Cost-effectiveness of Pomalidomide, Carfilzomib, and Daratumumab for the Treatment of Patients with Heavily Pretreated Relapsed–refractory Multiple Myeloma in the United States

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of Daratumumab, Lenalidomide and dexamethasone for relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

The prominent efficacy in terms of increasing progression-free survival (PFS) of Daratumumab, Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) triplet therapy versus Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) was proven previously in relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, the cost effectiveness of DRd versus KRd is unknown.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model by using an Iranian payer perspective and a 10-year time horizon to estimate the healthcare cost, Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years gain (LYG) for DRd and KRd triplet therapies. Clinical data were obtained from meta-analyses and randomized clinical trials (RCTs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess model uncertainty. Budget impact analysis of 5 years of treatment under the DRd triplet therapy was also analysed.

RESULTS

DRd was estimated to be more effective compared to KRd, providing 0.28 QALY gain over the modelled horizon. DRd-treated patients incurred $264 in total additional costs. The incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) and cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) were $956/QALY and $472/LYG respectively. The budget impact analysis indicates that adding Daratumumab to Lenalidomide and dexamethasone regimen, in the first 5 years, will increase the healthcare system's expenses by $6.170.582.

CONCLUSION

DRd triplet therapy compared to KRd is a cost-effective regimen for RRMM under Iran willingness-to-pay threshold.

Opportunity Strikes for Reducing Cancer Drug Waste: Bortezomib as an Example of Vial Mis-Sizing in Oncology

Mis-sized packaging leads to millions of dollars in drug waste annually. Now is the time to act.

Impact of Disease Progression, Line of Therapy, and Response on Health-Related Quality of Life in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review

This systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to better understand the impact of disease progression, line of therapy, and clinical response on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Multiple databases were searched to identify records relating to HRQoL in adult patients with MM. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers for inclusion based on pre-defined criteria. Records flagged for inclusion had full texts subsequently screened using the same method. A third round of screening was then conducted to identify studies that assessed the relationship of HRQoL to disease progression, line of therapy, or clinical response. Quality assessment was conducted on utility studies using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Quality Assessment Checklist for Health State Utility Values. After all rounds of screening were complete, 44 records (representing 41 studies) were included in the SLR. Thirty records reported data relating HRQoL to disease progression, 5 reported data relating HRQoL to line of therapy, and 19 reported data relating HRQoL to response. Despite a lack of homogeneity and small number of studies, the data show overall that progressive disease and increasing lines of therapy were associated with worsened patient HRQoL and increasing depth of response was associated with improved patient HRQoL. The findings from this SLR support that desirable treatment outcomes such as delayed progression, fewer lines of therapy, and achieving the deepest possible clinical response result in improved HRQoL in patients with MM.

Systematic literature review of health economic models developed for multiple myeloma to support future analyses

AIMS

The goal of this study was to review the economic evaluations of health technologies in multiple myeloma (MM) and provide guidance and recommendations for future health economic analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systemic literature review (SLR) was conducted on original economic assessment studies and structured review papers focusing on the studies in MM. The search was limited to English language papers published from 1 January 2000 onwards. Publications not applying any type of modelling methodology to describe disease progression and patient pathways over a specific time horizon were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 2,643 publications were initially identified, of which 148 were eligible to be included in the full-text review phase. From these, 49 publications were included in the final analysis. Most published health economic analyses supported by models came from high-income countries. Evaluations from middle-income countries were rarely published. Diagnostic technologies were rarely modelled and integrated care had not been modelled. Very few models investigated MM treatments from a societal perspective and there was a relative lack of evaluations regarding minimal residual disease (MRD).

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the publications included differences between trial populations and modelled populations, justification of methods, lack of confounder analyses, and small trial populations. Limitations of our study included the infeasibility of comparing MM economic evaluations due to the significant variance in modelled therapeutic lines and indications, and the relative scarcity of published economic evaluations from non-high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

As published economic models lacked many of the elements of the complex and heterogeneous patient pathways in MM and they focused on single decision problems, a thorough, open-source economic whole disease modelling framework is needed to assess the economic value of a wide range of technologies across countries with various income levels with a more detailed view on MM, by including patient-centric and societal aspects.

Cost-effectiveness of idecabtagene vicleucel compared with conventional care in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients in Canada and France

BACKGROUND

The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) is approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have already received an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody and have progressed on their last therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ide-cel versus conventional care in Canada and France.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ide-cel (target dose 450 × 10⁶ CAR T cells) in its approved indication in terms of life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs. Patient-level data from the KarMMa Phase II clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03361748) and KarMMa-RW study were used to inform the model; overall and progression-free survival were extrapolated using standard parametric functions after the observed periods. The model adopted Canadian and French societal perspectives over a lifetime horizon. Costs, utilities, discounting (Canada: 1.5%, France: 2.5%), and general population mortality were country-specific.

