Management of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in French hospitals and estimation of associated direct costs: a multi-centre retrospective cohort study

Assessing the treatment pattern, health care resource utilisation, and economic burden of multiple myeloma in France using the Système National des Données de Santé (SNDS) database: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Real-world data on health care resource utilisation (HCRU) and costs for French patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are limited due to the quickly evolving MM treatment landscape. This retrospective, national-level study quantified the MM economic burden in France.

METHODS

The study included patients with newly diagnosed MM from the Système National des Données de Santé coverage claims database between 2013 and 2018 who received active treatment within 30 days of diagnosis. HCRU included hospitalisations, drugs, consultations, procedures, tests, devices, transport, and sick leave. Costs were annualized to 2019 prices. Drug treatments, reported by line of therapy (LOT), were algorithmically defined using drug regimen, duration of therapy, and gaps between treatments. Analyses were stratified by stem cell transplantation status and LOT.

RESULTS

Among 6413 eligible patients, 6229 (97.1%) received ≥ 1 identifiable LOT; most received 1 (39.8%) or 2 LOT (27.5%) during follow-up. Average annual hospitalisation was 6.3 episodes/patient/year (median duration: 11.6 days). The average annual cost/patient was €58.3 K. Key cost drivers were treatment (€28.2 K; 39.5% of total HCRU within one year of MM diagnosis) and hospitalisations (€22.2 K; 48.6% of total HCRU costs in first year). Monthly treatment-related costs increased from LOT1 (€2.447 K) and LOT5 + (€7.026 K); only 9% of patients received LOT5 + . At LOT4 + , 37 distinct regimens were identified. Hospitalisation costs were higher in patients with stem cell transplantation than total population, particularly in the first year.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed a high economic burden of MM in France (€72.37 K/patient/year in the first year) and the diversity of regimens used in late-line treatments.

Survival and treatment patterns of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in France - a cohort study using the French National Healthcare database (SNDS)

Over the past decade, several drugs have been approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This retrospective study, using the French National Healthcare database (SNDS), describes the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with RRMM treated in real-world clinical practice in France. Patients were adults, with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, who initiated second-line (2L) treatment approved for use in France between 2014 and 2018; this included bortezomib, carfilzomib, daratumumab, ixazomib, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide. Data were analyzed overall, by first-line (1L) autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) status and by lenalidomide treatment status at 2L. In total, 12987 patients with RRMM were included in the study (mean age 69.5 years); 27% received an ASCT at 1L, and 30% received a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L. Overall, and among the ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups, most patients received a bortezomib-based regimen at 1L, whereas lenalidomide-based regimens were most common at 2L. Among patients who received a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L, this was most often a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen. Mortality rate was 26.1/100 person-years, and median (95% confidence interval) survival from 2L initiation was 32.4 (31.2-33.6) months. Survival differed by various factors, shorter survival was reported in the non-ASCT group, those receiving a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L, older patients (≥ 70 years), and those with multiple comorbidities. This analysis provides insight into the real-world use of approved novel MM treatments and highlights an ongoing unmet need to improve outcomes, particularly for selected patient groups.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma treated with proteasome inhibitors in real-world clinical practice in Germany

AIMS

To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with different proteasome inhibitors (PIs) for the treatment of patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in Germany.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective medical chart review of treatment patterns, outcomes, and HRU for patients with RRMM treated with bortezomib, carfilzomib, or ixazomib in second- or third-line (2L or 3L) therapy in Germany. Data were collected between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2017. Costs were calculated based on drug prices and unit costs in Germany.

RESULTS

Physicians provided data on 302 patients. Mean monthly total direct costs per patient receiving PI-based therapy were €7,925 and €10,693 for 2L and 3L, respectively, of which approximately 90% was anti-myeloma drug costs. Overall, the highest costs were associated with patients receiving 3L therapy. Regardless of treatment line, costs were higher for patients who had received a stem cell transplant (SCT) in a previous treatment line than for those who had not; the data suggest that this reflects the use of triplet regimens following a SCT. Patients with a complete response (CR) experienced no unplanned hospitalizations during the study period, whereas patients with progressive disease experienced the highest number of unplanned and planned hospitalizations. In 2L therapy, the highest proportion of patients with a CR was observed in those receiving carfilzomib (12% carfilzomib; 4% bortezomib; 0% ixazomib).

