Phase-Specific and Lifetime Costs of Multiple Myeloma Among Older Adults in the US

IMPORTANCE

Health care costs associated with diagnosis and care among older adults with multiple myeloma (MM) are substantial, with cost of care and the factors involved differing across various phases of the disease care continuum, yet little is known about cost of care attributable to MM from a Medicare perspective.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate incremental phase-specific and lifetime costs and cost drivers among older adults with MM enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using population-based registry data from the 2007-2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database linked with 2006-2016 Medicare administrative claims data. Data analysis included 4533 patients with newly diagnosed MM and 4533 matched noncancer Medicare beneficiaries from a 5% sample of Medicare to assess incremental MM lifetime and phase-specific costs (prediagnosis, initial care, continuing care, and terminal care) and factors associated with phase-specific incremental MM costs. The study was conducted from June 1, 2019, to April 30, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental MM costs were calculated for the disease lifetime and the following 4 phases of care: prediagnosis, initial, continuing care, and terminal.

RESULTS

Of the 4533 patients with MM included in the study, 2374 were women (52.4%), 3418 (75.4%) were White, and mean (SD) age was 75.8 (6.8) years (2313 [51.0%] aged ≥75 years). The characteristics of the control group were similar; however, mean (SD) age was 74.2 (8.8) years (2839 [62.6%] aged ≤74 years). Mean adjusted incremental MM lifetime costs were $184 495 (95% CI, $183 099-$185 968). Mean per member per month phase-specific incremental MM costs were estimated to be $1244 (95% CI, $1216-$1272) for the prediagnosis phase, $11 181 (95% CI, $11 052-$11 309) for the initial phase, $5634 (95% CI, $5577-$5694) for the continuing care phase, and $6280 (95% CI, $6248-$6314) for the terminal phase. Although inpatient and outpatient costs were estimated as the major cost drivers for the prediagnosis (inpatient, 55.8%; outpatient, 40.2%), initial care (inpatient, 38.1%; outpatient, 35.5%), and terminal (inpatient, 33.0%; outpatient, 34.6%) care phases, prescription drugs (44.9%) were the largest cost drivers in the continuing care phase.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that there is substantial burden to Medicare associated with diagnosis and care among older adults with MM, and the cost of care and cost drivers vary across different phases of the cancer care continuum. The study findings might aid policy discussions regarding MM care and coverage and help further the development of alternative payment models for MM, accounting for differential costs across various phases of the disease continuum and their drivers.

Survival, health care resource utilization and expenditures of first-line treatments for multiple myeloma patients ineligible for transplant in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

We aimed to provide real-world information on survival, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and expenditures related to various first lines of therapy (1LOTs) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible (TI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database (2008-2016), we identified 1,511 NDMM-TI patients who had received 1LOT since June 2012. We categorized 1LOT regimens into four groups: bortezomib (V)+thalidomide (T), V, T, and non-V/T. Patients' characteristics were collected. The overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), frequencies of HCRU (hospitalization, visiting outpatient and emergency departments), and related expenditures within one year after commencement of the 1LOT were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

The mean age of the included patients was 71.3 (SD 10.7) years, and 40.4% of patients had a CCI score ≥3. Most patients (747; 49.4%) were in the V+T group and, after adjusting for covariates, had a significantly longer OS (median, 22.2 months) and EFS (9.1 months) than those in the T group (12.6 and 4.5 months, respectively) and the non-V/T group (12.2 and 3.2 months, respectively), but they were mostly comparable with patients in the V group (23.8 and 6.6 months, respectively). Compared to those in the V+T group, patients in the T and non-V/T groups had 29% and 39% fewer outpatient visits and 15% and 24% lower total expenditure, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our real-world data consolidate evidence for the effectiveness of bortezomib-containing regimens as the 1LOT in NDMM-TI patients at the expense of more outpatient visits and higher total costs.

Cost-effectiveness of Novel Treatment Sequences for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma

IMPORTANCE

Although the number of treatments for elderly patients with non-transplant-eligible (NTE) multiple myeloma (MM) has increased substantially, evidence is lacking on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel treatment sequences.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal sequence of treatment for patients with NTE MM from the perspective of the patient, physician, and society.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using data from a Dutch observational registry, this economic evaluation combined evidence from network meta-analyses in a patient-level simulation model and modeled time-to-event and types of events from a hospital perspective with a lifetime horizon. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to September 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty treatment sequences, including up to 3 lines of therapy, were compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP)-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LenDex)-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (PomDex).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes of the model were overall survival (OS), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Sequences starting with daratumumab-VMP (second line: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone or elotuzumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide-maintenance bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) (second line: daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) had the largest expected OS (7.5 years), which is 3.5 additional life-years compared with VMP-LenDex-PomDex. Total costs per patient for these sequences ranged between $786 024 and $1 085 794. The sequence VMPT-VT-carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone-panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio ($98 585 per life-year gained and $132 707 per QALY gained vs VMP-LenDex-PomDex).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that sequences including novel treatments were highly effective, but the cost-effectiveness ratios were above currently accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treating MM with novel agents necessitates either a large increase in budget or a substantial reduction of drug costs by price negotiations, and these findings can support these reimbursement decisions and price negotiations.

Economic burden of disease progression among multiple myeloma patients who have received transplant and at least one line of therapy in the US

Effects of disease progression on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among multiple myeloma (MM) patients with ≥1 line of therapy (LOT) who received their first stem cell transplant (SCT) within 1 year of initial MM diagnosis were estimated using a large US claims database. Disease progression was defined as advancement to the next LOT, bone metastasis, hypercalcemia, soft tissue plasmacytoma, skeletal related events, acute kidney disease, or death within 12 months of LOT initiation. Annual HRU and costs in the first three LOTs (L1-L3) were compared for patients with versus without disease progression using inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between groups in baseline characteristics. In all LOTs, mean annual hospitalizations and healthcare costs were greater for patients with versus without progression. Total incremental annual costs among patients with versus without progression in L1-L3 were $18,359, $87,055, and $71,917, respectively, among LOTs initiated between 2006 and 2018. In LOTs initiated between 2013 and 2018, the figures were $46,024, $100,329, and $101,942 in L1-L3, respectively. The economic burden of disease progression is substantial in this population of MM patients who underwent SCT and received systemic anti-myeloma therapy.

Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous therapy regimens for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in Germany

BACKGROUND

In Germany, several triplet therapies for treating relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) patients have recently been approved. While most of them are administered intravenously, ixazomib-based combination is the only orally bioavailable regimen.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a 1-year and 3-year budget impact analysis (BIA) of different novel triplets to treat patients with rrMM in second or subsequent therapy lines accounting for costs covered by German statutory health insurance (SHI).

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to evaluate the budget impact of the following regimens: carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (KRd), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ERd), daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DRd), and ixazomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IRd). The analysis included direct medical costs such as drug acquisition, comedication and preparation for parenteral solutions, drug administration and other 1-time costs, adverse event management costs and direct non-medical costs, such as transportation costs.

RESULTS

Based on current drug market shares in German healthcare market, the estimated costs after 1 year of treatment was €551 million (KRd), €163 million (ERd), €584 million (DRd), and €95 million (IRd). The total budget impact of €1393 million is mainly driven by drug acquisition and subsequent therapy costs.

CONCLUSION

Among the regimens of interest, the oral-based therapy regimens offered cost advantages over intravenous-based therapy regimens. The higher overall costs of intravenous therapy regimens were attributed primarily to higher drug acquisition costs.

Critical Appraisal of Published Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-Analyses of Competing Interventions for Multiple Myeloma

OBJECTIVES

In the field of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), between-trial or indirect comparisons are required to estimate relative treatment effects between competing interventions based on the available evidence. Two approaches are frequently used in RRMM: network meta-analysis (NMA) and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the relevance and credibility of published NMA and unanchored MAIC studies aiming to estimate the comparative efficacy of treatment options for RRMM.

METHODS

Twelve relevant studies were identified in the published literature (n = 7) and from health technology assessment agencies (n = 5). Data from trials were extracted to identify between-trial differences that may have biased results. Credibility of the performed analyses and relevance of the research questions were critically appraised using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist and feedback based on consultations with clinical experts.

RESULTS

The identified studies concerned NMAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 7), unanchored MAICs (n = 4), or both types of analyses (n = 1). According to clinical expert consultation, the majority of the identified NMAs did not consider differences in prior therapies or treatment duration across the RCTs included in the analyses, thereby compromising the relevance.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results and feedback from clinicians, the majority of NMAs did not consider prior treatment history or treatment duration, which resulted in nonrelevant comparisons. Furthermore, it may have compromised the credibility of the estimates owing to differences in effect-modifiers between the different trials. Pairwise comparisons by means of unanchored MAICs require clear justification given the reliance on non-randomized comparisons.

Latest treatment strategies aiming for a cure in transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients: how I cure younger MM patients with lower cost

This article presents a practical overview of the treatment of younger, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, focusing on novel treatment strategies. With the introduction of effective new agents, multiple myeloma is one of the most active and changing fields in clinical oncology. In addition, monitoring technology has become reliable and practical. Achieving and sustaining minimal residual disease negativity (MRD- ), such as multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) < 10^-5, is one of the goals of therapy. MRD-  is significantly associated with prolonged progression-free survival, whereas MRD persistence (MRD +) is an independent factor for poor progression-free survival. Evidence from several recent studies evaluating modern therapy has further supported the positive correlation between depth of response and outcomes. Multiple myeloma can become a chronic illness with sustained MRD- in a significant number of patients. Our ultimate hope is to leverage tumoricidal-immunomodulatory sequential therapies and to cure a subset of our patients.

Medication Adherence, Health Care Utilization, and Costs Among Patients Initiating Oral Oncolytics for Multiple Myeloma or Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Oral oncolytic therapies have improved survival in hematologic cancers, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and multiple myeloma (MM), which are now being managed like chronic conditions. However, compared with other cancers, there is a lack of studies assessing adherence, health care resource utilization, and costs in patients with these cancers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess factors associated with adherence to oral oncolytic therapies, health care utilization, and costs in patients with CLL/SLL or MM.

METHODS

A retrospective database study was conducted using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplement databases. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) diagnosed with and prescribed an oral oncolytic for CLL/SLL (ibrutinib or idelalisib) or MM (thalidomide, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide) between 2013 and 2016 and with continuous eligibility 6 months before and 12 months after oral oncolytic initiation were identified. Adherence to oral oncolytics was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC) metric. Multiple linear regression and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify adherence predictors. Count models assessed the relationship between adherence and resource utilization, and generalized linear models assessed the relationship between adherence and health care costs.

RESULTS

A total of 701 and 2,385 patients were identified with CLL/SLL or MM, respectively. Mean PDC (SD) for CLL/SLL and MM patients was 75.3 (22.5) and 57.6 (26.5), respectively. For CLL/SLL patients, those aged ≥ 65 years (beta [B] = -4.00) had lower medication use. Among MM patients, multiple predictors of higher medication use emerged: aged ≥ 65 years (B = 3.44), higher than average outpatient resource utilization (B = 3.53), insurance plan other than preferred provider organization (PPO; B = -2.58), previous cancer therapy (B = -2.81), higher number of concurrent unique therapeutic classes (B = -0.35), and higher comorbidity burden (B = -2.55). Patients with CLL/SLL and enrolled in plans other than a PPO were more likely to be adherent (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.01-1.98), whereas patients who were aged ≥ 65 years, were residents of the southern United States, and had visited the emergency department in the baseline period were less likely to be adherent. For MM patients, those aged ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.38-2.04) and with higher than average outpatient services utilization (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.01-1.52) were more likely to be adherent, whereas those enrolled in plans other than a PPO, previously treated with cancer therapy, and with higher comorbidity burden were less likely to be adherent. In both cohorts, adherent patients had significantly lower odds of health care utilization and incurred lower medical costs, but higher prescription costs, following oncolytic initiation; however, total costs were not significantly lower in those adherent.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors were identified that influenced adherence at the patient, treatment, and health system levels. These factors can be used to identify patients requiring interventions for improving medication-taking behavior and associated health care burden.

DISCLOSURES

This study received no outside funding. Dashputre was recently employed by Novartis; K. Gatwood has received speaker fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals; and J. Gatwood has received research funding from Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline, unrelated to this study..

