Cost Offsets in the Treatment Journeys of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Comparison of health care costs and resource utilization for commonly used proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-based triplet regimens for the management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the United States

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-$3,813; P < 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P < 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P < 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

Real-World Health Care Services Utilization Associated With the Management of Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Spain: The CharisMMa Study

BACKGROUND

Most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) relapse or become refractory, resulting in high health care costs. However, real-world data regarding the utilization of health care services among the relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) population are scarce.

METHODS

Observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study of the utilization of health care services by RRMM patients who had relapsed within the previous 6 months in Spain in a real-world setting. Data were collected from the clinical records and during a single structured interview and included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics at last relapse, the treatment and health care services nature, and were presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The 276 patients enrolled (53.3% males), with a mean [SD] age of 67.4 [10.5] years, had experienced their most recent relapse a median (IQR) of 1.61 (0.74, 3.14) months before entering the study. Patients lived a median (IQR) of 9.0 (3.0, 30.0) km away from the hospital and visited the hospital a median (IQR) of 3.0 (2.0, 5.0) times/month to receive treatment for their most recent relapse. They spent a median (IQR) of 15.84 (5.0, 42.0) euros/month on transportation. Since their most recent relapse, most patients had been admitted to a hospital unit (n = 155, 56.2%), had required ≥1 diagnostic tests (n = 227, 82.2%), and had consulted the hematologist (n = 270, 97.8%) a mean (SD) of 5.5 (5.4) times. In half of the visits, patients were accompanied by an actively working caregiver (n = 112, 54.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

RRMM treatments are associated with a high utilization of health care services and pose a significant burden for patients and caregivers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03188536.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Triple-Class Exposed Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Findings From the Multinational ITEMISE Study

PURPOSE

Patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options after exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor (PI), and anti-CD38 antibody (triple-class exposure [TCE]). However, current understanding about the management of these patients and associated health care resource use (HCRU) is limited outside the United States. The objective of the International Treatment pattern and resource use Evaluation for Multiple myeloma In a Study of triple-class Exposed patients (ITEMISE) study was to use a physician-developed survey fielded to hematologists across Europe and Canada to assess the treatment, management, HCRU, and end-of-life care for patients with RRMM after TCE.

METHODS

The ITEMISE study used a 3-phase Delphi-like approach that consisted of in-depth interviews with 7 hematology experts; the development of a cross-sectional survey fielded to hematologists across Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom from August to October 2020; and a final workshop of hematology experts to validate the pooled findings. Hematologists were asked to consider the management of patients in the first 3 treatment lines after TCE, including treatment options, treatment duration and outcomes, and frequency of outpatient visits and hospitalizations.

FINDINGS

The survey was completed by 202 hematologists (60% from academic hospitals, 38% from other public hospitals, and 2% from private hospitals). Hematologists estimated that 55% of patients would receive active treatment after TCE, the equivalent of fourth-line treatment onward since diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Immunomodulatory drug, anti-CD38 antibody plus immunomodulatory drug, and PI-based regimens (received by 22.5%, 17.8%, and 15.1% of patients, respectively) were reported for first treatment strategy after TCE. Pomalidomide, daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and carfilzomib were the most frequently selected antimyeloma agents. Associated outcomes of median overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate for first treatment after TCE were estimated as 12 months, 4 months, and 40%, respectively. HCRU included outpatient visits and unplanned hospitalizations that were commonly reported during treatment after TCE.

IMPLICATIONS

Findings indicate an intent to actively treat patients after TCE with a range of combination regimens frequently consisting of immunomodulatory drugs, PIs, and anti-CD38 antibodies, highlighting the lack of standard of care and suggesting a large clinical unmet need. Estimated clinical outcomes are consistent with data from US studies and indicate the poor prognosis for patients after TCE. Substantial HCRU is associated with management of patients after TCE across Europe and Canada, signifying a high patient and societal impact and a need for better treatment options to reduce this burden.

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.

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.

Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous therapy regimens for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in Germany

BACKGROUND

In Germany, several triplet therapies for treating relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) patients have recently been approved. While most of them are administered intravenously, ixazomib-based combination is the only orally bioavailable regimen.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a 1-year and 3-year budget impact analysis (BIA) of different novel triplets to treat patients with rrMM in second or subsequent therapy lines accounting for costs covered by German statutory health insurance (SHI).

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to evaluate the budget impact of the following regimens: carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (KRd), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ERd), daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DRd), and ixazomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IRd). The analysis included direct medical costs such as drug acquisition, comedication and preparation for parenteral solutions, drug administration and other 1-time costs, adverse event management costs and direct non-medical costs, such as transportation costs.

RESULTS

Based on current drug market shares in German healthcare market, the estimated costs after 1 year of treatment was €551 million (KRd), €163 million (ERd), €584 million (DRd), and €95 million (IRd). The total budget impact of €1393 million is mainly driven by drug acquisition and subsequent therapy costs.

CONCLUSION

Among the regimens of interest, the oral-based therapy regimens offered cost advantages over intravenous-based therapy regimens. The higher overall costs of intravenous therapy regimens were attributed primarily to higher drug acquisition costs.