Economic evaluation of therapies for patients suffering from relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma in Greece

Does a Standard Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Exist? The Case of Greece

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review the use of cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold for evaluating pharmacological interventions in Greece.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and ScienceDirect was conducted between January 2009 and June 2022. The data of selected studies were extracted using a relevant form and consequently were synthesized. Qualitative variables were presented with relative frequencies (%) and quantitative variables with median and interquartile range (IQR).

RESULTS

From the 302 identified studies, 83 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized to oncology (26.5%) and a nononcology related (73.5%) based on drug treatment. The most frequently reported outcome associated with CE threshold was the "per quality-adjusted life-year gained." A total of 32.5% of the studies with a reported threshold did not specify the origin of the threshold. From the rest of studies, the vast majority (92.8%) adopted thresholds equal to 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, whereas the rest similar to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The median CE threshold was differentiated between oncology (€51 000 [IQR €50 000-€60 000]) and nononcology studies (€34 000 [IQR €30 000-€36 000]; P < .001). In both type of studies, the median CE thresholds were not statistically significantly different among GDP, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and not specified approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Aligned with other countries where there is no standard CE threshold to promote efficient use of healthcare resources, the most prominent practice in Greece was found to be that of 1 to 3 times the GDP per capita irrespective of type of treatment or outcome studied.

Cost utility and budget impact analysis of dexamethasone compared with bortezomib and lenalidomide for the treatment of second line multiple myeloma from a South African public health perspective

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is an incurable haematological malignancy that is associated with a high probability of relapse. The survival of relapsed patients has been greatly improved by the development of novel drugs such as lenalidomide and bortezomib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of these drugs as second-line treatment for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients in the South African public health care system.

METHODS

We modelled 3 treatment strategies for second-line RRMM treatment: dexamethasone (standard of care), bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) from the South African public health perspective. For each strategy we modelled a hypothetical cohort of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients using a three-state Markov model over a 15-year time horizon. Efficacy and utilization data were obtained from the MM009/010 and APEX trials and external studies. Price and cost data were from local sources and presented in 2021 South African Rands. Outcomes were reported in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for BORT and LEN/DEX and compared to a local cost-effectiveness threshold of R38 500 per DALY averted using the assumption that 1 DALY averted is equal to 1 QALY gained. A budget impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the financial impact of the introduction of BORT and LEN/DEX, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties.

RESULTS

The modelled total costs of DEX, BORT and LEN/DEX were estimated to be R8 312, R234 996 and R1 135 323, respectively. DEX treatment provided 1.14 QALYs while BORT and LEN/DEX treatments provided 1.49 and 2.22 QALYs, respectively. The ICER of BORT versus DEX was R654 649 and that of LEN/DEX versus BORT was R1 225 542. Both BORT and LEN/DEX treatments were not cost-effective relative to a cost-effectiveness threshold of R38 500 per DALY averted. Both BORT and LEN/DEX significantly increase the 1 year budget-cost of RRMM treatment.

CONCLUSION

Both BORT and LEN/DEX treatments are unlikely to be cost-effective strategies for second-line treatment of RRMM in South Africa. The results indicate that the drug prices of lenalidomide and bortezomib are key drivers of value for money. Price reductions could potentially make BORT more cost-effective.

Cost Effectiveness of Triplet Selinexor-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone (XVd) in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma (MM) Based on Results from the Phase III BOSTON Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Nearly all patients with multiple myeloma undergo multiple rounds of therapy. The phase III BOSTON trial of once-weekly selinexor and once-weekly bortezomib with dexamethasone (XVd) vs twice-weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) is the basis for this cost-effectiveness analysis in previously treated multiple myeloma from a US commercial payer perspective over a lifetime horizon.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model enabled use of direct overall survival and progression-free survival curves from BOSTON to generate four health states for XVd and Vd: progression-free survival on treatment, progression-free survival off treatment, post-progression, and mortality. Using a 1-week cycle length, benefits and costs were discounted at 3.0% annually. Additional comparators were included in an exploratory analysis that compared XVd against seven additional regimens (six triplets, one doublet).

RESULTS

After considering costs, utility, progression, and survival, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of XVd vs Vd was $475,430/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The 50% cost-effectiveness probability midpoint was near $470,000/QALY, based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The robustness of the analysis was supported by additional scenario assessment and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, which generally demonstrated little variance, with greatest sensitivity to variations in discount rates and utility values. In an exploratory analysis against external comparators, XVd showed a higher QALY gain with a lower cost (i.e., dominance) compared with lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), pomalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (PVd), and carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (KPd).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of XVd to the previously treated multiple myeloma treatment landscape provides a novel oral treatment option, which, when compared to Vd in the base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $475,430/QALY. Exploratory analyses comparing against external comparators suggest that XVd was dominant vs Rd, PVd, and KPd.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma treated with proteasome inhibitors in real-world clinical practice in Germany

AIMS

To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with different proteasome inhibitors (PIs) for the treatment of patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in Germany.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective medical chart review of treatment patterns, outcomes, and HRU for patients with RRMM treated with bortezomib, carfilzomib, or ixazomib in second- or third-line (2L or 3L) therapy in Germany. Data were collected between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2017. Costs were calculated based on drug prices and unit costs in Germany.