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 utilization and costs among relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients on carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone

Aim: To compare monthly healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving second or subsequent line of treatment (LOT) with carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone. Methods and materials: Adult MM patients who received carfilzomib or pomalidomide as second/subsequent LOT between 2006 and 2014 were selected from the MarketScan databases. LOT was determined using Medical/pharmacy claims using a published algorithm. For each patient, first LOT with carfilzomib or pomalidomide was defined as index LOT. Patients with first LOT as index LOT, who received other chemotherapy in combination with carfilzomib or pomalidomide, or who underwent stem cell transplant (STC) during index LOT were excluded. Monthly HRU and costs during index LOT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores for receipt of carfilzomib estimated by logistic regression with LOT, patient demographics, Charlson index, comorbidities, pre-index healthcare cost, and receipt of prior SCT as covariates. Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced among 114 carfilzomib and 144 pomalidomide patients. Mean (95% CI) numbers of outpatient visits per month were 7.1 (5.2-8.0) with carfilzomib and 4.7 (3.9-6.1) with pomalidomide (p = 0.006). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in mean monthly HRU and costs or median time to therapy discontinuation. Mean (95% CI) monthly total healthcare costs were $19,776 (15,322-27,748) with pomalidomide and $17,321 (12,412-21,874) with carfilzomib (p = 0.522). Limitations: Comparison of carfilzomib vs pomalidomide may be biased if there are unobserved factors not balanced by IPTW. The relatively small sample size limits the power of analyses to detect potential differences between treatment groups. Conclusions: Monthly HRU and costs are similar among patients with relapse or refractory MM patients receiving carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated With Lenalidomide- and/or Bortezomib-containing Regimens Without Stem Cell Transplant in a Real-world Setting

BACKGROUND

Real-world data in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) are sparse. Using United States claims databases, we analyzed treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and health care utilization and costs in patients receiving lenalidomide- and/or bortezomib-containing therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient claims were obtained from a large commercial and Medicare database (October 2009 to May 2015). Patients with NDMM who received lenalidomide- and/or bortezomib-containing therapy and did not receive stem cell transplant (SCT) were analyzed. Duration of treatment (DOT), time to next treatment (TTNT), and health care utilization and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 3075 patients, 1767 received doublet therapy (814 lenalidomide-dexamethasone [Rd], 953 bortezomib-dexamethasone [Vd]) and 464 received triplet therapy (318 lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone [RVd], 146 cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone [CyBord]). Rd versus Vd resulted in longer median DOT (12.0 vs. 5.9 months; P < .0001) and median TTNT (36.7 vs. 24.4 months; P = .0005). Year 1 costs were greater with Rd versus Vd (Δ = $14,964; P = .0009), primarily owing to higher pharmacy costs; outpatient physician visits and chemotherapy administration costs were lower. Median DOT (14.8 vs. 9.0 months; P < .0001) and median TTNT (35.7 vs. 22.3 months; P = .0007) were longer with RVd versus CyBord; year 1 costs were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of patients with NDMM ineligible for transplant, the median duration of therapy was approximately 70% of that in clinical trial observations. Lenalidomide therapy versus Vd and CyBord resulted in longer DOT, which correlated with longer TTNT, and higher pharmacy costs, which were partially offset by lower outpatient and chemotherapy administration costs.

A U.S. Cost Analysis of Triplet Regimens for Patients with Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the FDA has approved several 3-agent (i.e., triplet) combinations for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) now recommends triplet regimens over doublets. Little is known about the real-world cost of triplet combinations because of the limited time that they have been on the market since FDA approval. Furthermore, traditional cost analyses developed to support market entrance rely on utilization assumptions that are difficult to validate when numerous comparators simultaneously enter the market.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a 1-year cost analysis of novel triplets used for the treatment of patients with previously treated MM controlling for differences in utilization.

METHODS

FDA-approved, NCCN-recommended (preferred and category 1 for previously treated MM) treatments included in the analysis were daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DARA/LEN/DEX), daratumumab plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (DARA/BOR/DEX), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ELO/LEN/DEX), carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (CAR/LEN/DEX), and ixazomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IXA/LEN/DEX). To control for market uptake, the model was designed to estimate the cost of treating an average patient over a 1-year time horizon. Drug administration and dosing, required comedications, postprogression therapy, monitoring requirements, and adverse event (AE) rates were based on FDA prescribing information or clinical trials. AEs ≥ grade 3 that occurred in ≥ 5% of patients were included. RED BOOK wholesale acquisition costs were used for drug acquisition costs. Costs of drug administration, AE management, and patient monitoring were based on the 2018 Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services payment rates or from published literature (inflated to 2018 U.S. dollars). The treatment duration for each regimen was estimated from modeled progression-free survival data; the 12-month progression-free survival rate was assumed to be equivalent to the probability that an average patient remained on therapy for at least 1 year after treatment initiation, which was used to estimate time-depended treatment-related costs. The probability of progression within 1 year of treatment initiation was used to inform the average postprogression therapy costs for each regimen.

RESULTS

The estimated cost per patient for each triplet regimen was $13,890 (DARA/BOR/DEX), $22,231 (IXA/LEN/DEX), $24,322 (ELO/LEN/DEX), $26,410 (DARA/LEN/DEX), and $27,432 (CAR/LEN/DEX). Drug acquisition costs and treatment duration were the largest drivers of cost. Scenario analyses with plausible alternative input parameters found the maximum per month cost of therapy to be $30,657 (CAR/LEN/DEX) and the minimum per month cost of therapy to be $13,784 (DARA/BOR/DEX).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis controlled for differential utilization rates for 5 FDA-approved, NCCN-recommended triplet therapies for the treatment of previously treated MM. Of the examined regimens, treatment with DARA/BOR/DEX was estimated to have the lowest average monthly cost per patient, while CAR/LEN/DEX was the most expensive. As is common with modeling, some assumptions were necessary, and results may not be generalizable.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, which employs Maiese and funded Cornerstone Research Group, a health economic consulting group, to complete the cost analysis, interpret data, and develop the manuscript. Janssen was involved in the design of the analysis, interpretation of results, and manuscript development and approval. Grima is a founding partner of Cornerstone Research Group, which employs Hollmann, Goyert, and Moldaver. Hollmann, Goyert, and Moldaver were responsible for creation of the economic model. This work was peer-reviewed and presented as an abstract at the Lymphoma and Myeloma 2017 International Congress; October 26-28, 2017; New York, NY.

