Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost of Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Germany: A Retrospective Claims Data Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated costs of multiple myeloma (MM) using German claims data.

METHODS

Anonymized claims data from one of the largest sickness funds in Germany were analyzed. Costs and HCRU were calculated from the perspective of the statutory health insurance. To analyze MM-associated incremental costs in a most recent calendar period for an overall MM population (31 March 2018-31 March 2019), a prevalent cohort of MM patients (continuously insured during 01 January 2010 until 31 March 2019 or death; two or more outpatient and/or one inpatient MM diagnoses [ICD-10: C90.0-] and alive on 31 March 2018) was compared with a control group (not diagnosed with MM) employing propensity-score matching. Additionally, to describe MM-associated HCRU and costs for treated patients per line of treatment (lot), a cohort of newly treated patients was considered (≥ 12 months' pre-index period without MM treatment). Therapy lines were determined based on observed days of medication supply, treatment switches, and treatment discontinuations.

RESULTS

Overall, 2523 prevalent MM patients (52.0% female, mean age: 71.3 years) and 1673 newly treated MM patients (50.2% female, mean age: 73.0 years) met the selection criteria and were included in the analyses. After matching, a non-MM counterpart could be identified for 2474 prevalent out of 2523 MM patients. MM-associated incremental HCRU was characterized by an increased number of hospitalizations and a higher number of outpatient specialist visits (per patient-year [ppy] 0.48 additional hospitalizations and 3.80 additional specialist visits; p < 0.001), being also drivers of the associated total incremental add-on costs (15,381.09 € ppy, p < 0.001). Among newly treated patients, total direct costs ppy increased as patients received subsequent treatments (1st lot: 67,681,55 €; 4th lot+: 114,934.01 €), driven by outpatient MM prescriptions (1st lot: 28,692.32 €; 4th lot+: 62,980.72 €).

CONCLUSION

The economic burden of MM is driven by outpatient prescriptions, inpatient hospitalizations, and outpatient specialist visits. Treatment and overall costs increase substantially when patients move to later lines of treatment.

Carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: the real-life experience

Background. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) have been approved for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on ASPIRE clinical trial. Aim. Analysis of efficacy and safety of KRd in routine clinical practice. Materials and methods. The prospective analysis included patients with MM who received at least one line of previous therapy. The inclusion criteria were relapse/progression; refractoriness; lack of very good partial response (VGPR) and more after the first line of therapy. Since February 2016, we used KRd like in ASPIRE trial, since October 2019, carfilzomib has been used at a dose of 56 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT), consolidation (KRd) and maintenance therapy (Rd) were regarded as one line of therapy. Results and discussion. We evaluated 77 patients with median age at the time of diagnosis is 55 (3072) years. For 56% (n=43) of patients KRd was applied as the second line (group 1), for 44% (n=34) as the third and more (group 2). In 23/43 patients from group 1, an early change in therapy was made due to insufficient effectiveness (after 24 courses of VCD or PAD). KRd served as a "bridge" to autoHSCT in 25 (32%) patients (21 of 25 in group 1). Another 7 patients underwent collection of autoHSC (all from group 1). The overall response rate (ORR) was 80.5%, with 33.8% complete response (CR) and 26% VGPR. ORR in group 1 was 98% versus 65.6% in group 2; 24-month overall survival (OS) was 70%, progression free survival (PFS) 49.8%. In group 1, 24-month OS was 85.6% versus 50.0% in group 2, 24-month PFS was 67.8% versus 25.5% (p=0.01). Conclusion. Our analysis confirmed the high efficiency of KRd in the treatment of RRMM in real-life practice. Early correction of therapy with insufficient effectiveness of the first line made it possible to implement the strategy of high-dose consolidation and autoHSCT in a larger percentage of patients with MM.

Renal response in real-world carfilzomib- vs bortezomib-treated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

In the phase 3 ENDEAVOR study, carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Kd) improved survival over bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), regardless of baseline renal function. This real-world study compared renal response in patients with RRMM (1-3 prior lines) and renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤50 mL/min) treated with Kd vs Vd. Electronic medical records data from the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records database were assessed (from January 2012 through February 2018). Time to renal response (defined according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for renal overall response (ROR) and renal complete response (RCR) using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for baseline covariates. Included were 543 Kd-treated and 1005 Vd-treated patients. In line 2 (2L), compared with Vd, Kd achieved significantly higher ROR (51.4% vs 39.6%; P < .0001) and RCR (26.6% vs 22.2%; P = .0229). After baseline covariate adjustment, 2L patients receiving Kd vs Vd were 45% more likely to achieve ROR (IRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78), and 68% were more likely to achieve RCR (IRR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.24-2.28). The renal response benefit with Kd remained consistent in 2L to line 4 (4L). In a combined analysis of patients receiving Kd and Vd (2L and 2L-4L), renal responders had longer overall survival and time to next treatment than renal nonresponders. These results demonstrate improved real-world effectiveness of Kd over Vd in RRMM renal rescue, and the positive association between renal response and improved survival.