RESULTS

Physicians provided data on 302 patients. Mean monthly total direct costs per patient receiving PI-based therapy were €7,925 and €10,693 for 2L and 3L, respectively, of which approximately 90% was anti-myeloma drug costs. Overall, the highest costs were associated with patients receiving 3L therapy. Regardless of treatment line, costs were higher for patients who had received a stem cell transplant (SCT) in a previous treatment line than for those who had not; the data suggest that this reflects the use of triplet regimens following a SCT. Patients with a complete response (CR) experienced no unplanned hospitalizations during the study period, whereas patients with progressive disease experienced the highest number of unplanned and planned hospitalizations. In 2L therapy, the highest proportion of patients with a CR was observed in those receiving carfilzomib (12% carfilzomib; 4% bortezomib; 0% ixazomib).

LIMITATIONS

Patients with missing or incomplete follow-up data were included in the study and were accounted for using monthly cost estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-myeloma drugs were the main contributor to total HRU costs associated with RRMM in Germany. Improved treatment response was associated with lower costs and reduced hospitalizations.

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.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: First-Line Avelumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

Background

Compared with the standard of care with sunitinib, avelumab plus axitinib can increase progression-free survival in the first-line of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but the economic effect of the treatment is unknown. The purpose of the research was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced RCC from the US payer perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the economic and health outcomes of avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for advanced RCC. The clinical data were obtained from the JAVELIN Renal 101 Clinical Trials. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the model. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of avelumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib was $565,232 per QALY, the costs were $884,626 and $669,838, QALYs were 3.67 and 3.29, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that differences in utilities in PFS and after progression were the most influential factors within the model. When avelumab was at 30% of the full price or axitinib was at 40% of the full price, avelumab and axitinib were approved to be cost-effective if the WTP threshold was $150,000 per QALY. The subgroup analysis showed the ICER of avelumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for the patients with PD-L1–positive tumors was $588,105.

Conclusion

Avelumab plus axitinib in the first-line treatment was not cost-effective in comparison with sunitinib when the threshold of willingness to pay (WTP) was $150,000 per QALY.

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.

Healthcare resource utilization among patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK, France, and Italy

AIMS

To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with different treatment regimens used in the management of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK, France, and Italy.

METHODS

Retrospective medical chart review of characteristics, time to progression, level of response, HRU during treatment, and adverse events (AEs). Data collection started on June 1, 2015 and was completed on July 15, 2015. In the 3 months before record abstraction, eligible patients had either disease progression after receiving one of their country's most commonly prescribed regimens or had received the best supportive care and died. Costs were calculated based on HRU and country-specific diagnosis-related group and/or unit reference costs, amongst other standard resources.

RESULTS

Physicians provided data for 1,282 patients (387 in the UK, 502 in France, 393 in Italy) who met the inclusion criteria. Mean [median] total healthcare costs associated with a single line of treatment were €51,717 [35,951] in the UK, €37,009 [32,538] for France, and €34,496 [42,342] for Italy, driven largely by anti-myeloma medications costs (contributing 95.0%, 90.0%, and 94.2% of total cost, respectively). During active treatment, the highest costs were associated with lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-based regimens. Mean cost per month was lowest for patients achieving a very good partial response or better. Unscheduled events (i.e. not considered part of routine management, whether or not related to multiple myeloma, such as unscheduled hospitalization, AEs, fractures) accounted for 1-9% of total costs and were highest for bendamustine.

LIMITATIONS

The use of retrospective data means that clinical practice (e.g. use of medical procedures, evaluation of treatment response) is not standardized across participating countries/centers, and some data (e.g. low-grade AEs) may be incomplete or differently adjudicated/reported. The centers involved may not be fully representative of national practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug costs are the main contributor to total HRU costs associated with multiple myeloma. The duration of active treatment may influence the average total costs, as well as response, associated with a single line of therapy. Improved treatment outcomes, and reductions in unscheduled events and concomitant medication use may, therefore, reduce the overall HRU and related costs of care in multiple myeloma.

Cost-effectiveness of bortezomib for multiple myeloma: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) assessing bortezomib (BTZ) for multiple myeloma (MM) and explore possible bias affecting the cost-effectiveness of BTZ.

METHODS

Literature was searched for published CEAs assessing BTZ or BTZ-containing regimens for MM from 2003 to 2015. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were adjusted by 2014 country-specific gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC) to compare the cost-effectiveness threshold of the World Health Organization (3 GDPPC per gained quality-adjusted life year [QALY]).