Cost variation and savings opportunities in the Oncology Care Model

OBJECTIVES

This study seeks to identify service categories that present the greatest opportunities to reduce spending in oncology care episodes, as defined by the CMS Oncology Care Model (OCM). Regional variation in spending for similar patients is often interpreted as evidence that resources can be saved, because higher-spending regions could achieve savings by behaving more like their lower-spending counterparts.

STUDY DESIGN

We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare data from 2006-2013 for this retrospective observational cohort study. Analysis focused on patients with non-small cell lung cancer, advanced (stage III or IV) breast cancer, renal cell carcinoma, multiple myeloma, or chronic myeloid leukemia.

METHODS

Episodes were identified for patients with the 5 included cancers, following the episode definition used in the OCM. We estimated standardized episode-level spending for a standard patient across subcategories of care for each hospital referral region (HRR) defined by the Dartmouth Atlas. The contribution of each subcategory to interregional variation in total spending reflects that subcategory's potential to yield savings.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy and acute inpatient hospital care tended to be the highest contributors to interregional variation. Imaging, nonchemotherapy Part B drugs, physician evaluation and management services, and diagnostics were negligible contributors to interregional variation for all 5 cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy and inpatient hospital care offer the most potential to reduce spending within OCM-defined episodes. Other sources of savings differ by type of cancer. Assuming patient outcomes are not compromised, low-spending HRRs may be models for lowering cost in cancer care.

Ixazomib for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Review from an Evidence Review Group on a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor used in combination with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IXA-LEN-DEX) and licensed for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. As part of a single technology appraisal (ID807) undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, the Evidence Review Group, Warwick Evidence was invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer of ixazomib, Takeda UK Ltd. The main source of clinical effectiveness data about IXA-LEN-DEX came from the Tourmaline-MM1 randomized controlled trial in which 771 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma received either IXA-LEN-DEX or placebo-LEN-DEX as their second-, third-, or fourth-line treatment. Takeda estimated the cost effectiveness of IXA-LEN-DEX using a de-novo partitioned-survival model with three health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead). In their first submission, this model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. bortezomib plus dexamethasone (BORT-DEX) in second-line treatment, and of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. LEN-DEX in third-line treatment. To estimate the relative clinical performance of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. BORT-DEX, Takeda conducted network meta-analyses for important outcomes. The network meta-analysis for overall survival was found to be flawed in several respects, but mainly because a hazard ratio input for one of the studies in the network had been inverted, resulting in a large inflation of the claimed superiority of IXA-LEN-DEX over BORT-DEX and a considerable overestimation of its cost effectiveness. In subsequent submissions, Takeda withdrew second-line treatment as an option for IXA-LEN-DEX. The manufacturer's first submission comparing IXA-LEN-DEX with LEN-DEX for third-line therapy employed Tourmaline-MM1 data from third- and fourth-line patients as proxy for a third-line population. The appraisal committee did not consider this reasonable because randomization in Tourmaline-MM1 was stratified according to one previous treatment and two or more previous treatments. A further deficiency was considered to be the manufacturer's use of interim survival data rather than the most mature data available. A second submission from the company focussed on IXA-LEN-DEX vs. LEN-DEX as third- or fourth-line treatment (the two or more previous lines population) and a new patient access scheme was introduced. Covariate modeling of survival outcomes was proposed using the most mature survival data. The Evidence Review Group's main criticisms of the new evidence included: the utility associated with the pre-progression health state was overestimated, treatment costs of ixazomib were underestimated, survival models were still associated with great uncertainty, leading to clinically implausible anomalies and highly variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates, and the company had not explored a strong assumption that the survival benefit of IXA-LEN-DEX over LEN-DEX would be fully maintained for a further 22 years beyond the observed data, which encompassed only approximately 2.5 years of observation. The appraisal committee remained unconvinced that ixazomib represented a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. Takeda's third submission offered new base-case parametric models for survival outcomes, a new analysis of utilities, and proposed a commercial access agreement. In a brief critique of the third submission, the Evidence Review Group agreed that the selection of appropriate survival models was problematic and at the request of the National Institute for Health Care and Excellence investigated external sources of evidence regarding survival outcomes. The Evidence Review Group considered that some cost and utility estimates in the submission may have remained biased in favor of ixazomib. As a result of their third appraisal meeting, the committee judged that for the two to three prior therapies population, and at the price agreed in a commercial access agreement, ixazomib had the potential to be cost effective. It was referred to the Cancer Drugs Fund so that further data could accrue with the aim of diminishing the clinical uncertainties.

Value and Cost of Myeloma Therapy-We Can Afford It

A national conversation regarding the price and affordability of drugs exists, where concern for value and benefits of medications is challenged by the increasing price of both injectable and oral medications, including the cost of care of myeloma. At the same time, we have seen unprecedented improvements in the overall survival of patients with myeloma, mostly because of the availability of these new drugs. Here, we present data to assert that these medications and associated expenses are of direct benefit to patients and society. The entrepreneurial reward for drug development in the United States has fueled vigorous drug development efforts that have culminated in the approval of 11 new drugs for the treatment of myeloma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1999. These patented drugs are available to patients in the United States usually at a higher price than in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the majority of patients, via direct copay assistance or through indirect support via third parties, have access to these drugs irrespective of their socioeconomic status. One of the major regulatory hurdles that prevents access to these drugs is the legal impossibility that pharmaceutical companies have in directly supporting copay assistance for patients with government-funded health care. Moreover, assessments of value should include formal pharmacoeconomic analyses performed by experts. Interference with market forces and coercive action, such as price controls, or exercising eminent domain in the quest for cheaper medications will stymie innovation and rob us of the cures of the future.

