Economic Evaluation of Adding Daratumumab to a Regimen of Bortezomib + Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Based on the Latest Updated Analysis of CASTOR

Economic Evaluation of Adding Daratumumab to Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab to carfilzomib and dexamethasone (KdD) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

Materials and Methods

A Markov model was established to estimate health and economic outcomes of carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) with or without daratumumab for RRMM patients over a lifetime horizon. The patients and intervention of the two arms were modeled according to the CANDOR trial. Costs were collected from the Chinese health system perspective. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the robustness of our conclusions.

Results

Compared with the Kd arm, KdD achieved an additional 0.537 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $138,084, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) of $257,319 per QALY. Uncertainty analyses revealed that the model is robust to all the input parameters.

Conclusion

From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, adding daratumumab to the Kd regimen for patients with RRMM appears to lack cost-effectiveness. Exploring alternative avenues such as negotiating for a more favorable price or introducing a financial assistance program dedicated to daratumumab and/or carfilzomib could prove to be an effective strategy in enhancing accessibility of this combination.

A Systematic Review of Modeling Approaches to Evaluate Treatments for Relapsed Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Critical Review and Considerations for Future Health Economic Models

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Multiple myeloma is a rare incurable hematological cancer in which most patients relapse or become refractory to treatment. This systematic literature review aimed to critically review the existing economic models used in economic evaluations of systemic treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and to summarize how the models addressed differences in the line of therapy and exposure to prior treatment.

METHODS

Following a pre-approved protocol, literature searches were conducted on 17 February, 2023, in relevant databases for models published since 2014. Additionally, key health technology assessment agency websites were manually searched for models published as part of submission dossiers since 2018. Reported information related to model conceptualization, structure, uncertainty, validation, and transparency were extracted into a pre-defined extraction sheet.

RESULTS

In total, 49 models assessing a wide range of interventions across multiple lines of therapy were included. Only five models specific to heavily pre-treated patients and/or those who were refractory to multiple treatment classes were identified. Most models followed a conventional simple methodology, such as partitioned survival (n = 28) or Markov models (n = 9). All included models evaluated specific interventions rather than the whole treatment sequence. Where subsequent therapies were included in the model, these were generally only considered from a cost and resource use perspective. The models generally used overall and progression-free survival as model inputs, although data were often immature. Sensitivity analyses were frequently reported (n = 41) whereas validation was only considered in less than half (n = 19) of the models.

CONCLUSIONS

Published economic models in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma rarely followed an individual patient approach, mainly owing to the higher need for complex data assumptions compared with simpler modeling approaches. As many patients experience disease progression on multiple treatment lines, there is a growing need for modeling complex treatment strategies, leading to more sophisticated approaches in the future. Maintaining transparency, high reporting standards, and thorough analyses of uncertainty are crucial to support these advancements.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of daratumumab (D) in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) for treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have received at least one prior therapy in Singapore.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab from a healthcare system perspective over 10 years. Clinical inputs were obtained from the POLLUX trial. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs obtained from public healthcare institutions. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.

RESULTS

DRd was associated with a high base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$576,247 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, compared with Rd. According to one-way sensitivity analysis, ICER was most heavily influenced by time horizon, discount rate for outcomes, progression-free utility and cost of daratumumab. Regardless of the variation, DRd remained not cost-effective. Even when the cost of both daratumumab and lenalidomide dropped by 20% and 80%, the ICERs remained high at US$470,400 and US$152,860 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

At current prices, the addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone does not represent cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Singapore.

Financial toxicity in cancer care: origins, impact, and solutions

Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that can arise for patients, and their family members, as a result of cancer treatment. It includes direct out-of-pocket costs for treatment and indirect costs such as travel, time, and changes to employment that can increase the burden of cancer. While high costs of cancer care have threatened the sustainability of access to care for decades, it is only in the past 10 years that the term "financial toxicity" has been popularized to recognize that the financial burdens of care can be just as important as the physical toxicities traditionally associated with cancer therapy. The past decade has seen a rapid growth in research identifying the prevalence and impact of financial toxicity. Research is now beginning to focus on innovations in screening and care delivery that can mitigate this risk. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer centers to address costs of care in order to minimize financial toxicity, promote access to high value care, and reduce health disparities. We review the evolution of concerns over costs of cancer care, the impact of financial burdens on patients, methods to screen for financial toxicity, proposed solutions, and priorities for future research to identify and address costs that threaten the health and quality of life for many patients with cancer.

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.

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.

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 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.

The impact of lenalidomide maintenance on second-line chemotherapy in transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVES

To understand the impact of therapy sequencing on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). The use of daily, low-dose, lenalidomide maintenance (LM) has raised concern for fostering resistance, preventing its use in the relapsed setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of survival outcomes from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database. Patients were grouped based on receipt of LM after autologous stem cell transplant and receipt of lenalidomide in second-line therapy, 575 patients were included.

RESULTS

Patients treated with LM had statistically similar 2nd PFS when re-exposed to lenalidomide in second-line therapy compared to those receiving non-lenalidomide-containing regimens (10.2 vs 14.0 months, P =.53). This cohort also had the longest 2nd OS, 18 months longer than patients treated with LM who did not receive lenalidomide at relapse (55.3 vs 37 months, P =.004). Patients treated with LM also demonstrated deeper responses to second-line therapy than their non-LM counterparts.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that patients progressing on LM who receive lenalidomide-containing therapy at first relapse have comparable 2nd PFS and better 2nd OS compared to non-lenalidomide-containing second-line regimens. Identification of patients mostly likely to benefit from further lenalidomide-containing therapy is paramount.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Versus Second-Line Use of Daratumumab in Older, Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE

The MAIA trial found that addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd). However, daratumumab is a costly treatment and is administered indefinitely until disease progression. Therefore, it is unclear whether it is cost-effective to use daratumumab in the first-line setting compared with reserving its use until later lines of therapy.

METHODS

We created a Markov model to compare healthcare costs and clinical outcomes of transplant-ineligible patients treated with daratumumab in the first-line setting compared with a strategy of reserving daratumumab until the second-line. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for first-line daratumumab versus second-line daratumumab from a US payer perspective.

RESULTS

First-line daratumumab was associated with an improvement of 0.52 QALYs and 0.66 discounted life-years compared with second-line daratumumab. While both treatment strategies were associated with considerable lifetime expenditures ($1,434,937 v $1,112,101 in US dollars), an incremental cost of $322,836 for first-line daratumumab led to an ICER of $618,018 per QALY. The cost of daratumumab would need to be decreased by 67% for first-line daratumumab to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Using daratumumab in the first-line setting for transplant-ineligible patients may not be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying daratumumab until subsequent lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit healthcare costs without significantly compromising clinical outcomes. Mature overall survival data are necessary to more fully evaluate cost-effectiveness in this setting.