LIMITATIONS

Patients with missing or incomplete follow-up data were included in the study and were accounted for using monthly cost estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-myeloma drugs were the main contributor to total HRU costs associated with RRMM in Germany. Improved treatment response was associated with lower costs and reduced hospitalizations.

Costs of administration, travelling, and productivity losses associated with hospital administration of multiple myeloma drugs in Finland

AIM

To estimate the drug administration, travelling, and productivity costs associated with infusion or subcutaneous proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatments (specifically carfilzomib and bortezomib) for multiple myeloma (MM) patients in Finland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Price tariffs of Finnish hospital districts are used as the basis of invoicing sent to healthcare service payers. A review of these price tariff lists was conducted and obtained data analysed to estimate the mean unit cost of PI administration visit. Travelling costs stratified by areas with different population densities were assessed, based on the national travelling reimbursement register data maintained by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland. Productivity costs due to time spent on administration visits and travelling were estimated based on an expert interview and a spatial healthcare accessibility analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen (95%) of the Finnish hospital districts were included in the review. Relevant unit cost information was found for 15 (75%) of the districts. The mean PI administration cost alone was 270€ (95% CI = 189€-351€) per administration and increased to 371€ when travelling costs were included. Productivity costs added, the mean PI administration costs totalled 405€ for bortezomib and 437€ for carfilzomib.

LIMITATIONS

The costing rationale of price tariffs may vary between hospital districts. Productivity costs were estimated conservatively, due to lack of data.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of intravenous or subcutaneous PIs to treat MM in healthcare facilities causes significant and potentially avoidable healthcare, travelling, and indirect costs, and they should be included in all health economic evaluations (HEEs). As the cost estimates utilized in this study represent most of central hospitals in the country, they provide useful information for future HEEs. A broader conclusion is that novel oral medications, such as the first oral PI, have a significant potential for reducing administration-related costs of subcutaneous or intravenous PIs.

Healthcare resource utilization with ixazomib or placebo plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone in the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

AIMS

The aim of this analysis was to assess healthcare resource utilization in the pivotal phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib or placebo plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study (NCT01564537), 722 patients with RRMM following 1-3 prior lines of therapy received Rd plus ixazomib (ixazomib-Rd; n = 360) or matching placebo (placebo-Rd; n = 362) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Healthcare resource utilization data were captured on Day 1 of each 28-day cycle, every 4 weeks during follow-up for progression-free survival, and every 12 weeks during subsequent follow-up, and included medical encounters (length of stay, inpatient, outpatient, and reason) and number of missing days from work or other activities for patients and caregivers.

RESULTS

Exposure-adjusted rates of hospitalization were similar between the ixazomib-Rd and placebo-Rd arms, at 0.530 and 0.564 per patient year (ppy), respectively, as were outpatient visit rates (3.305 and 3.355 ppy). Mean length of hospitalization per patient was 10.0 and 10.8 days, respectively. In both arms, hospitalization and outpatient visit rates were higher in patients with two or three prior lines of treatment (ixazomib-Rd: 0.632 and 3.909 ppy; placebo-Rd: 0.774 and 3.539 ppy) compared with patients with one prior line (ixazomib-Rd: 0.460 and 2.888 ppy; placebo-Rd: 0.436 and 3.243 ppy). Patients and their caregivers who missed any work or other activity missed a median of 7 and 5 days in the ixazomib-Rd arm, respectively, vs 8 and 4 days with placebo-Rd.

LIMITATIONS

The study was not powered for a statistical comparison of healthcare resource utilization between treatment arms, nor did it capture costs associated with utilization of the identified healthcare resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This pre-specified analysis demonstrated that the all-oral triplet regimen of ixazomib added to Rd did not increase healthcare resource utilization compared with placebo-Rd.