Impact of psychiatric comorbidities on health care utilization and cost of care in multiple myeloma

Approximately one third of cancer patients suffer from comorbid mood disorders that are associated with increased cost and poorer outcomes. The majority of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are treated with corticosteroids; as many as three fourths of those taking corticosteroids develop neuropsychiatric complications, likely increasing morbidity and cost of care. MM patients diagnosed between 1991 and 2010 and reported in the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database were characterized as MM-Only, MM+Psychiatric (any psychiatric condition, preexisting or post-MM), or MM+Depression (depression as the only psychiatric diagnosis, preexisting or post-MM). Differences in demographic characteristics, occurrence of clinical myeloma-defining events (MDEs), health care utilization (inpatient, outpatient, ambulatory claims), and cost of care during the first 6 months of MM diagnosis were analyzed. Psychiatric comorbidities were reported more frequently in females, and racial minorities had lower rates of psychiatric comorbidities. All clinical MDEs were more common in the MM+Psychiatric and MM+Depression groups; within them, the majority were more common in patients diagnosed with the psychiatric condition or depression after MM compared with it being a preexisting condition. Health care utilization in all treatment settings was higher in those with psychiatric comorbidities. Cost of care within the first 6 months after MM diagnosis was significantly higher in the MM+Psychiatric and MM+Depression groups. This increase in cost was more pronounced for patients from racial minorities diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, including depression. Psychiatric comorbidities significantly impact the clinical presentations, health care utilization, and cost among patients with MM. These findings need to be addressed for improved survivorship of MM patients.

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.

Pomalidomide with Dexamethasone for Treating Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Previously Treated with Lenalidomide and Bortezomib: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of an NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process, invited the manufacturer of pomalidomide (POM; Imnovid^®, Celgene) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after at least two regimens including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BOR). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR) and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this submission. The ERG reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses in order to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG assessment, and NICE's subsequent decisions. The company conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing POM with comparators outlined in the NICE scope: panobinostat with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PANO + BOR + DEX), bendamustine with thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) and conventional chemotherapy (CC). The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from MM-003, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing POM + LoDEX with high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; used as a proxy for CC). Additional data from other studies were also used as nonrandomized observational data sources for the indirect treatment comparison of POM + LoDEX with BTD and PANO + BOR + DEX. Covariate or treatment switching adjustment methods were used for each comparison. The model developed in Microsoft^® Excel 2010 using a semi-Markov partitioned survival structure, submitted in the original submission to NICE for TA338, was adapted for the present assessment of the cost effectiveness of POM + LoDEX. Updated evidence from the clinical-effectiveness part was used for the survival modelling of progression-free survival and overall survival. For POM + LoDEX, the patient access scheme (PAS) discount was applied to the POM price. Three separate comparisons were conducted for each comparator, each comparison using a different dataset and adjustment methods. The ERG identified and corrected some errors, and the corrected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for POM + LoDEX versus each comparator were presented: approximately £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus BTD, savings of approximately £143,000 per QALY lost versus PANO + BOR + DEX, and approximately £49,000 per QALY gained versus CC. The ERG also conducted full incremental analyses, which revealed that CC, POM + LoDEX and PANO + BOR + DEX were on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The committee's decision on the technology under analysis deemed that POM + LoDEX should be recommended as an option for treating multiple myeloma in adults at third or subsequent relapse of treatments including both LEN and BOR, contingent on the company providing POM with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Cost-effectiveness of Drugs to Treat Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the United States

BACKGROUND

New 3-drug regimens have been developed and approved to treat multiple myeloma (MM). The absence of direct comparative data and the high cost of treatment support the need to assess the relative clinical and economic outcomes across all approved regimens.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments for relapsed and/or refractory MM from a U.S. health system perspective.

METHODS

We developed a partition survival model with 3 health states (progression-free, progression, and death) to evaluate the following regimens: carfilzomib (CFZ), elotuzumab (ELO), ixazomib (IX), daratumumab (DAR), and panobinostat (PAN) in combination with lenalidomide (LEN) or bortezomib (BOR) plus dexamethasone (DEX) in the second and/or third line of therapy. To estimate relative treatment effects, we developed a network meta-analysis and applied progression-free survival hazard ratios to baseline parametric progression-free survival functions derived from pooled data on LEN+DEX. We estimated overall survival using data on the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival from a large meta-analysis of MM patients. Modeled costs included those related to drug treatment, administration, monitoring, adverse events, and progression. Utilities were from publicly available data and manufacturer data, if published sources were unavailable.

RESULTS

Model results showed that regimens containing DAR yielded the highest expected life years (DAR range: 6.71-7.38 vs. non-DAR range: 3.25-5.27) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY; DAR range: 4.38-5.44 vs. non-DAR range: 2.04-3.46), with DAR+BOR+DEX (second line) and PAN+BOR+DEX (third line) as the most cost-effective options (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $50,700 and cost saving, respectively). The applicability of the PAN+BOR+DEX result may be challenging, however, because of ongoing toxicity concerns. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, second-line DAR+BOR+DEX and third-line PAN+BOR+DEX had an 89% and 87% probability of being cost-effective at the $150,000 per QALY threshold, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of newer drugs and regimens to treat second- and third-line relapsed/refractory MM appears to provide clinical benefits by lengthening progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life. However, only the addition of DAR or PAN may be considered cost-effective options according to commonly cited thresholds, and PAN+BOR+DEX results require cautious interpretation. Achieving levels of value more closely aligned with patient benefit would require substantial discounts from the remaining agents evaluated.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this work was provided in part by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which collaborated on the design, conduct, and reporting of this evaluation. During the conduct of this study, Ollendorf, Synnott, Chapman, and Pearson report grants from Blue Shield of California Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, and Laura and John Arnold Foundation and also report other grants from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, OmedaRx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Spark Therapeutics, Sanofi, Prime Therapeutics, and Health Care Service Corporation outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Seattle Genetics, Genentech, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Russo, Guzauskas, Liu, and Brouwer have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Carlson, Guzauskas, and Ollendorf. Guzauskas, Chapman, Synnott, and Liu collected the data, and Carlson, Guzauskas, Chapman, and Ollendorf contributed to data analysis, along with Synnott and Liu. The manuscript was written by Carlson, Guzauskas, and Brouwer, along with Chapman, Synnott, and Ollendorf, and revised by Carlson, Brouwer, and Guzauskas, along with Chapman, Synnott, and Ollendorf.

