Benjamin Lowentritt, Mehmet A Bilen, Ibrahim Khilfeh, Carmine Rossi, Shawn Du, Frederic Kinkead, Lilian Diaz, Dominic Pilon, Lorie Ellis, Neal D Shore
{"title":"阿帕鲁胺与醋酸阿比特龙治疗转移性去势敏感前列腺癌患者的总生存率:美国现实世界患者的头对头分析","authors":"Benjamin Lowentritt, Mehmet A Bilen, Ibrahim Khilfeh, Carmine Rossi, Shawn Du, Frederic Kinkead, Lilian Diaz, Dominic Pilon, Lorie Ellis, Neal D Shore","doi":"10.57264/cer-2025-0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Head-to-head studies of survival outcomes associated with different androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) treatments for metastatic castration (hormone)-sensitive prostate cancer have not been conducted. The purpose of this study was to compare 24-month overall survival among ARPI-naive patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) who initiated apalutamide or abiraterone acetate. <b>Materials & methods:</b> Linked de-identified clinical and claims healthcare databases were used to compare overall survival between patients with mCSPC initiating apalutamide or abiraterone acetate treated in community-based urology practices in the USA. Overall survival at 24 months post-treatment initiation (primary analyses) was compared between apalutamide and abiraterone acetate initiators using weighted Cox proportional hazards models (exploratory analyses used all available follow-up). <b>Results:</b> Overall, 1879 and 2073 patients had initiated apalutamide or abiraterone acetate, respectively (both cohorts: weighted mean age 72 years, 62% were white, and 66% had bone metastasis). At 24 months post-index, patients in the apalutamide cohort had a 26% lower risk of mortality compared with those in the abiraterone acetate cohort (hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.93; p = 0.010), with the difference maintained when outcomes were evaluated using all available follow-up (hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.88; nominal p < 0.001). <b>Conclusion:</b> In this nationally representative, real-world head-to-head analysis of nearly 4000 ARPI-naive patients with mCSPC, apalutamide was associated with a 26% reduction in the risk of mortality compared with abiraterone acetate by 24 months post-treatment initiation.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e250023"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer treated with apalutamide versus abiraterone acetate: a head-to-head analysis of real-world patients in the USA.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Lowentritt, Mehmet A Bilen, Ibrahim Khilfeh, Carmine Rossi, Shawn Du, Frederic Kinkead, Lilian Diaz, Dominic Pilon, Lorie Ellis, Neal D Shore\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2025-0023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Head-to-head studies of survival outcomes associated with different androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) treatments for metastatic castration (hormone)-sensitive prostate cancer have not been conducted. The purpose of this study was to compare 24-month overall survival among ARPI-naive patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) who initiated apalutamide or abiraterone acetate. <b>Materials & methods:</b> Linked de-identified clinical and claims healthcare databases were used to compare overall survival between patients with mCSPC initiating apalutamide or abiraterone acetate treated in community-based urology practices in the USA. Overall survival at 24 months post-treatment initiation (primary analyses) was compared between apalutamide and abiraterone acetate initiators using weighted Cox proportional hazards models (exploratory analyses used all available follow-up). <b>Results:</b> Overall, 1879 and 2073 patients had initiated apalutamide or abiraterone acetate, respectively (both cohorts: weighted mean age 72 years, 62% were white, and 66% had bone metastasis). At 24 months post-index, patients in the apalutamide cohort had a 26% lower risk of mortality compared with those in the abiraterone acetate cohort (hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.93; p = 0.010), with the difference maintained when outcomes were evaluated using all available follow-up (hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.88; nominal p < 0.001). <b>Conclusion:</b> In this nationally representative, real-world head-to-head analysis of nearly 4000 ARPI-naive patients with mCSPC, apalutamide was associated with a 26% reduction in the risk of mortality compared with abiraterone acetate by 24 months post-treatment initiation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e250023\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2025-0023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2025-0023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer treated with apalutamide versus abiraterone acetate: a head-to-head analysis of real-world patients in the USA.
Aim: Head-to-head studies of survival outcomes associated with different androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) treatments for metastatic castration (hormone)-sensitive prostate cancer have not been conducted. The purpose of this study was to compare 24-month overall survival among ARPI-naive patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) who initiated apalutamide or abiraterone acetate. Materials & methods: Linked de-identified clinical and claims healthcare databases were used to compare overall survival between patients with mCSPC initiating apalutamide or abiraterone acetate treated in community-based urology practices in the USA. Overall survival at 24 months post-treatment initiation (primary analyses) was compared between apalutamide and abiraterone acetate initiators using weighted Cox proportional hazards models (exploratory analyses used all available follow-up). Results: Overall, 1879 and 2073 patients had initiated apalutamide or abiraterone acetate, respectively (both cohorts: weighted mean age 72 years, 62% were white, and 66% had bone metastasis). At 24 months post-index, patients in the apalutamide cohort had a 26% lower risk of mortality compared with those in the abiraterone acetate cohort (hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.93; p = 0.010), with the difference maintained when outcomes were evaluated using all available follow-up (hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.88; nominal p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this nationally representative, real-world head-to-head analysis of nearly 4000 ARPI-naive patients with mCSPC, apalutamide was associated with a 26% reduction in the risk of mortality compared with abiraterone acetate by 24 months post-treatment initiation.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies.
Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.