RESULTS

A total of 17 published CEAs were included in this review. When compared to non-BTZ treatments, BTZ-containing regimens were cost-effective for induction treatment prior to stem cell transplantation (SCT) in Canada, Poland, and Germany (ICER per QALY: 0.9299-2.254 GDPPC). BTZ/melphalan/prednisolone (VMP) was cost-effective for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM patients when compared to melphalan plus prednisolone (MP), melphalan/prednisone/lenalidomide with lenalidomide maintenance, and cyclophosphamide/thalidomide/dexamethasone (CTD) (ICER per QALY: dominant to 2.374 GDPPC) in Canada, UK, and USA. BTZ was cost-effective for relapsed/refractory MM when compared to best supportive care (ICER per life year: 0.9317-1.8210 GDPPC) in the UK and the USA, thalidomide in USA (0.5178 GDPPC/LY), and dexamethasone (DEX) in four Nordic countries (€54,451-€81,560/QALY). However, the cost-effectiveness for VMP versus MP plus thalidomide (MPT) and continuous lenalidomide (LEN) plus low-dose DEX (RD) for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM patients and BTZ versus LEN/DEX for relapsed/refractory MM patients could be unreliable because of the bias associated with model design and the indirect comparisons of treatment effects.

CONCLUSION

Published CEAs suggested that BTZ or BTZ-containing regimens were cost-effective when compared to most non-BTZ treatments for MM. However, the conflicting cost-effectiveness for VMP versus MPT for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM and BTZ versus LEN/DEX for relapsed/refractory MM needs more robust evidence for further clarification.

Adjusting for Drug Wastage in Economic Evaluations of New Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies: A Systematic Review

Purpose:

As costs of cancer care rise, there has been a shift to focus on value. Drug wastage affects costs to patients and health care systems without adding value. Historically, cost-effectiveness analyses have used models that assume no drug wastage; however, this may not reflect real-world practices. We sought to identify the frequency of drug wastage modeling in economic evaluations of modern parenteral therapies for hematologic malignancies.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of new US Food and Drug Administration–approved parenteral chemotherapies with indications for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of studies that modeled drug wastage in base-case analyses. If wastage was considered in primary analyses, we reported the impact of wastage on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and drug acquisition costs.

Results:

Wastage was considered in base-case analyses in less than one third of all publications reviewed (12 of 38; 32%). Of these, two studies went on to complete sensitivity analyses and reported significant changes in the calculated ICER as a result. In one study, the ICER increased by 32%, and in the second, accounting for wastage changed a positive ICER to a dominant result.

Conclusion:

Potential costs associated with drug wastage are considered in only one third of modern cost-effectiveness models. The impact of wastage on calculated ICERs and drug acquisition costs is potentially substantial. The modeling of wastage in base-case and sensitivity analyses is recommended for future economic evaluations of new intravenous therapies for hematologic malignancies.

Clinical utility and patient consideration in the use of lenalidomide for multiple myeloma in Chinese patients

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable hematologic malignancy caused by the autonomous growth of malignant plasma cells. In the last decade, the introduction of novel targeted agents such as thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide has dramatically improved the clinical outcome of MM patients in both the frontline and recurrent settings. Lenalidomide is a synthetic derivative of thalidomide, which has been shown to significantly improve overall survival, time to progression, and overall response rates in patients with MM. The China Food and Drug Administration approved the use of lenalidomide in patients with MM in 2013. In a Phase II trial, lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was associated with a high response rate and acceptable safety profile in heavily pretreated Chinese patients with relapsed/refractory MM, including those with renal impairment and IgD subtype. However, lenalidomide will remain as a second-line antimyeloma drug in the near future because of its high price and the policy of health insurance reimbursement in People’s Republic of China. In this review, we summarize the clinical utility and patient considerations in the use of lenalidomide for MM in Chinese patients. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to investigate the better quality, longer duration, and more clinically meaningful outcomes of lenalidomide in the treatment of MM in Chinese patients.

When to use discrete event simulation (DES) for the economic evaluation of health technologies? A review and critique of the costs and benefits of DES

Modelling in economic evaluation is an unavoidable fact of life. Cohort-based state transition models are most common, though discrete event simulation (DES) is increasingly being used to implement more complex model structures. The benefits of DES relate to the greater flexibility around the implementation and population of complex models, which may provide more accurate or valid estimates of the incremental costs and benefits of alternative health technologies. The costs of DES relate to the time and expertise required to implement and review complex models, when perhaps a simpler model would suffice. The costs are not borne solely by the analyst, but also by reviewers. In particular, modelled economic evaluations are often submitted to support reimbursement decisions for new technologies, for which detailed model reviews are generally undertaken on behalf of the funding body. This paper reports the results from a review of published DES-based economic evaluations. Factors underlying the use of DES were defined, and the characteristics of applied models were considered, to inform options for assessing the potential benefits of DES in relation to each factor. Four broad factors underlying the use of DES were identified: baseline heterogeneity, continuous disease markers, time varying event rates, and the influence of prior events on subsequent event rates. If relevant, individual-level data are available, representation of the four factors is likely to improve model validity, and it is possible to assess the importance of their representation in individual cases. A thorough model performance evaluation is required to overcome the costs of DES from the users' perspective, but few of the reviewed DES models reported such a process. More generally, further direct, empirical comparisons of complex models with simpler models would better inform the benefits of DES to implement more complex models, and the circumstances in which such benefits are most likely.