Modified High-Dose Melphalan and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Immunoglobulin Light Chain Amyloidosis

High-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM/SCT) have been used in patients with immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis for over 2 decades now with durable responses, prolonged survival, and decreasing treatment-related mortality. Historically, patients with poorer baseline functional status, advanced age, renal compromise, and cardiac involvement have been treated with a risk-adapted modified conditioning dose of melphalan (mHDM) of 100 to 140 mg/m² before SCT. In part because of these baseline characteristics, patients receiving mHDM/SCT have had poorer outcomes compared with patients receiving full-dose melphalan at 200 mg/m². With the advent of novel therapeutic agents such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of AL amyloidosis, it is imperative to understand the long-term effects of mHDM/SCT. Here we report the long-term outcomes of 334 patients with AL amyloidosis treated with mHDM/SCT. Median overall survival was 6.1 years and median event-free survival 4.3 years, with median overall survival reaching 13.4 years for patients who had achieved a hematologic complete response (CR). Overall hematologic response rate was 69%, and treatment-related mortality was 3% after 2010. Thus, mHDM/SCT leads to prolonged survival and favorable outcomes, especially if a hematologic CR is achieved.

Response and progression-free survival according to planned treatment duration in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the phase III ASPIRE study

Background

In ASPIRE, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Per protocol, patients received KRd for a maximum of 18 cycles followed by Rd to progression, so the benefit/risk profile of KRd to progression was not established.

Methods

This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of KRd versus Rd at 18 months from randomization. Cumulative rates of complete response (CR) or better over time and PFS hazard ratio (HR) at 18 months were evaluated for KRd versus Rd. PFS HRs were also assessed according to cytogenetic risk, prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib treatment. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate PFS HRs.

Results

The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS at 18 months was 0.58 versus 0.69 for the overall ASPIRE study. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics, ≥ 1 prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib exposure benefited from KRd up to 18 months versus Rd. The HRs for PFS at 18 months in the pre-defined subgroups were lower than those in the overall study. The difference in the proportion of KRd and Rd patients achieving at least a complete response (CR) increased dramatically over the first 18 months and then remained relatively constant. The safety profile at 18 months was consistent with previous findings.

Conclusions

The improved PFS HR at 18 months and the continued increase in CR rates for KRd through 18 cycles suggest that there may be a benefit of continued carfilzomib treatment.

Trial registration

Clinical trials.gov NCT01080391. Registered 2 March 2010.

The multiple myeloma treatment landscape: international guideline recommendations and clinical practice in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines provide recommendations on the management of multiple myeloma (MM), but there are no standard algorithms for the choice and sequencing of treatments. As a result, there is widespread variation in the interpretation and implementation of these guidelines. Areas covered: This review will cover: the real-world data on MM treatment patterns; the approved agents available for the treatment of MM; a comparative summary of the national and international clinical guidelines; a discussion on the impact reimbursement decisions have on treatment availability. Expert commentary: In the future, treatment choices may become even more complex as clonal heterogeneity is better understood in the context of response to treatment, and next-generation agents become available. Although information on real-world practice patterns can provide further guidance, to date, few studies have generated data on patients treated with the newer agents in real-world settings. Furthermore, the translation of guideline recommendations into clinical practice across Europe is inconsistent. Additional real-world data are therefore vital to understanding current clinical practice patterns, so that new agents can be effectively incorporated into existing treatment strategies. Such information may aid the development of better guidance, which will ultimately help to ensure that patients receive the best possible care.

The Cost Impact of Lenalidomide for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma in the EU5

Introduction

Lenalidomide is an active agent that was approved for use in the EU in 2015 as a first-line therapy for previously untreated, non-transplant eligible multiple myeloma patients. Our objective was to assess the cost impact of lenalidomide when selected as a first-line treatment for transplant-ineligible patients in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (EU5).

Methods

We developed a cost-impact model of the total costs associated with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma over 5 years in the EU5 based on treatment duration and time to progression (TTP) (taken from trial data). We compared a baseline scenario (of current lenalidomide uptake) with two alternative future scenarios. Future Scenario A used an increased uptake of first-line lenalidomide: up to 50% in Year 5. Future Scenario B was similar to the baseline, but included a 20% increased uptake of the triple therapy regimen, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) at second line.