Subsidies for Oral Chemotherapy and Use of Immunomodulatory Drugs Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Myeloma

Purpose The low-income subsidy (LIS) substantially lowers out-of-pocket costs for qualifying Medicare Part D beneficiaries who receive orally administered chemotherapy. We examined the association of LIS with the use of novel oral immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs; lenalidomide and thalidomide) among beneficiaries with myeloma, who can receive either orally administered or parenteral (bortezomib-based) therapy. Methods Using SEER-Medicare data, we identified Part D beneficiaries diagnosed with myeloma in 2007 to 2011. In multivariable models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, we analyzed associations between the LIS and use of IMiD-based therapy, delays between IMiD refills, and select health outcomes during the first year of therapy. Results Among 3,038 beneficiaries, 41% received first-line IMiDs. Median out-of-pocket cost for the first IMiD prescription was $3,178 for LIS nonrecipients and $3 for LIS recipients, whereas the respective median costs for the first year of therapy were $5,623 and $6, respectively. Receipt of the LIS was associated with a 32% higher (95% CI, 16% to 47%) probability of receiving IMiDs among beneficiaries age 75 to 84 years and a significantly lower risk of delays between refills in all age groups (adjusted relative risk, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92). Duration of therapy did not significantly differ between LIS recipients and nonrecipients (median, 7.6 months). Patients treated with IMiDs had significantly fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations compared with patients receiving bortezomib (without IMiDs), but 1-year overall survival and cumulative Medicare costs were similar. Conclusion Medicare beneficiaries with myeloma who do not receive LISs face a substantial financial barrier to accessing orally administered anticancer therapy, warranting urgent attention from policymakers. Limiting out-of-pocket costs for expensive anticancer drugs like the IMiDs may improve access to oral therapy for patients with myeloma.

Exploring Big Data in Hematological Malignancies: Challenges and Opportunities

Secondary analysis of large datasets has become a useful alternative to address research questions outside the reach of clinical trials. It is increasingly utilized in hematology and oncology. In this review, we provided an overview of some examples of commonly used large datasets in the USA and described common research themes that can be pursued using such a methodology. We selected a sample of 14 articles on adult hematologic malignancies published in 2015 and highlighted their contributions as well as limitations.

Trends in overall survival and costs of multiple myeloma, 2000-2014

Little real-world evidence is available to describe the recent trends in treatment costs and outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Using the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases linked with social security administration death records, this study found that the percentage of MM patients using novel therapy continuously increased from 8.7% in 2000 to 61.3% in 2014. Compared with MM patients diagnosed in earlier years, those diagnosed after 2010 had higher rates of novel therapy use and better survival outcomes; patients diagnosed in 2012 were 1.25 times more likely to survive 2 years than those diagnosed in 2006. MM patients showed improved survival over the study period, with the 2-year survival gap between MM patients and matched controls decreasing at a rate of 3% per year. Total costs among MM patients have increased in all healthcare services over the years; however, the relative contribution of drug costs has remained fairly stable since 2009 despite new novel therapies coming to market. Findings from this study corroborate clinical data, suggesting a paradigm shift in MM treatment over the past decade that is associated with substantial survival gains. Future studies should focus on the impact on specific novel agents on patients' outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Novel Agents in Medicare Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Findings from a U.S. Payer's Perspective

BACKGROUND

Since multiple myeloma (MM) incurs a substantial economic burden in care management, more and more discussion has been generated in recent years about the costs of novel antimyeloma drugs and their associated value. Because of these costs, economic assessment that quantifies value of care over the long-term is essential.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness (measured as cost per life-year saved) of front-line novel agent-based therapy use among a cohort of elderly patients with MM in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We identified 2,551 elderly patients with advanced MM from 2000 to 2009 who initiated novel agent-based therapy (bortezomib, lenalidomide, or thalidomide) or chemotherapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data. Patients were characterized according to age at diagnosis, sex, race, geographic region, marital status, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, and receipt of novel agents. Twenty-month cost of care and overall survival related to MM were compared between patients treated with novel agent-based therapy and patients treated with chemotherapy. A net monetary benefit approach and corresponding cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of novel agent-based therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, average 12-month MM total costs were 2.03 times higher for novel agent-based therapy ($144,665) than for chemotherapy ($47,750). Antimyeloma pharmacy costs represented about 31% ($45,095) of total MM costs for patients treated with novel agents but represented about 19% ($8,921) of total MM costs for patients treated with chemotherapy. Twelve-month survival rates increased significantly among patients receiving novel agents compared with patients receiving chemotherapy. In the incremental net monetary benefit analysis, after adjusting for potential covariates, patient use of novel agents was only cost-effective compared with chemotherapy when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were high, at about $230,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the most common treatment practices in the United States, the use of novel agent-based therapy is not cost-effective at its current level of cost and effectiveness. Future studies should evaluate the generalizability of these results by evaluating cost-effectiveness of novel agent-based therapy use in different patient populations.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was contributed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01-H5018956). The authors have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Chen, Lairson, and Du, along with Chan. Chen and Du took the lead in data collection, along with Lairson and Huo. Data interpretation was performed by Chen, Chan, and Du, along with Lairson and Huo. The manuscript was written by Chen, along with Du, Lairson, Chan, and Huo, and revised by primarily by Du, along with Lairson, Huo, Chen, and Chan.

Why Value Framework Assessments Arrive at Different Conclusions: A Multiple Myeloma Case Study

As the United States transitions from a volume-based health care system to one that rewards value, new frameworks are emerging to help patients, providers, and payers assess the value of medical services and biopharmaceutical products. These value assessment frameworks are intended to support various types of health care decision making. They have the potential to substantially affect patients, whether as tools for shared decision making with their doctors, as an input to care pathways used by providers, or through payer use of the frameworks to make coverage or reimbursement decisions. Prominent among current U.S. value assessment frameworks are those developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. These frameworks generally reflect the interests and expertise of the organizations that developed them. The evidence, methodology, and intended use differ substantially across frameworks, which can lead to highly variable determinations of value for the same treatment therapy. To demonstrate this variability, we explored how these frameworks assess the value of treatment regimens for multiple myeloma. Cross-framework comparisons of multiple myeloma assessments were conducted, and consistency of findings was examined for 3 case studies. A discussion of the analysis explores why different frameworks arrive at different conclusions, whether those differences are cause for concern, and the resulting implications for framework readiness to support health care decision making.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this project was provided by the National Pharmaceutical Council. The authors are employees of the National Pharmaceutical Council, an industry-funded health policy research group that is not involved in lobbying or advocacy. Study concept and design were contributed by Westrich and Dubois, along with Buelt. Westrich took the lead in data collection, along with Dubois, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Westrich and Buelt, along with Dubois, and revised by all the authors.

Renal safety of 1-hour pamidronate infusion for breast cancer and multiple myeloma patients: comparison between clinical trials and population-based database

Purpose. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends infusion of pamidronate over 2 hours to avoid renal deterioration, although there are data to suggest that 1-hour infusions may be safe.

