Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant of hematopoietic progenitor cells

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 Post-Autotransplant Lenalidomide in Persons with Multiple Myeloma

Considerable data indicate post-transplant lenalidomide prolongs progression-free survival and probably survival after an autotransplant for multiple myeloma (MM). However, optimal therapy duration is unknown, controversial and differs in the EU and US. We compared outcomes and cost-effectiveness of 3 post-transplant lenalidomide strategies in EU and US settings: (1) none; (2) until failure; and (3) 2-year fixed duration. We used a Markov decision model, which included six health states and informed by published data. The model estimated the lenalidomide strategy given to failure achieved 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at costs per QALY gained of €29,232 in the EU and $133,401 in the US settings. Two-year fixed-duration lenalidomide averted €7,286 per QALY gained in the EU setting and saved 0.84 QALYs at $60,835 per QALY gained in the US setting. These highly divergent costs per QALY in the EU and US settings resulted from significant differences in post-transplant lenalidomide costs and 2nd-line therapies driven by whether post-transplant failure was on or off-lenalidomide. In Monte Carlo simulation analyses which allowed us to account for the variability of inputs, 2-year fixedduration lenalidomide remained the preferred strategy for improving healthcare sustainability in the EU and US settings.

Current and future perspectives of maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma

While the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma has significantly improved over the last two decades, the disease remains incurable for the majority of patients. With the advent of novel agents, there has been a shift towards prolonged therapy as opposed to fixed-duration therapy, aimed at improving progression-free survival and overall survival. Evidence favoring continuous therapy has emerged over the last 2 decades and in the context of maintenance after proteasome inhibitor plus immunomodulatory drug induction followed by high dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation, this leads to >80% overall survival at 5 years. Maintenance therapy specifically has been demonstrated to correlate with increasing depth of disease response with a significant proportion of patients who remain minimal residual disease positive at the end of induction therapy achieving minimal residual disease negativity with maintenance therapy both in clinical trials and selected real world populations. As the survival improves, it is crucial to identify patients who are projected to have better survival and spare them toxicities arising from indefinite maintenance therapy. The role of minimal residual disease in this context is being investigated in numerous clinical trials and in the next few years the goal should be to use this in a rational way to achieve the ability to identify patients who would require continuation or escalation of therapy to improve their projected survival as well as to identify the group of patients in whom maintenance therapy could perhaps be time-limited without compromising their survival. Here we review the evidence for maintenance therapy from the key trials in the past years, present an overview of the current landscape and our perspective of maintenance therapy in the future.

Maintenance Strategies Post-Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Multiple myeloma, the second most common hematological malignancy worldwide, has demonstrated dramatic improvements in outcome in the last decade. In newly diagnosed patients, induction chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of care. After ASCT, the majority of patients experience disease remission but, despite recent therapeutic developments, most will eventually relapse. In this review we consider clinical aspects of maintenance therapies that can be used post-ASCT to prolong remission duration. We discuss the evidence for the effectiveness of each of these drugs as a maintenance therapy, alongside other benefits and drawbacks to their use, for example, route of administration and potential toxicities. We discuss questions which remain unanswered around the optimal use of currently available maintenance therapies and review newer agents being considered for use as maintenance such as emerging immunotherapies.