Results

Compared to alternative first-line care pathways, lenalidomide provides a time to progression advantage of up to 5.1 months. In the baseline scenario, the costs per patient were €40,692 in Year 1. Future Scenario A showed an additional expenditure of €867 per patient in Year 1, increasing to €3358 per patient by Year 5, a 2.1% and 8.2% increase from baseline, respectively. However, lenalidomide use was associated with a lower monthly hospitalisation per-patient cost (€813) compared with bortezomib (€1173) and thalidomide (€1532). Future Scenario B was associated with a 29% increase in cost.

Conclusions

Compared to other first line therapies, lenalidomide delays time to progression resulting in associated savings across a patient’s treatment pathway and overall is likely to result in a limited impact on budget. Lenalidomide should, therefore, be considered as a first treatment option for multiple myeloma patients ineligible for transplant.

Funding

Celgene Ltd.

Myeloma in the Real World: What Is Really Happening?

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematologic malignancy and is predominantly a disease of the elderly. In the past 2 decades, a range of new therapeutic options have become available, leading to improvements in patient outcomes, including both attainment of remission and overall survival. These improved outcomes have heralded a paradigm shift from a palliative approach toward more active management, including the use of sequential therapies, with the goal of prolonging progression-free and overall survival and preserving organ function to enable delivery of further therapy at relapse. Until now, most outcome data for MM have come from clinical trials, with few reports available on patients treated outside the clinical trial setting-in the "real world." Clinical trials are routinely undertaken in specialist centers, and extrapolation of these trial data to broader clinical practice might not accurately reflect "real-world" patient outcomes. Optimal management of MM is of key importance for positive patient outcomes, and further scrutiny of the efficacy and safety of the various reported therapies and how clinical trial findings are being translated or applied in the real-world management of MM is required. In the present review, we have described the minimal published evidence available through a comprehensive published data search of MEDLINE using the OvidSP interface on the management and outcomes of MM outside the setting of clinical trials, including evidence on the uptake of new therapies and their efficacy and tolerability in standard practice. Clinical registries might be able to help provide these data in the future.

Cost-effectiveness of adding carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma from a US perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the economic value of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), this study developed the Kyprolis Global Economic Model (K-GEM), which examined from a United States (US) payer perspective the cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM; 1-3 prior therapies) based on results from the phase III ASPIRE trial that directly compared these regimens.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model that included three health states of progression-free (on or off treatment), post-progression, and death was developed. Using ASPIRE data, the effect of treatment regimens as administered in the trial was assessed for progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Treatment effects were estimated with parametric regression models adjusting for baseline patient characteristics and applied over a lifetime horizon. US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (1984-2014) registry data were matched to ASPIRE patients to extrapolate OS beyond the trial. Estimated survival was adjusted to account for utilities across health states. The K-GEM considered the total direct costs (pharmacy/medical) of care for patients treated with KRd and Rd.

RESULTS

KRd was estimated to be more effective compared to Rd, providing 1.99 life year and 1.67 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains over the modeled horizon. KRd-treated patients incurred $179,393 in total additional costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $107,520 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Extrapolated survival functions present the greatest uncertainty in the modeled results. Utilities were derived from a combination of sources and assumed to reflect how US patients value their health state.

CONCLUSIONS

The K-GEM showed KRd is cost-effective, with an ICER of $107,520 per QALY gained against Rd for the treatment of patients with RMM (1-3 prior therapies) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. Reimbursement of KRd for patients with RMM may represent an efficient allocation of the healthcare budget.

Patient population with multiple myeloma and transitions across different lines of therapy in the USA: an epidemiologic model

PURPOSE

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a progressive, malignant neoplasia with a worldwide, age-standardized annual incidence of 1.5 per 100 000 individuals and 5-year prevalence around 230 000 patients. Main favorable prognostic factors are younger age, low/standard cytogenetic risk, and undergoing stem cell transplantation. Our aim was to estimate the size of the patient population with MM eligible to receive a new MM therapy at different lines of therapy in the USA.

