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

Cost-Effectiveness of Novel Agent Regimens for Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients in India

BACKGROUND

Survival outcomes for multiple myeloma have improved dramatically since the introduction of novel therapeutic agents. While these drugs are highly effective in improving survival outcomes and quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma, they come at a significant cost. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of bortezomib-based triplet or quadruplet drug regimens in isolation and followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) in the Indian context.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess the health and economic outcomes of novel drug regimens with and without AHSCT for the treatment of NDMM in India. We estimated the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in each scenario. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed and compared against the current willingness-to-pay threshold of a one-time per capita gross domestic product of ₹146,890 (US$1,927.70) for India. Parameter uncertainty was assessed through Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Among seven treatment sequences, the VCd (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone) alone arm has the lowest cost and health benefits as compared to four treatment sequences, namely VTd (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone) alone, VRd (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) alone, VRd plus AHSCT and DVRd (Daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) plus AHSCT. It was found that VTd plus AHSCT and VCd plus AHSCT arms were extendedly dominated (ED) by combination of two alternative treatments. Among the five non-dominated strategies, VRd has a lowest incremental cost of ₹ 2,20,093 (US$2,888) per QALY gained compared to VTd alone followed by VRd plus AHSCT [₹3,14,530 (US$4,128) per QALY gained] in comparison to VRd alone. None of the novel treatment sequences were found to be cost-effective at the current WTP threshold of ₹1,46,890 (US$1,927.7).

CONCLUSION

At the current WTP threshold of one-time per capita GDP (₹ 146,890) of India, VRd alone and VRd plus AHSCT has 38.1% and 6.9% probability to be cost-effective, respectively. Reduction in current reimbursement rates of novel drugs, namely VRd, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone under national insurance program and societal cost of transplant by 50%, would make VRd plus AHSCT and VTd plus AHSCT cost-effective at an incremental cost of ₹40,671 (US$34) and ₹97,639 (US$1,281) per QALY gained, respectively.

Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature

We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.

The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Transplant-Ineligible Myeloma Patients with Bortezomib plus Thalidomide plus Dexamethasone (VTD) or Bortezomib plus Melphalan plus Prednisolone (VMP) Treatment in Southern Taiwan

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating transplant-ineligible myeloma patients with either a bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone (VTD) or a bortezomib plus melphalan plus prednisolone (VMP) treatment in Taiwan. Methods: Newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible myeloma patients with VTD or VMP therapy were enrolled from two medical centers in southern Taiwan. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as the measurement unit of the effectiveness evaluation, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used for comparison between the two groups. A net monetary benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were also used for the cost-effectiveness assessment. A one-way sensitivity analysis was used to check the impact of different parameters. In total, 77 patients were enrolled in the study with 43 patients in the VTD group and 34 patients in the VMP group. Clinical presentations were similar without significant difference, except the VTD group had a higher survival rate (p = 0.029). Comparisons of the two groups over an eight-month time horizon revealed a significant lower mean of direct medical costs in the VTD group than in the VMP group (p < 0.001), and a significantly higher average QALY was gained (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The study demonstrated the greater clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of VTD compared to VMP therapy in transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed myeloma patients.

Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in the novel agent era: Systematic review of Indian data and implications for resource constrained settings

Treatment of multiple myeloma has undergone significant advances in the last two decades, leading to meaningful improvement in overall and progression free survival. The incurable nature of disease necessitates serial sequencing of treatment options and continuous therapy once disease remission is achieved. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has continued to offer a meaningful survival advantage with a consistent reduction in toxicity and costs. Despite the advent of newer drugs leading to deeper and sustained responses, ASCT continues to be the standard of care for all eligible patients and is ostensibly more cost effective than continued treatment with newer agents. However, ASCT continues to be underutilized in India, due to concerns about cost, safety, and sporadic expertize. We present a systematic review of available data on ASCT for multiple myeloma from India to evaluate safety and efficacy of the procedure, and provide evidence re-affirming its utility in resource constrained settings.

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.