Methods, Prevalence of renal deterioration with 1-hour pamidronate infusions from a population database was compared to renal deterioration with 2-hour pamidronate infusions, in randomised, controlled, trials. A cost-minimisation analysis, comparing the 1-and 2-hour pamidronate infusions, and the 15-minute infusion of zoledronic acid, was performed with a sensitivity analysis that varied the opportunity cost of time in the treatment room.

Results. Renal deterioration occurred in 7.7% of 169 patients with multiple myeloma and metastatic breast cancer. There is no evidence that this differs from the 10% reported in randomised, controlled, trials (one-tailed binomial test, P=0.3874). A subgroup analysis showed that renal deterioration occurred in 15 and 1.1% of patients with multiple myeloma and metastatic breast cancer, respectively. The median increase in serum creatinine was 13 and 7% in the multiple myeloma and breast cancer groups, respectively. The respective costs/dose (drug/ labour/supplies) of pamidronate and zoledronic acid are $325 and $610. Cost neutrality occurs if the opportunity cost of chair time is $6.33/ minute for pamidronate 1-hour versus zoledronic acid, and $2.71/minute for pamidronate 2-hour versus zoledronic acid. If a median $4/minute is used, the respective costs of pamidronate 1-hour, 2-hour, and zoledronic acid infusions are $685, $925, and $790/cycle.

Conclusions. Prevalence of renal deterioration with 1-hour pamidronate infusions from a population database was not significantly different to 2-hour pamidronate infusions in clinical trials. Our findings suggest further support for the safety of 1-hour pamidronate infusions. Pamidronate via 1-hour infusion is less expensive than zoledronic acid.

Canadian cost analysis comparing maintenance therapy with bortezomib versus lenalidomide for patients with multiple myeloma post autologous stem cell transplant

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a cancer caused by malignant plasma cells that accumulate mostly in the bone marrow. In Canada, the most common maintenance therapy options after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) are bortezomib and lenalidomide.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incremental cost between bortezomib and lenalidomide maintenance therapies for patients with MM post ASCT.

METHODS

Analyses were conducted to compare the annual costs of bortezomib and lenalidomide maintenance treatments for patients with MM post ASCT in Canada. The base case analysis included the acquisition costs of the drugs and administration costs. Additional analyses were conducted which considered the cost of experiencing adverse events (AEs) and the cost of treating second primary malignancies (SPMs).

RESULTS

In the Canadian healthcare system, the total annual per patient cost was $33,967 for bortezomib maintenance therapy versus $131,765 for lenalidomide maintenance therapy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that both AEs and SPMs had little impact on the incremental cost, and that differences between the two maintenance therapies were mainly due to the acquisition costs of the drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Bortezomib is significantly less costly than lenalidomide, and is an economically reasonable maintenance treatment option for patients with MM post ASCT.

Frequency of skeletal-related events and associated healthcare resource use and costs in US patients with multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

A potential complication for all new multiple myeloma (MM) patients is the clinical presentation of osteolytic lesions which increase the risk for skeletal-related events (SREs). However, the contribution of SREs to the overall economic impact of MM is unclear. The impact of SREs on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for US patients with MM was analyzed in Truven Health Marketscan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental Databases.

METHODS

Adults diagnosed with MM between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010 with ≥2 claims ≥30 days apart (first claim = index date) were included. SREs included: hypercalcemia, pathologic fracture, surgery for the prevention and treatment of pathologic fractures or spinal cord compression, and radiation for bone pain. Rates of HCRU (outpatient [OP], inpatient [IP], emergency room [ER], orthopedic consultation [OC], and ancillary) and healthcare costs were compared between MM patients with and without SREs. Inverse propensity weighting was applied to adjust for potential bias.

RESULTS

Of 1028 MM patients (mean age = 67, standard deviation = 13.2), 596 patients with ≥1 SRE and 432 without SREs were assessed. HCRU rates in IP, ER, and ancillary (p < 0.01) and mean total costs of OP, IP, and ER were significantly higher (p < 0.05) for patients with vs without SREs during follow-up. HCRU rates also increased with SRE frequency (p < 0.05 in OP, IP, ER, OC, and ancillary), as did mean total healthcare costs, except for OC (p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

A broad assessment of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of MM was not an objective of the current study. Bisphosphonate use was evaluated; however, results were descriptively focused on frequency of utilization only and were not included in the broader cost and HCRU analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among US patients with MM, higher SRE frequency was associated with a significant trend of higher HCRU and total healthcare costs in several settings.

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.

Patterns of total cost and economic consequences of progression for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Few studies have addressed the cost patterns of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) before and after first relapse. This US claims analysis evaluated, from a US health plan perspective, patterns of total direct costs of care from treatment initiation to progression for patients with MM treated with novel agents, using time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy measure for progression.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using a large US claims database, evaluating patients with claims for MM between 2006 and 2013. Patients with claims for stem cell transplant (SCT) were excluded. The analysis focused on patients receiving lenalidomide (LEN) or bortezomib (BORT) based treatment, for whom complete claim history was available through initiation of subsequent treatment. Average patient monthly direct costs were determined, including medical and pharmacy costs, and total cost patterns over quarterly time periods were calculated.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 2843 patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and 1361 with relapsed MM. Total monthly cost for patients with NDMM declined steadily, from $15,734 initially to $5082 at 18+ months after therapy. Upon initiation of second-line therapy, total monthly costs rose to $13,876 and declined to $6446 18 months later. Although NDMM cost levels for individual ordinal months were similar between the LEN and BORT groups, TTNT was longer for LEN-based treatments (37 months). The BORT-treated cohort had higher average monthly total costs for NDMM and for the common time period through 37 months after initiation of therapy ($7534 vs $10,763 for LEN and BORT, respectively). Key limitations of this study, in addition to the lack of mortality and staging information available from claims data, include the definition of TTNT based on change in treatment or a defined gap in therapy prior to retreatment, which may differ from actual time of progression in some patients.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with NDMM receiving either LEN- or BORT-based treatment without SCT, followed until TTNT, total direct monthly costs (drug + medical) declined steadily over time. Monthly costs returned to near initial levels when patients began second-line therapy and then followed a similar pattern of decline. Due to the longer TTNT for patients initiated on LEN and the associated longer period of below-average costs, patients initiated with LEN-based treatments had mean monthly total costs >$3200 lower than total costs for patients initiated on BORT during the first 3 years after starting treatment, cumulating to nearly $120,000 in lower costs for patients initiated on LEN.