RESULTS

The base case demonstrated that ide-cel was associated with more additional LYs (+2.64 and +2.51) and QALYs (+2.31 and +2.54) than conventional care at incremental costs of CAN$588,490 and €392,251 in Canada and France, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ide-cel was $255,245 per QALY in Canada, and €154,593 per QALY in France.

CONCLUSION

Ide-cel was associated with significant survival improvements in terms of both LYs and QALYs in patients with progressive triple-class-exposed RRMM. The ICER for ide-cel was similar to that of other approved and reimbursed RRMM therapies.

Daratumumab in first-line therapy is cost-effective in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma

Triplet regimens, such as lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) or thalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (VTd), are standard induction therapies for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The addition of daratumumab to RVd and VTd has been investigated in the GRIFFIN and CASSIOPEIA trials, respectively, resulting in improvement in the rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. In this study, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with a 10-year time horizon to compare first-line and second-line use of daratumumab for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. Because long-term follow-up data for these clinical trials are not yet available, we developed a Markov model that uses MRD status to predict progression-free survival. Daratumumab was used either in the first-line setting in combination with RVd or VTd or in the second-line setting with carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Kd). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated from a Japanese and US payer perspective. In the Japanese analysis, D-RVd showed higher QALYs (5.43 vs 5.18) and lower costs (¥64 479,793 vs ¥71  287 569) compared with RVd, and D-VTd showed higher QALYs (5.67 vs 5.42) and lower costs (¥43  600 310 vs ¥49 471,941) compared with VTd. Similarly, the US analysis demonstrated dominance of a strategy incorporating daratumumab in first-line treatment regimens. Given that overall costs are reduced and outcomes are improved when daratumumab is used as part of a first-line regimen, the economic analysis indicates that addition of daratumumab to first-line RVd and VTd regimens is a dominant strategy compared with reserving its use for the second-line setting.

The Cost of Enfortumab Vedotin Wastage Due to Vial Size-A Real-World Analysis

Simple Summary

Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) is FDA-approved for advanced urothelial cancer in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In this report, we looked at the extent of EV wastage (i.e., discarding of leftover drug not administered to the patient) in a single institute and estimated the financial impact of EV wastage annually in the United States. We found that wastage occurred in 46% of administered doses, with an average waste per dose of 2.9% (range 0–18%). The average drug wastage cost per patient was $3127 ($252 per dose). The annual cost of EV wastage in the US is estimated to be $15 million.

Abstract

Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) is FDA-approved for advanced urothelial cancer in patients previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. We conducted a real-world study to determine the extent of EV wastage in a single institution and assessed the financial impact of EV wastage annually in the United States. Systematic examination of the usage and wastage of all standard-of-care EV treatments administered to urothelial cancer patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 was performed. Drug wastage was calculated by subtracting the actual administered dose from the total dose in an optimal set of vials. We built a pharmacoeconomic model to assess the financial impact of EV wastage annually in the US using the January 2021 Average Sales Prices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Sixty-four patients were treated with standard-of-care EV, with a median of 11 doses per patient (range 1–28). Wastage occurred in 46% of administered doses (367/793), with a mean waste per dose of 2.9% (0–18%). The average drug wastage cost per patient was $3127 ($252/dose). The annual cost of EV wastage in the US is estimated to be $15 million based on wastage data from a single center in the US. In summary, EV wastage due to available vial sizes was 2.9%, which falls under acceptable thresholds. While the percentage of EV wastage is relatively low, waste-minimizing practices may reduce the financial toxicity for the individual patient and for society.

Cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab or bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma survival rates are steadily increasing due to availability of new drug classes used in combination with corticosteroids and chemotherapy. The latest treatments are daratumumab or bortezomib in combination therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). Daratumumab, a CD38-targeted, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody, and bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, are both approved as regimens for transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). There have been cost-effectiveness analyses for daratumumab and bortezomib use in RRMM, but there are limited data regarding cost-effectiveness for daratumumab or bortezomib use in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 separate regimens-(1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone triple therapy (DRd); (2) bortezomib and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone triple therapy (VRd); and (3) lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd)-in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. METHODS: A 2-state Markov model was developed using a US health system perspective and lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities were calculated from the latest progression-free survival data reported in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials-MAIA and SWOG S0777-and extrapolated using a Weibull distribution based on the Hoyle Henley method. National data sources were used to obtain costs in 2019 US dollars, discounted by 3%. Health state utilities from available literature were applied to each health state. Utility decrements for adverse events were individualized in each choice branch with utility decrement weighted by the percentage of patients who experienced the adverse event in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials. We assumed a treatment would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year ($/PFQALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Rd standard therapy had the lowest overall cost at $329,867, followed by VRd at $385,434 and DRd with the highest overall total cost at $626,900. Rd was estimated to result in the least amount (1.24) of PFQALYs, followed by VRd at 1.35 PFQALYs and DRd at 1.52 PFQALYs. With a WTP threshold of $150,000 per PFQALY, VRd was not cost-effective compared with Rd standard therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $530,256 per PFQALY. DRd was not cost-effective compared with VRd (ICER = $1,396,318 per PFQALY), nor as compared with Rd standard therapy (ICER = $1060,832). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that our model was sensitive to cost of DRd, VRd, and Rd drugs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only at a WTP threshold of $550,000 was VRd cost-effective for 40% of iterations. There were no reasonable WTP thresholds, up to $800,00, where DRd became more cost-effective than VRd. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first analysis to directly compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 acceptable chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Neither DRd nor VRd triple therapy were found to be cost-effective vs Rd. Further cost-effectiveness analyses that include overall survival data for daratumumab and bortezomib triple therapies are needed to demonstrate an ICER in QALYs. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. At the time of this study, Narsipur was a UCSF-Actelion Clinical Research and Medical Communications Fellow, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Novel Agents in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Simple Summary

New treatments in multiple myeloma are embraced by patients and physicians but are also associated with substantial higher costs. To ensure the affordability and accessibility of health care, an evaluation of the outcomes in relation to the costs is increasingly requested. However, an up-to-date summary and assessment of the cost-effectiveness evidence for multiple myeloma treatments is currently lacking. We identified the cost-effectiveness studies currently available and show that novel treatments could improve survival with almost 4 years compared to standard of care. However, additional costs compared to standard of care could increase up to USD 535,530 per patient. The ratio between outcomes and costs is above currently accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Our results show cost-effectiveness ratios should be either improved or less favorable ratios should be accepted to ensure accessibility to promising treatments.

Abstract

Background: Novel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) promise to improve outcomes but are also associated with substantial increasing costs. Evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of novel treatments is necessary, but a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the cost-effectiveness evidence of novel treatments is currently lacking. Methods: We searched Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science and EconLIT ProQuest to identify all cost-effectiveness evaluations of novel pharmacological treatment of MM reporting cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and cost per life year (LY) gained since 2005. Quality and completeness of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Results: We identified 13 economic evaluations, comprising 32 comparisons. Our results show that novel agents generate additional LYs (range: 0.311–3.85) and QALYs (range: 0.1–2.85) compared to backbone regimens and 0.02 to 1.10 LYs and 0.01 to 0.91 QALYs for comparisons between regimens containing two novel agents. Lifetime healthcare costs ranged from USD 60,413 to 1,434,937 per patient. The cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY gained ranged from dominating to USD 1,369,062 for novel agents compared with backbone therapies and from dominating to USD 618,018 for comparisons between novel agents. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness ratios of novel agents were generally above current willingness-to-pay thresholds. To ensure access, cost-effectiveness should be improved or cost-effectiveness ratios above current thresholds should be accepted.

Cost Effectiveness of Triplet Selinexor-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone (XVd) in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma (MM) Based on Results from the Phase III BOSTON Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Nearly all patients with multiple myeloma undergo multiple rounds of therapy. The phase III BOSTON trial of once-weekly selinexor and once-weekly bortezomib with dexamethasone (XVd) vs twice-weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) is the basis for this cost-effectiveness analysis in previously treated multiple myeloma from a US commercial payer perspective over a lifetime horizon.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model enabled use of direct overall survival and progression-free survival curves from BOSTON to generate four health states for XVd and Vd: progression-free survival on treatment, progression-free survival off treatment, post-progression, and mortality. Using a 1-week cycle length, benefits and costs were discounted at 3.0% annually. Additional comparators were included in an exploratory analysis that compared XVd against seven additional regimens (six triplets, one doublet).

RESULTS

After considering costs, utility, progression, and survival, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of XVd vs Vd was $475,430/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The 50% cost-effectiveness probability midpoint was near $470,000/QALY, based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The robustness of the analysis was supported by additional scenario assessment and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, which generally demonstrated little variance, with greatest sensitivity to variations in discount rates and utility values. In an exploratory analysis against external comparators, XVd showed a higher QALY gain with a lower cost (i.e., dominance) compared with lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), pomalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (PVd), and carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (KPd).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of XVd to the previously treated multiple myeloma treatment landscape provides a novel oral treatment option, which, when compared to Vd in the base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $475,430/QALY. Exploratory analyses comparing against external comparators suggest that XVd was dominant vs Rd, PVd, and KPd.

