Pharmacoeconomic study of the degarelix drug use for treatment of hormone-dependent prostate cancer compared to gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs

Objective: to determine clinical and economic consequences of using the degarelix drug instead of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs for treatment of advanced hormone-sensitive prostate c ancer.

Materials and methods. The main criteria of therapy effectiveness were overall survival and progression-free survival. Cost of the drugs being compared, as well as expenses associated with therapy after prostate cancer progression (per the dynamics of plasma prostate-specific antigen levels), were considered. A Markov model of prostate cancer progression was used including states “without progression”, “after progression”, and “death”. The modeling time horizon was 3 years. The main source of information on drug costs was the registry of maximal retail pricese for vital and essential drugs. The target population only included patients with high (>20 ng/ml) baseline level of prostate-specific antigen. Information on effectiveness was obtained based on analysis of the results of randomized comparative clinical trials of degarelix and leuprorelin.

Results. Compared to leuprorelin, degarelix use was characterized by more favorable effectiveness and safety profiles (based on all criteria considered in the analysis). In the basic modeling script, progression-free survival was 27.9 and 20.1 months for degarelix and GnRH agonists, respectively. Despite higher cost of therapy prior to progression (359,000 and 268,000 rubles, respectively), degarelix use instead of GnRH agonists leads to 31 % decrease in direct budget medical expenses on drug provision under the state guarantee program (1,322,000 vs. 1,907,000 rubles), as well as to a decrease in the cost-effectiveness ratio (47,408 rubles/month without prostate cancer progression versus 94,651 rubles/ month without prostate cancer progression)

Conclusion. Compared to treatment with GnRH agonists, use of degarelix as the 1st line therapy for treatment of prostate cancer leads to significant savings of healthcare budget expenses.

1. Nosov D.A., Gladkov O.A., Korolyova I.A. et al. Practical guidelines on prostate cancer treatment. Malignant tumors: RUSSCO practical guidelines #3s2. Vol. 7. USA, 2017. Pp. 421–432. (In Russ.).

2. List of vital and essential drugs for medical use for 2018 (approved by the Order of the Government of the Russian Federation from 23.10.2017 No. 2323-р). (In Russ.).

3. Klotz L., Miller K., Crawford E.D. et al. Disease control outcomes from analysis of pooled individual patient data from five comparative randomised clinical trials of degarelix versus luteinising hormonereleasing hormone agonists. Eur Urol 2014;66(6):1101–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.063. PMID: 24440304.

4. Tombal B., Miller K., Boccon-Gibod L. et al. Additional analysis of the secondary end point of biochemical recurrence rate in a phase 3 trial (CS21) comparing degarelix 80 mg versus leuprolide in prostate cancer patients segmented by baseline characteristics. Eur Urol 2010;57(5):836–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.029. PMID: 19962227.

5. Schröder F., Tombal B., Miller K. et al. Changes in alkaline phosphatase levels in patients with prostate cancer receiving degarelix or leuprolide: results from a 12-month, comparative, phase III study. BJU Int 2010;106(2):182–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08981.x. PMID: 19912212.

6. Crawford E.D., Tombal B., Miller K. et al. A phase III extension trial with a 1-arm crossover from leuprolide to degarelix: comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and antagonist effect on prostate cancer. J Urol 2011;186(3):889–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.083. PMID: 21788033.

7. Ignat’eva V.I., Avksent’eva M.V., Omel’yanovskiy V.V., Derkach E.V. The social and economic burden of cancer in the Russian Federation. Meditsinskie tekhnologii. Otsenka i vybor = Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice 2013;(4):73. (In Russ.).