Bhattacharjee, Sandipan

263 Background: In non-metastatic CRPC with short PSA doubling time, APA or ENZA with ADT have shown to slow development of metastasis. We performed an indirect comparison of APA and ENZA clinical effectiveness (efficacy and side effects) using network meta-analysis. Methods: A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify relevant RCTs. Collected data included hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for primary outcome of median time to metastasis free survival (MFS) and secondary outcomes of median time to overall survival (OS), PSA progression, initiation of cytotoxic therapy and number of adverse events (AE) in each study arm. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We used a fixed effects model using Bayesian approach to generate pooled estimates. Results: Two randomized trials (n=2608) were analyzed. SPARTAN trial compared APA plus ADT to ADT alone and PROSPER compared ENZA plus ADT to ADT alone. Risk of bias was low. There were no statistically significant differences between APA and ENZA in MFS, OS, median time to PSA progression and initiation of cytotoxic therapy. The MFS endpoint hazard ratio (HR) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.73-1.28) for comparing the two drugs. APA had fewer reports of hypertension (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.91) compared to enzalutamide. However, no significant differences were observed in other AEs including grade 3 or higher AE, serious AE, AE leading to death or trial discontinuation. Common AEs (nausea, diarrhea, fall, dizziness, arthralgia, weight loss) and AEs of special interests (mental impairment disorders, seizures) were also comparable between APA and ENZA. Conclusions: In non-metastatic CRPC with short PSA doubling time, APA and ENZA showed similar time to metastasis free survival. APA was associated with lower incidence of hypertension than ENZA; otherwise, side effect profile was similar. Given similar efficacy and risk profile demonstrated in this study, clinical decision making should depend on other factors such as cost and availability.

Abstract Background Back pain is a very prevalent complaint, affecting two-thirds of the US population, and it accounts for $100 billion annually in health care expenditures. The occurrence of depression has been reported in existing literature among patients with back pain, but there is limited information regarding health care expenditures among patients with back pain and concurrent depression. Objective To assess excess total and subtypes of health care expenditures among adults with spondylosis, intervertebral disc disorders, and other back problems who reported having depression compared with those without depression in the United States. Methods We utilized a cross-sectional design, pooling Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data from 2010–2012. The eligible study sample included adults (age ≥18 years) who reported positive health care expenditure. Total and subtypes of health care expenditures constituted the dependent variable. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions on logged expenditures were performed. Four models were developed to assess influence of demographics, functional ability, and concurrent diagnoses on health care expenditures. Results A total of 6,739 adults with spondylosis, intervertebral disc disorders, and other back problems were assessed, 20.2% (N = 1,316) of whom had concurrent depression. Adults with concurrent depression had significantly higher total health care expenditures ($13,153) compared with the nondepression group ($7,477, P < 0.001). Outpatient and prescription expenditures showed similar findings. After adjusting for demographics, functional disabilities, and comorbidities, excess cost remained higher in the group reporting concurrent depression (46%). Conclusions This study demonstrates that the presence of depression in adults with spondylosis, intervertebral disc disorders, and other back problems is associated with greater economic burden. These findings remained consistent after adjusting for all independent sets of variables. The study’s findings suggest that interventions resulting in better management of depression have the potential to significantly reduce the economic burden in this population.

243 Background: AA and D have been shown in separate trials to increase overall survival in patients with mCSPC compared to Androgen Derivation Therapy (ADT). In the absence of head to head clinical trials and to provide clinical guidance, we performed an indirect comparison of AA and D using network meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant clinical trials. Collected data included hazard ratio and confidence interval (CI) for Overall Survival (OS) and number of adverse events in each study arm. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using WinBUGS 1.4.3 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) to perform an indirect comparison of D and AA. Results: Five clinical trials were included in this analysis. Two trials (LATITUDE, STAMPEDE) compared AA to ADT and three trials (CHAARTED,STAMPEDE, GETUG-AFU 15 study) compared D to ADT. Results from both fixed effect and random effect network meta-analyses for the primary outcome (OS) revealed no statistical significance between AA and D (HR 0.81,95%CI 0.65-1.01; HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.40-1.82) respectively. Comparatively, abiraterone had statistically significant fewer events of anemia (OR 0.14,95%CI 0.08-0.23), neutropenia (OR 0.06,95%CI 0.03-0.12), peripheral edema (OR 0.21,95%CI 0.09-0.44), dyspnea (OR 0.22,95%CI 0.08-0.51), nausea (OR 0.09,95%CI 0.02-0.24), diarrhea (OR 0.06,95%CI 0.02-0.15), constipation (OR 0.25,95%CI 0.11-0.53), and fatigue (OR 0.12,95%CI 0.07-0.20). AA had statistically significant more events of hot flashes (OR 3.85, 95% CI2.33-6.25). For other adverse events, both drugs were statistically similar. Conclusions: There is no difference in OS using AA for longer periods in CSPC than a regimen of a limited number of cycles of D. There are significant differences in side effect profile of these drugs. Further analyses are needed to determine cost effectiveness of AA vs D under consideration of comparative efficacy and safety.