Cost-utility analysis of apixaban compared with usual care for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer

Background:

Apixaban (2.5 mg) taken twice daily has been shown to substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with placebo for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE. We aimed to compare the health system costs and health benefits associated with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban with those associated with the current standard of care (where no primary thromboprophylaxis is given), from the perspective of Canada’s publicly funded health care system in this subpopulation of patients with cancer over a lifetime horizon.

Methods:

We performed a cost–utility analysis to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban. We obtained baseline event rates and the efficacy of apixaban from the Apixaban for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Ambulatory Cancer Patients (AVERT) trial on apixaban prophylaxis. We estimated relative risk for bleeding, risk of complications associated with VTE treatment, mortality rates, costs and utilities from other published sources.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, apixaban resulted in lower costs to the health system (Can$7902.98 v. Can$14 875.82) and an improvement in QALYs (9.089 v. 9.006). The key driver of cost–effectiveness results was the relative risk of VTE as a result of apixaban. Results from the probabilistic analysis showed that at a willingness to pay of Can$50 000 per QALY, the strategy with the highest probability of being most cost-effective was apixaban, with a probability of 99.87%.

Interpretation:

We found that apixaban is a cost-saving option for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE.

Belantamab mafodotin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in heavily pretreated patients: a US cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) require several lines of therapy, with typically shorter remission duration with each additional line.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; DREAMM-2; NCT03525678) was compared with selinexor plus dexamethasone (SEL+DEX; STORM Part 2; NCT02336815) among patients with RRMM who have received at least four prior therapies. The base case used a US commercial payer's perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Efficacy data were based on parametric survival analysis of DREAMM-2 and matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison between DREAMM-2 and STORM Part 2, which assessed relative treatment effects between belamaf and SEL+DEX. Cost inputs included drug treatment, concomitant medications, adverse event management, subsequent treatments, and disease management.

RESULTS

Belamaf decreased total treatment costs per patient by $14,267 and increased patient life years by 0.74 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.49 versus SEL+DEX. Patients receiving belamaf accrued 0.12 fewer progression-free life years versus patients on SEL+DEX.

CONCLUSIONS

From a US commercial payer's perspective, belamaf had lower costs, and increased QALYs and life-year gain, compared with SEL+DEX. Belamaf is therefore likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with RRMM who have received four or more prior lines of therapy.

Budget Impact of Belantamab Mafodotin (Belamaf) Adoption in the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the United States

Purpose

Estimate the budget impact of belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received ≥4 prior therapies, including an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a proteasome inhibitor, and an immunomodulatory agent.

Methods

A budget impact analysis (BIA) was developed to estimate the cost difference between current (no belamaf) and projected (with belamaf) market scenarios over 3 years. Comparators were identified from a systematic literature review and included selinexor + dexamethasone or best supportive care. The number of treatment-eligible patients were estimated using an epidemiology model. Base-case analyses were conducted from a US commercial payer perspective (cost year: 2019). Model inputs included market share estimates, treatment duration, and costs of drug acquisition/administration, concomitant medications, adverse event (AE) management, treatment monitoring, and subsequent treatments based on published literature/cost databases. Budget impact, calculated as the difference in costs between current and projected scenarios over 3 years, was reported as cost per member per month (PMPM) and per member per year (PMPY). One-way sensitivity analysis assessed which key parameters most affected model outcomes. Alternative scenarios were tested (1- or 5-year time horizon; Medicare perspective; negligible cost of mental status change AE).

Results

In a hypothetical commercial payer health plan with 1 million members, 33 patients were identified as treatment-eligible over 3 years. Introducing belamaf for patients with RRMM resulted in an estimated budget-neutral PMPM cost of −$0.0003 and PMPY of −$0.004, based on n=9/33 patients receiving treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed that budget impact in the base case was most sensitive to changes in treatment duration and drug acquisition costs. Base-case results were consistent across all scenarios assessed.

Conclusion

BIA indicates that adoption of belamaf in this patient population would be budget neutral for a US health plan.

First-line Daratumumab in Addition to Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Who are Transplant Ineligible: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

Daratumumab is a standard-of-care treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). According to the ALCYONE trial, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) provides significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in patients with NDMM. However, considering the high price of daratumumab, it is necessary to conduct further research on its efficacy and cost. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness, from the US payer perspective, of D-VMP vs VMP in the first-line setting for patients with NDMM who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the lifetime cost and effectiveness of VMP with or without daratumumab as the first-line therapy for patients with NDMM. Univariable sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to address the model robustness and uncertainty. Expected value of perfect information analysis was conducted to explore the uncertainty of decision-making and future costs.