METHODS

We constructed a compartmental, differential equation model representing the flow of MM patients from diagnosis to death, via two possible treatment pathways and distinguished in four groups based on prognostic factors. Parameters were obtained from published references, available statistics, and assumptions. The model was used to estimate number of diagnosed MM patients and number of patient transitions from one line of therapy to the next over 1 year. Model output included 95% credible intervals from probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base-case estimates were 80 219 patients living with MM, including 70 375 on treatment, 780 symptomatic untreated patients, and 9064 asymptomatic untreated patients. Over a 1-year period, the number of MM patients on treatment line 1 was estimated at 23 629 (credible intervals 22 236-25 029), and the number of transitions from treatment line 1 to treatment line 2 was estimated at 14 423.

CONCLUSIONS

The size of the patient population with MM on different lines of therapy and in patient subgroups of interest estimated from this epidemiologic model can be used to assess the number of patients who could benefit from new MM therapies and their corresponding budgetary impact. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Patterns of total cost and economic consequences of progression for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Few studies have addressed the cost patterns of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) before and after first relapse. This US claims analysis evaluated, from a US health plan perspective, patterns of total direct costs of care from treatment initiation to progression for patients with MM treated with novel agents, using time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy measure for progression.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using a large US claims database, evaluating patients with claims for MM between 2006 and 2013. Patients with claims for stem cell transplant (SCT) were excluded. The analysis focused on patients receiving lenalidomide (LEN) or bortezomib (BORT) based treatment, for whom complete claim history was available through initiation of subsequent treatment. Average patient monthly direct costs were determined, including medical and pharmacy costs, and total cost patterns over quarterly time periods were calculated.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 2843 patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and 1361 with relapsed MM. Total monthly cost for patients with NDMM declined steadily, from $15,734 initially to $5082 at 18+ months after therapy. Upon initiation of second-line therapy, total monthly costs rose to $13,876 and declined to $6446 18 months later. Although NDMM cost levels for individual ordinal months were similar between the LEN and BORT groups, TTNT was longer for LEN-based treatments (37 months). The BORT-treated cohort had higher average monthly total costs for NDMM and for the common time period through 37 months after initiation of therapy ($7534 vs $10,763 for LEN and BORT, respectively). Key limitations of this study, in addition to the lack of mortality and staging information available from claims data, include the definition of TTNT based on change in treatment or a defined gap in therapy prior to retreatment, which may differ from actual time of progression in some patients.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with NDMM receiving either LEN- or BORT-based treatment without SCT, followed until TTNT, total direct monthly costs (drug + medical) declined steadily over time. Monthly costs returned to near initial levels when patients began second-line therapy and then followed a similar pattern of decline. Due to the longer TTNT for patients initiated on LEN and the associated longer period of below-average costs, patients initiated with LEN-based treatments had mean monthly total costs >$3200 lower than total costs for patients initiated on BORT during the first 3 years after starting treatment, cumulating to nearly $120,000 in lower costs for patients initiated on LEN.

Management of glioblastoma: comparison of clinical practices and cost-effectiveness in two cohorts of patients (2008 versus 2004) diagnosed in a French university hospital

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Therapeutic options for the management of glioblastoma (GBM) have greatly evolved over the last decade with the emergence of new regimens combining radiotherapy plus temozolomide and the use of bevacizumab at recurrence. Our aim was to assess the clinical and economic impacts of those novel strategies in our center.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review was conducted on patients newly diagnosed with a GBM over two periods (year 2004, group 1 or year 2008, group 2) with limitations to those eligible to radiotherapy after initial diagnosis. The type of medical management was described and compared, as well as overall survival and total costs from diagnosis to death or the last follow-up date. Cost analysis was performed under the French Sickness Fund perspective using tariffs from 2012.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two patients were selected (49 in group 1 and 73 in group 2) with similar baseline characteristics within the two groups. Patients from group 2 received more frequently temozolomide radiochemotherapy (71% vs. 39%, P < 0·05) as first-line treatment as well as bevacizumab regimen at recurrence (48% vs. 6%, P < 0·05); the median overall survival was increased between the two periods (respectively 17 vs. 10 months, P < 0·05). The mean total cost per patient was 54,388 € in group 1 and 71,148 € in group 2 (P < 0·05). Hospital care represented the largest expenditure (76% and 58% in groups 1 and 2 respectively) followed by chemotherapy drugs costs (11% and 30% respectively). The total cost difference between the two groups was explained by the increasing use of temozolomide and bevacizumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 54,355 € per life-year gained.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