A budget impact analysis of lenalidomide in multiple myeloma Egyptian patients

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to estimate the budget impact of lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) versus bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed refractory (RR) MM patients, from the perspective of the Egyptian Ministry of health (MoH).

METHODS

Two budget impact dynamic models were conducted to assess the budget impact of RD entry over a 3-year period. The clinical data for the modeled cohorts were based on published articles. Total annual medical costs associated with non-progression and progression disease states included the sum of estimated costs for adverse effects management, concomitant treatments, hospitalization and the follow up were measured. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The target population in a given year was estimated to include 245 patients with RRMM and 291 patients with NDMM receiving RD versus VCD. In RRMM, the annual budget savings of lenalidomide entry were estimated at EGP -1,103,969, -3,362,793 and -5,949,228 at year 1, year 2 and year 3, respectively. In NDMM, the annual budget savings of lenalidomide entry were estimated at EGP869,415, -1,779,776 and -2,139,311 at year 1, year 2 and year 3, respectively, to the payer after lenalidomide entry. The model results in RRMM were most sensitive to variations in patients eligible to transplantation in RRMM. In NDMM, the model results were most sensitive to the market share of VCD in the first year.

CONCLUSION

The results of our BI models suggest that not only does RD treatment have an effect on the budget, but also has major cost savings in other areas which are very important while considering the total costs of MM treatment. This study results provided evidence-based information to the MoH that will help in decision making of whether to implement RD as a treatment intervention or not.

Weekly carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A phase 1b study

Twice-weekly carfilzomib (27 mg/m2 ) with lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) is a standard-of-care in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This phase 1b study evaluated KRd with once-weekly carfilzomib in RRMM. Patients received carfilzomib (30-minute infusion; 56 or 70mg/m2 ) on days 1, 8, and 15; lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21; and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (day 22 omitted for cycles 9+) of 28-day cycles. Primary objective was safety/tolerability; efficacy was a secondary objective. Fifty-six RRMM patients enrolled: 22 during dose evaluation (56-mg/m2 , n = 10; 70-mg/m2 , n = 12) and 34 during dose expansion (all initiated dosing at 70 mg/m2 ). After 2 fatal adverse events (AEs) during 70-mg/m2 dose expansion, dosage reduction to 56 mg/m2 was permitted. Results are presented for carfilzomib 56-mg/m2 (n = 10) and 70-mg/m2 groups (dose evaluation/expansion; n = 46). Median carfilzomib dose was 53.2 mg/m2 (56-mg/m2 group) and 62.4 mg/m2 (70-mg/m2 group). Grade ≥3 AE rates were 70.0% (56 mg/m2 ) and 69.6% (70 mg/m2 ). Overall response rates were 90.0% (56 mg/m2 ) and 89.1% (70 mg/m2 ); ≥very good partial response rates were 50.0% (56 mg/m2 ) and 73.9% (70 mg/m2 ). Once-weekly KRd was active with acceptable toxicity in RRMM, supporting further evaluation of this regimen.

Response and progression-free survival according to planned treatment duration in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the phase III ASPIRE study

Background

In ASPIRE, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Per protocol, patients received KRd for a maximum of 18 cycles followed by Rd to progression, so the benefit/risk profile of KRd to progression was not established.

Methods

This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of KRd versus Rd at 18 months from randomization. Cumulative rates of complete response (CR) or better over time and PFS hazard ratio (HR) at 18 months were evaluated for KRd versus Rd. PFS HRs were also assessed according to cytogenetic risk, prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib treatment. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate PFS HRs.

Results

The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS at 18 months was 0.58 versus 0.69 for the overall ASPIRE study. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics, ≥ 1 prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib exposure benefited from KRd up to 18 months versus Rd. The HRs for PFS at 18 months in the pre-defined subgroups were lower than those in the overall study. The difference in the proportion of KRd and Rd patients achieving at least a complete response (CR) increased dramatically over the first 18 months and then remained relatively constant. The safety profile at 18 months was consistent with previous findings.