FINDINGS

D-VMP provides an additional 2.417 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at a cost of $30,893 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the transition probability of progression-free survival in D-VMP strategy, the price of daratumumab, and body weight of the patient influenced the model results most strongly. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that D-VMP versus VMP has a 90.8% probability of being cost-effective at the $150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The population expected value of perfect information was $2150 million at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY and $1481 million at $100,000/QALY.

IMPLICATIONS

In this study, D-VMP was estimated to be cost-effective compared with VMP for patients with NDMM at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. (Clin Ther. 2021;43:XXX-XXX) © 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

US Budget Impact Model for Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE

To estimate the budget impact of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (XVd) in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) from the perspective of a private third-party payer and Medicare in the US.

METHODS

The introduction of XVd as an option for patients with previously treated MM compared to no introduction of XVd was considered from a private third-party US payer (with 1,000,000 members) and a Medicare perspective in one-year increments for 3 years. Total annual treatment costs were calculated as the sum of drug costs, costs of treating serious treatment emergent adverse events (grade ≥3), ongoing best supportive care costs, and mortality costs.

RESULTS

The absolute budget impact (Millions, USD) of including XVd from a private third-party payer plan perspective was $0.06, $0.07, $0.08 and $0.22 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative budget impact of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a per member per month (PMPM) budget impact of $0.005, $0.006, $0.007, and $0.006 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. From a Medicare perspective, the absolute budget impact (Millions, USD) of including XVd was $29.68, $36.62, $39.42 and $105.72 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative budget impact of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% percent for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a PMPM budget impact of $0.041, $0.051, $0.054, and $0.049 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed general consistency with the base-case findings.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the potential budget impact of new therapies in MM is vital for payers to manage spending and assess treatment value. The introduction of XVd presents a manageable budget impact for a third-party US payer and Medicare.

Cost-effectiveness and drug wastage of immunotherapeutic agents for hematologic malignancies: a systematic review

Introduction: Novel immunotherapeutic agents (e.g. monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific T-cell engagers) as treatment options for hematologic malignancies continue to emerge. These agents have been used as the standard of care in specific disease states and are associated with high costs. Value assessment of these therapies is of critical importance for coverage and reimbursement decision-making.Areas covered: We identified 15 immunotherapeutic agents through the U.S. FDA approvals for hematologic malignancies until 2018 and systematically reviewed related cost-effectiveness studies. Additionally, we examined whether drug wastage was accounted for in these studies.Expert opinion: We reviewed 51 studies for 14 identified immunotherapeutic agents that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Three studies were observational-based, one study was model-based and incorporated observational data. The remaining studies were model-based with the majority of the model parameters extracted from randomized control trials (RCTs). Among 43 model-based economic evaluations, 13 studies accounted for drug wastage. Most of the studies showed favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of immunotherapeutic agents-containing regimens when compared with no immunotherapeutic agents-containing regimens. Alemtuzumab, brentuximab vedotin, and daratumumab were not considered cost-effective across all the studies. Further investigations are warranted to establish the value of recent immunotherapeutic agents for hematologic malignancies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Post-Autotransplant Lenalidomide in Persons with Multiple Myeloma

Considerable data indicate post-transplant lenalidomide prolongs progression-free survival and probably survival after an autotransplant for multiple myeloma (MM). However, optimal therapy duration is unknown, controversial and differs in the EU and US. We compared outcomes and cost-effectiveness of 3 post-transplant lenalidomide strategies in EU and US settings: (1) none; (2) until failure; and (3) 2-year fixed duration. We used a Markov decision model, which included six health states and informed by published data. The model estimated the lenalidomide strategy given to failure achieved 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at costs per QALY gained of €29,232 in the EU and $133,401 in the US settings. Two-year fixed-duration lenalidomide averted €7,286 per QALY gained in the EU setting and saved 0.84 QALYs at $60,835 per QALY gained in the US setting. These highly divergent costs per QALY in the EU and US settings resulted from significant differences in post-transplant lenalidomide costs and 2nd-line therapies driven by whether post-transplant failure was on or off-lenalidomide. In Monte Carlo simulation analyses which allowed us to account for the variability of inputs, 2-year fixedduration lenalidomide remained the preferred strategy for improving healthcare sustainability in the EU and US settings.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Daratumumab to a Regimen of Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

INTRODUCTION

The ALCYONE trial found that daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) in China. In the present study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of D-VMP versus VMP for patients with newly diagnosed MM in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of frontline D-VMP versus VMP for MM. The life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed to assess the robustness of the model and address uncertainties in variable estimates. Subgroup analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

D-VMP provided an additional 2.99 LYs and 1.67 QALYs compared with VMP, with incremental $64,920 per LY and $116,015 per QALY gained. The results of the univariable sensitivity analysis showed that the parameter that had the greatest impact on the ICER was the cost of subsequent treatment and daratumumab. When the cost of daratumumab was 100%, 70%, 50%, and 30% of the current price, the probability of D-VMP being cost-effective was 2.49%, 16.11%, 39.09%, and 70.73% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,950/QALY, respectively. The results demonstrated that the ICER in all subgroups remained > $30,950/QALY.

