MATCHING-ADJUSTED INDIRECT COMPARISON (MAIC) OF THE EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF APALUTAMIDE AND DAROLUTAMIDE FOR THE TREATMENT OF NONMETASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER (NMCRPC)
Author(s)
Chowdhury S1, Oudard S2, Uemura H3, Joniau S4, Liu J5, Dearden L6, Sermon J7, Van Sanden S7, Diels J7, Hadaschik BA8
1Guy's, King's, and St. Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK, 2Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France, 3Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan, 4University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 5Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Horsham, PA, USA, 6Janssen Global Services, Raritan, NJ, USA, 7Janssen EMEA, Beerse, Belgium, 8University of Duisburg-Essen, and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
OBJECTIVES: Apalutamide (APA) and darolutamide (DARO), both combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), have been compared with ADT in the respective SPARTAN and ARAMIS randomised trials. In the absence of head-to-head trials, both agents are compared indirectly. METHODS: Patient-level data from SPARTAN (first interim analysis [IA1]) and published data from ARAMIS (IA1) were utilized. SPARTAN patients were weighted to match baseline characteristics as reported for ARAMIS in an anchored MAIC, using ADT as the common treatment arm. First, hazard ratios (HRs) for efficacy end-points metastasis-free survival (MFS), progression-free survival (PFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression and overall survival (OS), and odds ratios for tolerability were re-estimated for SPARTAN using weighted Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models. Next, the reweighted SPARTAN results were indirectly compared with reported HRs and ORs from ARAMIS using a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: A total of 1,150 SPARTAN patients were included and assigned weights to match the ARAMIS population (N=1,509). MAIC-based HRs (95% confidence interval) for SPARTAN were significant in favor of APA+ADT vs ADT at 0.29 (0.22, 0.38) for MFS, 0.30 (0.23, 0.39) for PFS, 0.06 (0.05, 0.08) for PSA progression, and indicated a favorable trend for OS (HR = 0.75 [0.45, 1.23]). MAIC-based HRs (95% confidence interval) for APA+ADT vs DARO+ADT were 0.70 (0.51, 0.98) for MFS, 0.79 (0.59, 1.08) for PFS, 0.46 (0.33, 0.64) for PSA progression, and 1.05 (0.58, 1.93) for OS. The Bayesian probabilities of APA+ADT being more effective than DARO+ADT were 98.3% for MFS, 93.1% for PFS, ~100% for PSA progression, and 43.5% for OS. The MAIC results indicated comparable tolerability profiles for APA and DARO. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data and Bayesian probabilities, results suggest that nmCRPC patients treated with APA+ADT had more favorable MFS, PFS, and PSA progression than those who received DARO+ADT with comparable tolerability of the treatments.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2019-11, ISPOR Europe 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark
Acceptance Code
CL4
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
Oncology
Explore Related HEOR by Topic