As far as we know, this is the first study reporting the total cost of GBM management based on the French perspective, as well as the cost-effectiveness of clinical practices in term of cost per life-year gained. Those novel strategies have contributed to improve overall survival while inducing a substantial, but acceptable, increase of total costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of early vs. late autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is the current standard of care for most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who are transplant eligible, yet the timing of ASCT is disputed due to a similar overall (OS) and progression-free survival with an early ASCT (eASCT) or a delayed ASCT (dASCT) approach.

OBJECTIVE

We developed a decision analytic model to perform cost-effectiveness analysis of the two commonly used treatment strategies for MM.

METHODS

Data on disease progression and treatment effectiveness came from 2001 to 2008 cohort treated at the Mayo Clinic and from published studies. Cost analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.

RESULTS

The Consumer Price Index adjusted 2012 costs of eASCT and dASCT were $249 236 and $262 610, respectively. eASCT cohort had a benefit of 1.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 0.23 QALYs more than dASCT, implying that eASCT is preferred (dominant) over dASCT. The most critical variables in one-way sensitivity analysis were treatment-related mortality and OS associated with eASCT strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that eASCT could potentially be a relatively cost-effective treatment option for appropriate patients with MM, and these results would help patients, providers, and payers in decision making for timing of ASCT.

Policymaker, please consider your needs carefully: does outcomes research in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma reduce policymaker uncertainty regarding value for money of bortezomib?

INTRODUCTION

Dutch policy regulations require outcomes research for the assessment of appropriate drug use and cost-effectiveness after 4 years of temporary reimbursement. We investigated whether outcomes research reduced policymaker uncertainty regarding the question whether the costs are worth public funding.

METHODS

Our cohort study included 139 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who were treated outside of a clinical study; 72 received bortezomib and 67 did not receive bortezomib. Detailed data were retrospectively collected from medical records in 38% of Dutch hospitals.

RESULTS

All patients received second-line treatment; 65%, 40%, and 14%, received three, four, or five or more lines of therapy. Neither a specific treatment sequence nor an appropriate comparator could be identified because of large variation in regimes. Kaplan-Meier curves showed an increased overall survival (mean [median] 29.5 [33.2] vs. 28.0 [21.6] months) for patients treated with bortezomib (Wilcoxon P = 0.01). Total mean costs were €81,626 (range €17,793-€229,783) and €52,760 (range €748-€179,571) for patients receiving bortezomib and patients not receiving bortezomib, respectively. Patients treated with bortezomib, however, were not comparable to other patients despite attempts to correct for confounding. Therefore, it was impossible to develop a feasible model to obtain a valid incremental cost-effectiveness estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

It was possible to develop evidence on bortezomib's use, effects, and costs in everyday practice. Much uncertainty, however, remained regarding its cost-effectiveness. Policymakers should carefully consider whether outcomes research sufficiently decreases uncertainty or whether other options (e.g., finance- and/or outcomes-based risk-sharing arrangements) are more appropriate to ensure sufficient value for money of expensive drugs.

A review of economic impact of targeted oral anticancer medications

There has been a rapid increase in the use of targeted oral anticancer medications (OAMs) in the past decade. As OAMs are often expensive, economic consideration play a significant role in the decision to prescribe, receive or cover them. This paper performs a systematic review of costs or budgetary impact of targeted OAMs to better understand their economic impact on the healthcare system, patients as well as payers. We present our review in a summary table that describes the method and main findings, take into account multiple factors, such as country, analytical approach, cost type, study perspective, timeframe, data sources, study population and care setting when we interpret the results from different papers, and discuss the policy and clinical implications. Our review raises a concern regarding the role of sponsorship on findings of economic analyses as the vast majority of pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported cost advantages toward the sponsor's drugs.

