. A cost analysis was conducted from both healthcare and patient perspectives.ResultsThe indirect treatment comparison demonstrated no significant difference in PFS for Abi-ADT versus Doc-ADT (HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.07). Doc-ADT therapy costs less than Abi-ADT, with potential savings of up to RMB 887,057 per patient from the healthcare perspective and RMB 226,210 per patient from the patient perspective.ConclusionsNo significant differences in PFS between Doc-ADT and Abi-ADT therapy for patients with high-volume mHSPC. Doc-ADT therapy is a cost-saving alternative to Abi-ADT in China.

Duplicated Network Meta-analysis: a Case Study and Recommendations for Change

“…We identi ed nineteen eligible articles, published between August 2017 and December 2019, describing thirteen individual reviews. Ten reviews [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] appeared as peer-reviewed articles, of which ve also appeared in the form of one or more conference abstracts [26][27][28][29][30][31]; a further three reviews [32][33][34] were described in conference proceedings only. A ow diagram is shown in Additional le 2, and eligible reviews are summarised in Additional le 3.…”

“…In four reviews [17,[20][21][22] the estimates were strongly signi cant at conventional levels, and this was re ected in the reviewers' conclusions. Two reviews [23,24] concentrated on the high-volume disease (HVD) sub-population and as such differ noticeably in terms of available power and estimated effects, and appear as outliers in Figure 3. One [23] concluded that a "positive trend" was seen both in overall survival and in the intermediate outcome, whilst the other [24] stated that "no statistically signi cant difference" was seen.…”

“…Two reviews [23,24] concentrated on the high-volume disease (HVD) sub-population and as such differ noticeably in terms of available power and estimated effects, and appear as outliers in Figure 3. One [23] concluded that a "positive trend" was seen both in overall survival and in the intermediate outcome, whilst the other [24] stated that "no statistically signi cant difference" was seen. The remaining outlying result is taken from a review [25] for which descriptions of methodology and source data were particularly limited, and we were unable to recreate their analysis.…”

“…Four other reviews analysed networks of four or more treatments using multiple treatment comparison (MTC) methods, either using frequentist multivariate analysis [21] or a Bayesian framework [20,23,25]. Of the nine frequentist reviews, six used random-effects modelling, one [17] used common-effect modelling, one [18] used a hybrid method (see Additional le 3), and one [24] was unclear.…”

“…Two reviews stated the additional aim of including updated results [21] and/or improved methodology [20,21]. Four others speci cally aimed to evaluate e cacy within pre-de ned patient subgroups [19,[22][23][24], and four stated the aim of incorporating health economic considerations [24] or adverse effects [17,22,34].…”