Critical review of economic evaluations in multiple myeloma: an overview of the economic evidence and quality of the methodology

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Elderly Patients with Multiple Myeloma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Database

In the past decade, the number of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants (Auto HSCT) for older patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has increased dramatically, as has the cost of transplantation. The cost-effectiveness of this modality in patients over age 65 is unclear. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to create a propensity-score matched sample of patients over age 65 between 2000 and 2007, we compared the survival and cost for those who received Auto HSCT to those who did not undergo transplantation but survived at least 6 months after diagnosis, and we calculated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Two hundred seventy patients underwent transplantation. Median overall survival from diagnosis in those who underwent transplantation was significantly longer than in patients who did not (58 months versus 37 months, P < .001). For patients living longer than 2 years, the median monthly cost during the first year was significantly different, but the middle and last year of life costs were similar. The median cost of the first 100 days after transplantation was $60,000 (range, $37,000 to $85,000). The resultant ICER was $72,852 per life-year gained. Survival after transplantation was comparable to that in those who underwent transplantation patients under 65 years and significantly longer than older patients who did not undergo transplantation. With an ICER less than $100,000/life-year gained, Auto HSCT is cost-effective when compared with nontransplantation care in the era of novel agents and should be considered, where clinically indicated, for patients over the age of 65.

Biological therapies in Crohn's disease: are they cost-effective? A critical appraisal of model-based analyses

In refractory Crohn's disease, anti-TNF and anti-α 4 integrin agents are used for ameliorating disease activity but impose high costs to health-care systems. The authors systematically reviewed cost-effectiveness analyses based on decision models: most of the studies were judged to have a good quality, but a large portion assessed health and costs in a short time horizon, usually disregarding fistulizing disease and not considering safety. Infliximab induction followed by on-demand retreatment consistently proved to have a good cost per quality-adjusted life year, while maintenance treatment never satisfied commonly accepted cost-utility thresholds. Challenges in cost-effectiveness analysis include the lack of a standard model structure, a large variability in the costs of surgery and poor data on indirect costs. As clinical practice is moving to mucosal healing as a robust response marker, personalized schedules of anti-TNF therapies might prove cost-effective even in the perspective of the health-care system in the near future.

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.