CONCLUSION

D-VMP versus VMP is likely to exceed the commonly accepted values of cost-effectiveness in patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed MM in China.

Cost-effectiveness of Novel Treatment Sequences for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma

IMPORTANCE

Although the number of treatments for elderly patients with non-transplant-eligible (NTE) multiple myeloma (MM) has increased substantially, evidence is lacking on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel treatment sequences.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal sequence of treatment for patients with NTE MM from the perspective of the patient, physician, and society.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using data from a Dutch observational registry, this economic evaluation combined evidence from network meta-analyses in a patient-level simulation model and modeled time-to-event and types of events from a hospital perspective with a lifetime horizon. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to September 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty treatment sequences, including up to 3 lines of therapy, were compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP)-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LenDex)-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (PomDex).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes of the model were overall survival (OS), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Sequences starting with daratumumab-VMP (second line: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone or elotuzumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide-maintenance bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) (second line: daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) had the largest expected OS (7.5 years), which is 3.5 additional life-years compared with VMP-LenDex-PomDex. Total costs per patient for these sequences ranged between $786 024 and $1 085 794. The sequence VMPT-VT-carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone-panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio ($98 585 per life-year gained and $132 707 per QALY gained vs VMP-LenDex-PomDex).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that sequences including novel treatments were highly effective, but the cost-effectiveness ratios were above currently accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treating MM with novel agents necessitates either a large increase in budget or a substantial reduction of drug costs by price negotiations, and these findings can support these reimbursement decisions and price negotiations.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Daratumumab to Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Multiple Myeloma

Background: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Methods: A three-state Markov model was developed from the perspective of US payers to simulate the disease development of patient's life time for daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) and bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) regimens. The primary outputs were total costs, expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: The base case results showed that adding daratumumab to VMP provided an additional 3.00 Lys or 2.03 QALYs, at a cost of $262,526 per LY or $388,364 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were most sensitive to utility of progression disease of D-VMP regimens, but no matter how these parameters changed, ICERs remained higher than $150,000 per QALY. Conclusion: In the case that the upper limit of willingness to pay threshold was $150,000 per QALY from the perspective of US payers, D-VMP was not a cost-effective regimen compared to VMP.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatment regimens in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

The expansion of advanced expensive therapeutic innovations for Multiple Myeloma (MM) led to increased disclosure of economic evaluations. The present analysis systematically reviewed and appraised the reporting quality of economic evaluations in MM.

METHODOLOGY

A comprehensive literature search in Ovid, MEDLINE(R), PubMed, and Cochrane libraries was conducted for studies published in the past decade. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction in a standardized form. Study methodological quality assessment was performed using 10-item Drummond's tool.

RESULTS

Of potentially eligible 1150 retrieved studies, 17 met eligibility criteria. Six evaluations (35%) were in newly diagnosed MM and 11 (65%) in relapse refractory (RR) MM. Nine studies (53%) embraced the payer's perspective, five (29%) adopted health care system, one (6%) societal and two did not report. Six (35%) employed partitioned survival model, 4(24%) discrete event simulation, 4(24%) Markov model and 2(12%) used decision tree model. The methodological quality has improved significantly; 16 (94%) studies comprehended a well-defined question by affirming the analysis perspective and examined both costs and outcomes while 13 (71%) provided a comprehensive description of competing alternatives.

CONCLUSION

The addition of novel drugs to the treatment armamentarium of MM is considerably cost-effective. The evaluations became more frequent, methodological quality has improved in the last decade.

Cost and efficacy of peripheral stem cell mobilization strategies in multiple myeloma

Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) can be performed using plerixafor, which is expensive, or high-dose cyclophosphamide (HDCy). We hypothesized that the overall cost of mobilization with plerixafor might not be greater if the cost of complication management was considered. We performed a cost analysis of these two strategies. This multicentric observational study recruited patients with myeloma who underwent a first PBSC mobilization. We considered direct medical costs, including hospitalization, mobilization agents, apheresis, and supportive treatments. We included 111 patients, 54 and 57 in the HDCy and plerixafor groups, respectively. Cost of mobilization with HDCy was 5097 ± 2982€ vs. 10958 ± 1789€ for plerixafor (p < 0.0001). Cost of agents used was 1287 ± 779€ vs. 6552 ± 509€, respectively (p = 0.0009). The mean number of days of hospitalization was 2 and 2.1 days, respectively (p = 0.035). All patients achieved the minimum PBSC collection target (p = 1.0); however, ASCT was performed with HDCy in 67% patients and with plerixafor in 86% (p = 0.02). Plerixafor mobilization incurred a greater cost, mostly due to the greater cost of the drug. Hospitalization length in the two groups was similar in our series. Interestingly, plerixafor appeared to be a very effective and safe mobilizing approach translating into a greater ASCT success.

Pomalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone for elderly patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: A study of the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party (KMMWP-164 study)

Patients with transplant‐ineligible relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have a short life expectancy, especially when they have failed both the proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator therapies. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (PCd) in elderly patients with RRMM. This phase 2 clinical trial recruited 55 elderly patients with RRMM. The patients underwent a 28‐day treatment cycle: pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1‐21, administered orally) and cyclophosphamide (400 mg/day on days 1, 8, and 15; administered orally) plus dexamethasone. The median (range) age of the patients was 73.3 (64‐86) years, and 8 (14.5%) patients who were ≥ 80 years old. Eight (14.5%) and 31 (56.4%) patients exhibited stage III (revised international staging system) and frail status (simplified frailty scale), respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) of PCd therapy were 58.2% and 72.7%, respectively. The median PFS and median overall survival (OS) were 6.90 months (95% CI, 4.7‐9.0) and 18.48 months (95% CI, 9.4‐27.6), respectively. The incidence rate of grade ≥ 3 non‐hematological toxicities was 70.8%. In particular, the incidence rate of primary infection was 45.4%, including 21.8% for pneumonia, 9.0% for sepsis, and 14.6% for febrile neutropenia. In conclusion, PCd is an effective regimen for elderly patients with RRMM who had failed both bortezomib and lenalidomide treatments, but in whom the treatment‐associated infection is the main cause of morbidity and mortality.

Cost Effectiveness of Transplant, Conventional Chemotherapy, and Novel Agents in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Treatments for multiple myeloma (MM) have been rapidly evolving. Newly developed treatment regimens are likely to be more effective but also cost more than conventional therapies.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to compare the cost effectiveness of different classes of MM treatment.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases for studies published during 1990-2018 comparing the cost effectiveness of transplant, chemotherapeutic and novel MM treatments. Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility by two investigators. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the 16-item, validated Quality of Health Economics Studies instrument.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications were included in the systematic review and summarized according to treatment regimen and line. For first-line treatment, transplant was the most cost-effective option for transplant-eligible MM patients [the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $4053-€45,460 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and $3848-$72,852 per life-year gained (LYG)], and the ICER for novel agents compared with conventional chemotherapy was $59,076 per QALY and $220,681 per LYG. For second-line treatment, in comparisons of novel agent-based regimens, ICERs were inconsistent. However, bortezomib-based regimens, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone were each cost effective compared with dexamethasone alone (ICERs showed cost saving, £30,153 per QALY gained, and €39,911 per LYG, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

For transplant-eligible MM patients, transplant is a cost-effective first-line treatment. More cost-effectiveness analyses comparing novel agents in the first-line treatment regimen are warranted to determine which agent or regimen is the most cost effective. In the second-line setting, it is unclear which novel agent-based regimen is most cost effective, but bortezomib-based regimens, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone were each cost effective compared with dexamethasone alone.

A U.S. Cost Analysis of Triplet Regimens for Patients with Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the FDA has approved several 3-agent (i.e., triplet) combinations for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) now recommends triplet regimens over doublets. Little is known about the real-world cost of triplet combinations because of the limited time that they have been on the market since FDA approval. Furthermore, traditional cost analyses developed to support market entrance rely on utilization assumptions that are difficult to validate when numerous comparators simultaneously enter the market.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a 1-year cost analysis of novel triplets used for the treatment of patients with previously treated MM controlling for differences in utilization.

METHODS

FDA-approved, NCCN-recommended (preferred and category 1 for previously treated MM) treatments included in the analysis were daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DARA/LEN/DEX), daratumumab plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (DARA/BOR/DEX), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ELO/LEN/DEX), carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (CAR/LEN/DEX), and ixazomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IXA/LEN/DEX). To control for market uptake, the model was designed to estimate the cost of treating an average patient over a 1-year time horizon. Drug administration and dosing, required comedications, postprogression therapy, monitoring requirements, and adverse event (AE) rates were based on FDA prescribing information or clinical trials. AEs ≥ grade 3 that occurred in ≥ 5% of patients were included. RED BOOK wholesale acquisition costs were used for drug acquisition costs. Costs of drug administration, AE management, and patient monitoring were based on the 2018 Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services payment rates or from published literature (inflated to 2018 U.S. dollars). The treatment duration for each regimen was estimated from modeled progression-free survival data; the 12-month progression-free survival rate was assumed to be equivalent to the probability that an average patient remained on therapy for at least 1 year after treatment initiation, which was used to estimate time-depended treatment-related costs. The probability of progression within 1 year of treatment initiation was used to inform the average postprogression therapy costs for each regimen.

