Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Journal of Medical Economics · October 7, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Aims To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of darolutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (DARO+ADT) versus enzalutamide plus ADT (ENZA+ADT) and apalutamide plus ADT (APA+ADT) as first-line androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) double therapies for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) from a US healthcare sector perspective.Methods A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free mCSPC, progressed mCRPC, and death) projected lifetime costs and outcomes over a 30-year horizon with monthly cycles. DARO+ADT efficacy was derived from the ARANOTE trial; comparative efficacy for ENZA+ADT and APA+ADT was estimated via network meta-analysis-derived hazard ratios. Costs (drug acquisition, adverse event management, subsequent therapy, end-of-life care) and utilities were derived from trial data, published literature, and US cost sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic, probabilistic, and two-way sensitivity analyses assessed parameter uncertainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY.Results DARO+ADT generated 4.18 QALYs versus 4.03 (ENZA+ADT) and 3.99 (APA+ADT), driven by longer treatment persistence and lower adverse-event-related disutility. Versus ENZA+ADT, DARO+ADT yielded 0.15 incremental QALYs at $12,564 incremental cost (ICER: $85,108/QALY; net monetary benefit: $9,579). Versus APA+ADT, DARO+ADT was dominant (0.19 additional QALYs, $4,293 lower cost; net monetary benefit: $33,153). Two-way sensitivity analyses varying off-treatment utilities and post-discontinuation therapy costs showed that DARO+ADT remained cost-effective versus ENZA+ADT and dominant versus APA+ADT, respectively, across the parameter ranges tested. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed DARO+ADT was cost-effective in 51% and 52% of simulations versus ENZA+ADT and APA+ADT, respectively, which demonstrates uncertainty around the incremental findings.Limitations The analysis relies on indirect comparisons and extrapolated modeling, factors that may limit the generalizability of the findings.Conclusions DARO+ADT was cost-effective versus ENZA+ADT and dominant versus APA+ADT, driven by improved tolerability and treatment persistence, supporting its value as a first-line mCSPC option.