Conclusions

The improved PFS HR at 18 months and the continued increase in CR rates for KRd through 18 cycles suggest that there may be a benefit of continued carfilzomib treatment.

Trial registration

Clinical trials.gov NCT01080391. Registered 2 March 2010.

The impact of age and comorbidities on practice patterns and outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the era of novel therapies

OBJECTIVES

One-third of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are diagnosed at age≥75years. Older patients have increased incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and renal insufficiency (RI), hallmark complications of MM. We examined cumulative incidence of CVD and RI in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and outcomes by age and RI/CVD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using a large US electronic medical records database of adult patients with RRMM initiating first- and second-line therapy (2LT) between 1/2008-06/2015. RI and CVD comorbidities were based on diagnosis codes and/or lab values.

RESULTS

Among 628 patients, 37.1% were ≥75years. Cumulative incidence of CVD and/or RI increased from 47.7% at MM diagnosis to 67.8% at first relapse. Age≥75years had a trend toward higher risk of relapse post 2LT, proxied by time to next treatment (TTNT), (adjusted HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.65; P=0.05). TTNT was significantly higher with comorbid CVD+RI (adjusted HR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.02; P<0.01). Age≥75years, RI, CVD, and CVD+RI were associated with increased mortality risk from 2LT initiation; adjusted HR: 1.66 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.33; P<0.01), 1.51 (95% CI: 1.01, 2.26; P=0.04), 1.75 (95% CI: 1.03, 2.96; P=0.04), and 1.95 (95% CI: 1.29, 2.93; P<0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite treatment with novel agents for RRMM in 86% of patients, an outcome gap persists for older patients and those with RI and/or CVD. Personalized treatment approaches that account for age and comorbidities, and further evaluation of innovative regimens and dosing schedules, are needed to improve outcomes for these patients.

Impact of prior treatment on patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib and dexamethasone vs bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase 3 ENDEAVOR study

The randomized phase 3 ENDEAVOR study (N=929) compared carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). We performed a subgroup analysis from ENDEAVOR in patients categorized by number of prior lines of therapy or by prior treatment. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with one prior line was 22.2 months for Kd vs 10.1 months for Vd, and median PFS for patients with ⩾2 prior lines was 14.9 months for Kd vs 8.4 months for Vd. For patients with prior bortezomib exposure, the median PFS was 15.6 months for Kd vs 8.1 months for Vd, and for patients with prior lenalidomide exposure the median PFS was 12.9 months for Kd vs 7.3 months for Vd. Overall response rates (Kd vs Vd) were 81.9 vs 65.5% (one prior line), 72.0 vs 59.7% (⩾2 prior lines), 71.2 vs 60.3% (prior bortezomib) and 70.1 vs 59.3% (prior lenalidomide). The safety profile in the prior lines subgroups was qualitatively similar to that in the broader ENDEAVOR population. In RMM, outcomes are improved when receiving treatment with carfilzomib compared with bortezomib, regardless of the number of prior therapy lines or prior exposure to bortezomib or lenalidomide.

A randomized phase III study of carfilzomib vs low-dose corticosteroids with optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (FOCUS)

This randomized, phase III, open-label, multicenter study compared carfilzomib monotherapy against low-dose corticosteroids and optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients were randomized (1:1) to receive carfilzomib (10-min intravenous infusion; 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 27 mg/m² thereafter) or a control regimen of low-dose corticosteroids (84 mg of dexamethasone or equivalent corticosteroid) with optional cyclophosphamide (1400 mg) for 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Three-hundred and fifteen patients were randomized to carfilzomib (n=157) or control (n=158). Both groups had a median of five prior regimens. In the control group, 95% of patients received cyclophosphamide. Median OS was 10.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4-14.4) vs 10.0 months (95% CI 7.7-12.0) with carfilzomib vs control (hazard ratio=0.975; 95% CI 0.760-1.249; P=0.4172). Progression-free survival was similar between groups; overall response rate was higher with carfilzomib (19.1 vs 11.4%). The most common grade ⩾3 adverse events were anemia (25.5 vs 30.7%), thrombocytopenia (24.2 vs 22.2%) and neutropenia (7.6 vs 12.4%) with carfilzomib vs control. Median OS for single-agent carfilzomib was similar to that for an active doublet control regimen in heavily pretreated RRMM patients.