RESULTS

The estimated cost per patient for each triplet regimen was $13,890 (DARA/BOR/DEX), $22,231 (IXA/LEN/DEX), $24,322 (ELO/LEN/DEX), $26,410 (DARA/LEN/DEX), and $27,432 (CAR/LEN/DEX). Drug acquisition costs and treatment duration were the largest drivers of cost. Scenario analyses with plausible alternative input parameters found the maximum per month cost of therapy to be $30,657 (CAR/LEN/DEX) and the minimum per month cost of therapy to be $13,784 (DARA/BOR/DEX).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis controlled for differential utilization rates for 5 FDA-approved, NCCN-recommended triplet therapies for the treatment of previously treated MM. Of the examined regimens, treatment with DARA/BOR/DEX was estimated to have the lowest average monthly cost per patient, while CAR/LEN/DEX was the most expensive. As is common with modeling, some assumptions were necessary, and results may not be generalizable.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, which employs Maiese and funded Cornerstone Research Group, a health economic consulting group, to complete the cost analysis, interpret data, and develop the manuscript. Janssen was involved in the design of the analysis, interpretation of results, and manuscript development and approval. Grima is a founding partner of Cornerstone Research Group, which employs Hollmann, Goyert, and Moldaver. Hollmann, Goyert, and Moldaver were responsible for creation of the economic model. This work was peer-reviewed and presented as an abstract at the Lymphoma and Myeloma 2017 International Congress; October 26-28, 2017; New York, NY.

Tolerability and safety of real-world use of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Pomalidomide (POM) is a second-generation immunomodulatory agent with proven efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) proven to be refractory to previous treatment with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib. We herein conducted a retrospective analysis of 14 RRMM patients receiving POM to determine its tolerability and safety in the clinical setting. The median age of the patients was 72 years (range, 58-84 years), and 85.7% of the patients were aged >70 years. The most frequent treatment dose was 3 mg/day. POM dose reductions were required in 54.5% (6/11) of the patients. The patient data were compared among three age groups (<70, 70-75 and >75 years) and there was only significant difference in daily POM treatment dose. The tolerability of POM must be confirmed, particularly in elderly patients. Dose reduction from 4 to 3 mg occurred during the second cycle in 83.3% (5/6) of the patients. It is important to determine the tolerability of POM in the early phases of treatment. The most frequently reported grade 3/4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia (64.3%), anemia (64.3%) and thrombocytopenia (57.1%). Although the median number of treatment cycles was 4 (range, 1-13), 21.4% (3/14) of the patients with a performance status (PS) of 3 were administered only 1 treatment cycle. The tolerability of POM was low among patients with poor PS and an aggressive treatment introduction should be avoided. However, 21.4% (3/14) of the patients were able to continue treatment for >1 year and some patients received long-term therapy. POM does not require dose modification for renal function, and multiple capsule doses are available, which is an advantage of POM compared with LEN. POM may be administered to late-stage RRMM patients in a real-world clinical setting, but elderly patients or those with poor PS must be treated with caution. In this manner, the treatment options for RRMM patients may be expanded by assessing the tolerability and safety of POM.

Value and Cost of Myeloma Therapy-We Can Afford It

A national conversation regarding the price and affordability of drugs exists, where concern for value and benefits of medications is challenged by the increasing price of both injectable and oral medications, including the cost of care of myeloma. At the same time, we have seen unprecedented improvements in the overall survival of patients with myeloma, mostly because of the availability of these new drugs. Here, we present data to assert that these medications and associated expenses are of direct benefit to patients and society. The entrepreneurial reward for drug development in the United States has fueled vigorous drug development efforts that have culminated in the approval of 11 new drugs for the treatment of myeloma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1999. These patented drugs are available to patients in the United States usually at a higher price than in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the majority of patients, via direct copay assistance or through indirect support via third parties, have access to these drugs irrespective of their socioeconomic status. One of the major regulatory hurdles that prevents access to these drugs is the legal impossibility that pharmaceutical companies have in directly supporting copay assistance for patients with government-funded health care. Moreover, assessments of value should include formal pharmacoeconomic analyses performed by experts. Interference with market forces and coercive action, such as price controls, or exercising eminent domain in the quest for cheaper medications will stymie innovation and rob us of the cures of the future.