Background: Network meta-analysis can provide useful evidence for relative efficacy and toxicity of different treatment options in absence of head-to-head trials. Previously, we reported no difference in efficacy between Apalutamide (APA) and Enzalutamide (ENZA). In this analysis, we provide updated indirect comparisons of all FDA approved agents (APA,ENZA, Darolutamide(DARO) for the treatment of M0CRPC with rapid PSA doubling time. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant clinical trials. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for Metastasis Free Survival (MFS), Overall Survival (OS) and data on grade 3 or higher AEs were abstracted. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using WinBUGS 1.4.3 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) to perform an indirect comparisons. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: Three RCTs (SPARTAN, PROSPER and ARAMIS) compared APA, ENZA and DARO respectively in combination with ADT to ADT alone. A total of 4117 patients were included in efficacy analysis (2694 received novel hormonal agents and 1423 received ADT and placebo). There were no statistically significant differences in MFS (HR 0.97, 95% CrI 0.74 - 1.30) between APA and ENZA; however, both APA 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 -0.92) and ENZA 0.71 (95% CrI 0.53, 0.92) significantly improved MFS as compared to DARO. There were no statistically significant differences in OS between these drugs. DARO had fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events of fatigue (HR 0.09, 95% CrI 0.01 – 0.51) compared to ENZA. However other common adverse events such as hypertension, falls, coronary artery disease/myocardial infarction and diarrhea were not significantly different between treatment groups. There was low risk of bias amongst included studies. Conclusions: APNA and ENZA provide significant improved in MFS as compared to DARO in patients with M0CRPC. The drugs have similar toxicity profile except that DARO was associated with lower incidence of fatigue compared to ENZA. Cost effective analysis of these drugs will be reported separately.