Health care costs and resource utilization, including patient burden, associated with novel-agent-based treatment versus other therapies for multiple myeloma: findings using real-world claims data

BACKGROUND

. Treatment of multiple myeloma has dramatically improved with the introduction of bortezomib (BOR), thalidomide (THAL), and lenalidomide (LEN). Studies assessing health care costs, particularly economic burden on patients, are limited. We conducted a claims-based, retrospective analysis of total health care costs as well as patient burden (patient out-of-pocket costs and number of ambulatory/hospital visits) associated with BOR/THAL/LEN treatment versus other therapies (OTHER). METHODS. Treatment episodes starting between January 1, 2005 and September 30, 2010 were identified from the claims database of a large U.S. health plan. Health care costs and utilization were measured during 1 year after initiation and analyzed per treatment episode. Multivariate analyses were used to adjust for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and line of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 4,836 treatment episodes were identified. Mean adjusted total costs were similar between BOR ($112,889) and OTHER ($111,820), but higher with THAL ($129,412) and LEN ($158,428). Mean adjusted patient out-of-pocket costs were also similar for BOR ($3,846) and OTHER ($3,900) but remained higher with THAL ($4,666) and LEN ($4,483). Mean adjusted rates of ambulatory visits were similar across therapies (BOR: 69.67; THAL: 66.31; LEN: 65.60;

OTHER

69.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusted analyses of real-world claims data show that total health care costs, as well as patient out-of-pocket costs, are higher with THAL/LEN treatment episodes than with BOR/OTHER therapies. Additionally, similar rates of ambulatory visits suggest that any perceived advantage in patient convenience of the orally administered drugs THAL/LEN is not supported by these data.

Total cost comparison in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVES

Advances in survival in multiple myeloma have focused payer attention on the cost of care. An assessment was conducted to compare the costs of two recent treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM), from the perspective of a US payer.

METHODS

An economic model estimated the total costs of care for two guideline-recommended therapies in rrMM patients: bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX). To evaluate total treatment costs, the costs associated with drug treatment, medical resource utilization, and adverse event (AE) management were determined for each regimen over a common 1-year period. Medical costs and grade 3/4 AE costs were based on rates from published literature, package inserts, and fee schedules (US dollars). To evaluate cost per outcome, assessments determined the monthly costs without disease progression based on pivotal clinical trials (APEX [BORT] and MM-009/MM-010 [LEN/DEX]). Univariate sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios were also conducted.

RESULTS

Drug costs for the treatments were very similar, differing by under $10 per day. Medical and AE management costs for BORT were higher by more than $40 per day. Treatment with BORT had annual excess total costs of >$17,000 compared with LEN/DEX. A cost advantage for LEN/DEX was maintained across a variety of sensitivity analyses. Total cost per month without progression was 11% lower with LEN/DEX.

LIMITATIONS

This analysis relied on separate studies having similar comparators, populations, and end-points. Actual treatment patterns and costs pre- and post-relapse may vary from the base scenario and sensitivities modeled. The 12-month time frame captures the preponderance of costs for a relapse line of therapy, yet may not reflect the entirety of costs. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether, or how, a difference in the lifetime costs of the two regimens would vary from the 1-year cost difference.

CONCLUSION

While rrMM treatment with BORT and LEN/DEX had comparable drug costs, total treatment costs for BORT were higher due to ongoing direct medical and AE management costs. Total costs per outcome (a month without disease progression) were lower for LEN/DEX.

Novel anticancer agents for multiple myeloma: a review of the evidence for their therapeutic and economic value

Recent advances in oncology treatment have improved patient outcomes at the expense of increasing healthcare costs. The indication multiple myeloma is especially characterized by a recent and continuing flood of expensive novel agents. A review encompassing all elements necessary to perform an economic evaluation of novel agents for multiple myeloma was conducted for thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide. Improvements in efficacy have led to a switch from conventional therapy to novel agents as standard therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for novel agents alone or in combination with conventional agents were generally regarded to be within acceptable ranges. Conflicting results were reported for the incremental cost-effectiveness of bortezomib versus lenalidomide, as unresolved questions remain regarding their comparative effectiveness. Future economic evaluations will require an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of these agents in terms of sequence within the treatment paradigm and in combination with one another.