Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy of Apalutamide and Enzalutamide with ADT in the Treatment of Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.


Journal

Advances in therapy
ISSN: 1865-8652
Titre abrégé: Adv Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8611864

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2020
Historique:
received: 19 08 2019
pubmed: 10 12 2019
medline: 6 10 2020
entrez: 9 12 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Apalutamide and enzalutamide are next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors that demonstrated efficacy in placebo-controlled studies (SPARTAN for apalutamide; PROSPER for enzalutamide) when used in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In the absence of comparative studies between these agents, the present study sought to indirectly compare metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with nmCRPC who received these therapies. Individual patient-level data from SPARTAN (apalutamide plus ADT) and published data from PROSPER (enzalutamide plus ADT) were utilized. An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by weighting the patients from the SPARTAN study to match baseline characteristics reported for PROSPER. Hazard ratios (HRs) for MFS and OS were re-estimated for SPARTAN using weighted Cox proportional hazards models and indirectly compared with those of PROSPER using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. From the SPARTAN population (N = 1207), a total of 1171 patients were matched to the PROSPER population (N = 1401). The recalculated HRs (95% confidence interval) for apalutamide versus ADT based on the reweighted SPARTAN data to mimic the PROSPER patient population were 0.26 (0.21; 0.33) for MFS and 0.62 (0.41; 0.94) for OS. MAIC-based HRs (95% credible interval) for apalutamide versus enzalutamide were 0.91 (0.68; 1.22) for MFS and 0.77 (0.46; 1.30) for OS. The Bayesian probabilities of apalutamide being more effective than enzalutamide were 73.6% for MFS and 83.5% for OS. MAIC results suggest that nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide have a higher probability of a more favorable MFS and OS compared with those treated with enzalutamide.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31813086
doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01156-5
pii: 10.1007/s12325-019-01156-5
pmc: PMC6979453
doi:

Substances chimiques

Androgen Receptor Antagonists 0
Benzamides 0
Nitriles 0
Thiohydantoins 0
apalutamide 0
Phenylthiohydantoin 2010-15-3
enzalutamide 93T0T9GKNU

Banques de données

figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.10283066']

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis

Langues

eng

Pagination

501-511

Références

Lancet Oncol. 2018 Oct;19(10):1404-1416
pubmed: 30213449
Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):940-7
pubmed: 22999145
Cancer Manag Res. 2018 May 22;10:1319-1327
pubmed: 29861642
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91
pubmed: 9250266
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 31;371(5):424-33
pubmed: 24881730
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Aug;1(3):238-241
pubmed: 31102627
N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 12;378(15):1408-1418
pubmed: 29420164
CNS Drugs. 2013 Nov;27(11):943-53
pubmed: 23975660
World J Urol. 2016 Nov;34(11):1505-1513
pubmed: 26988552
Eur Urol. 2018 Oct;74(4):534-535
pubmed: 29866462
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 21;6(1):e16237
pubmed: 21283698
Prog Urol. 2018 Nov;28(12S):S79-S130
pubmed: 30392712
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Jun 30;8:323-33
pubmed: 27418847
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):417-28
pubmed: 21669366
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Oct 1;31(28):3525-30
pubmed: 24002508
Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun;33(6):537-49
pubmed: 25795232
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 28;378(26):2465-2474
pubmed: 29949494
Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):285-293
pubmed: 30119985
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Jul;9(26):1-134, iii-iv
pubmed: 16014203
Curr Med Res Opin. 2015 Feb;31(2):315-22
pubmed: 25356603
Cancer Res. 2008 Jun 1;68(11):4447-54
pubmed: 18519708
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):607-17
pubmed: 23104435

Auteurs

Simon Chowdhury (S)

Department of Medical Oncology, Guy's, King's, and St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. simon.chowdhury@gstt.nhs.uk.

Stéphane Oudard (S)

European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

Hiroji Uemura (H)

Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan.

Steven Joniau (S)

University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Dominic Pilon (D)

Analysis Group, Inc, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Martin Ladouceur (M)

Analysis Group, Inc, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Ajay S Behl (AS)

Janssen Scientific Affairs, Horsham, PA, USA.

Jinan Liu (J)

Janssen Scientific Affairs, Horsham, PA, USA.

Lindsay Dearden (L)

Janssen Global Services, Raritan, NJ, USA.

Jan Sermon (J)

Janssen EMEA, Beerse, Belgium.

Suzy Van Sanden (S)

Janssen EMEA, Beerse, Belgium.

Joris Diels (J)

Janssen EMEA, Beerse, Belgium.

Boris A Hadaschik (BA)

University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH