Cost-effectiveness of once weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the United States

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of weekly carfilzomib (70 mg/m2), dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD70) is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 while being a more convenient dosing option: a cross-study comparison of the CANDOR and EQUULEUS studies

The regimen of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) shows activity in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. KdD at the twice-weekly 56 mg/m² carfilzomib dose (KdD56) was used in the randomized phase 3 CANDOR study (NCT03158688), whereas KdD at the once-weekly 70 mg/m² carfilzomib dose (KdD70) was used in the phase 1 b EQUULEUS study (NCT01998971). We analyzed efficacy data from comparable CANDOR and EQUULEUS patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted models. These weights were calculated from propensity scores derived to balance prespecified baseline covariates. The side-by-side and adjusted comparisons showed similar efficacy for overall response rates and progression-free survival in the two groups, with a series of sensitivity analyses showing consistent findings. Safety data were generally consistent with the known safety profiles of each individual drug. Once-weekly KdD70 is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 in terms of efficacy and safety while being a more convenient dosing option.