@Article{,
AUTHOR = {Jordan Hill, Mike Paulden, Christopher McCabe, Scott A. North, Peter Venner, Nawaid Usmani},
TITLE = {Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin with enzalutamide in the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting},
JOURNAL = {Canadian Journal of Urology},
VOLUME = {26},
YEAR = {2019},
NUMBER = {6},
PAGES = {10045--10053},
URL = {http://www.techscience.com/CJU/v26n6/60439},
ISSN = {1488-5581},
ABSTRACT = {<b>Introduction:</b> Enzalutamide (Enza) is an effective treatmentformetastaticcastrate-resistantprostatecancer (mCPRC).  However, Enza is not cost-effective (CE) at willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds from $0-$125 000/quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and is therefore a strain on valuable health care dollars.  Metformin (Met) isinexpensive(~$8.00/month)andisthoughttoimprove prostate cancer specifc and overall survival compared to thosenottakingMet.Wehypothesizedthattheremustbe an added effect Met could provide that would make Enza CEtherebyalleviatingthisfnancialstrainongovernment health care budgets.  <br/>
<b>Materials and methods:</b> We constructed a Markov model and performed a threshold analysis to narrow in on the added effect needed to make such a combination therapy cost-effective at various WTP thresholds.  <br/>
<b>Results:</b> At a WTP threshold of $50 000/QALY Enza + Met is unlikely to be CE unless it increases Enza’s effcacy by more than 30%.  At a WTP threshold of $100 000, Enza + Met could be CE barring Met adds 18.73% to the effcacy of Enza.<br/> 
<b>Conclusions:</b> Enza + Met is unlikely to be CE at WTP thresholds less than $100 000/QALY; these results make sense because a therapy that is not CE at these WTP thresholds by itself is unlikely to be CE with an adjuvant therapy that keep a patient on such a treatment for even longer. Finally, our model suggests that the mCRPC setting is not the optimal place to trial adding Met as the relative costs are high and utility values low.},
DOI = {}
}