Wage-subsidised employment as a result of permanently reduced work capacity in a nationwide cohort of patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Patients with haematological malignancies have a poorer labour market prognosis than the general population. We have previously found that they have low rates of return to work, and a higher risk of being granted disability pension, than individuals without a history of these diseases. The aim of this study was to further investigate the labour market prognosis for these patients, by comparing the risk of being granted wage-subsidised (WS) employment as a result of permanently reduced work capacity among patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies to a reference cohort, and to determine if relative risks differ between subtypes of haematological malignancies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We combined data from national registers on Danish patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies between 2000 and 2007 and a reference cohort without a history of these diseases. A total of 3194 patients and 28 627 reference individuals were followed until they were granted WS employment, disability pension, anticipatory pension, old age pension, emigration, death or until 26 February 2012, whichever came first.

RESULTS

A total of 310 (10%) patients and 795 (3%) reference individuals had their work capacity permanently reduced to an extent that they were granted WS employment during the follow-up period. Age- and gender-adjusted relative risks differed significantly between the subgroups of haematological malignancies, and four years after diagnosis they ranged from 2.47 (95% CI 1.46-4.16) for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to 10.83 (95% CI 7.15-16.40) for patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia.

CONCLUSION

All eight subtypes of haematological malignancies were associated with an increased risk of being granted WS employment due to permanently reduced work capacity compared to the reference cohort. The relative risks differed according to haematological malignancy subtype, and the highest was found for patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia.

Pharmacoeconomic impact of up-front use of plerixafor for autologous stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND AIMS

Stem cell collection can be a major component of overall cost of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Plerixafor is an effective agent for mobilization; however, it is often reserved for salvage therapy because of its high cost. We present data on the pharmacoeconomic impact of the use of plerixafor as an up-front mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

METHODS

Patients with MM who underwent ASCT between January 2008 and April 2011 at the Mount Sinai Medical Center were reviewed retrospectively. In April 2010, practice changes were instituted for patients with MM to delay initiation of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support from day 0 to day +5 and to add plerixafor to G-CSF as an up-front autologous mobilization. Targets of collection were 5-10 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg.

RESULTS

Of 50 adults with MM who underwent ASCT, 25 received plerixafor/filgrastim and 25 received G-CSF alone as an up-front mobilization. Compared with the control, plerixafor mobilization yielded higher CD34(+) cell content (16.1 versus 8.4 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg; P = 0.0007) and required fewer sessions of apheresis (1.9 versus 3.1; P = 0.0001). In the plerixafor group, the mean number of plerixafor doses required per patient was 1.8. Although the overall cost of medications was higher in the plerixafor group, the cost for blood products and overall cost of hospitalization were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Up-front use of plerixafor is an effective mobilization strategy in patients with MM and does not have a substantial pharmacoeconomic impact in overall cost of hospitalization combined with the apheresis procedure.

Policymaker, please consider your needs carefully: does outcomes research in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma reduce policymaker uncertainty regarding value for money of bortezomib?

INTRODUCTION

Dutch policy regulations require outcomes research for the assessment of appropriate drug use and cost-effectiveness after 4 years of temporary reimbursement. We investigated whether outcomes research reduced policymaker uncertainty regarding the question whether the costs are worth public funding.

METHODS

Our cohort study included 139 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who were treated outside of a clinical study; 72 received bortezomib and 67 did not receive bortezomib. Detailed data were retrospectively collected from medical records in 38% of Dutch hospitals.

RESULTS

All patients received second-line treatment; 65%, 40%, and 14%, received three, four, or five or more lines of therapy. Neither a specific treatment sequence nor an appropriate comparator could be identified because of large variation in regimes. Kaplan-Meier curves showed an increased overall survival (mean [median] 29.5 [33.2] vs. 28.0 [21.6] months) for patients treated with bortezomib (Wilcoxon P = 0.01). Total mean costs were €81,626 (range €17,793-€229,783) and €52,760 (range €748-€179,571) for patients receiving bortezomib and patients not receiving bortezomib, respectively. Patients treated with bortezomib, however, were not comparable to other patients despite attempts to correct for confounding. Therefore, it was impossible to develop a feasible model to obtain a valid incremental cost-effectiveness estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

It was possible to develop evidence on bortezomib's use, effects, and costs in everyday practice. Much uncertainty, however, remained regarding its cost-effectiveness. Policymakers should carefully consider whether outcomes research sufficiently decreases uncertainty or whether other options (e.g., finance- and/or outcomes-based risk-sharing arrangements) are more appropriate to ensure sufficient value for money of expensive drugs.

Cost of illness in patients with multiple myeloma in Italy: the CoMiM study

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematological cancer. Although it accounts for only a relatively small percentage of all cancer types, the costs associated with managing multiple myeloma are considerable. Available studies are mainly focused on health care costs. The Costo del Mieloma Multiplo (Cost of MM, CoMiM) study investigated the cost of illness of multiple myeloma in Italy during one year of disease management.

METHODS

CoMiM is a retrospective, prevalence-based, multi-center, cross-sectional study based on a stratified sample of patients seen during normal clinical practice (asymptomatic; symptomatic on drugs; symptomatic receiving autologous stem cell transplantation; plateau/remission). Demographics, clinical history, health care and non-health care resource consumption data were collected. Costs were evaluated from the societal viewpoint and expressed in Euro 2008.

RESULTS

Data on 236 patients were analyzed (39 asymptomatic, 17%; 29 symptomatic receiving autologous stem-cell transplantation, 12%; 105 symptomatic receiving drugs, 44%; 63 plateau/remission, 27%). The total cost of illness reached € 19,267.1 ± 25,078.6 (asymptomatic, € 959.3 ± 1091.6; symptomatic receiving drugs, € 21,707.8 ± 21,785.3; symptomatic receiving autologous stem-cell transplantation, € 59,243.7 ± 24,214.0; plateau/remission, € 8130.7 ± 15,092.5). The main cost drivers of total cost of illness were drugs and hospital admissions (46.1% and 29.4%, respectively). Antineoplastics and immunomodulators drove the cost of drugs (21.6% and 21.1% of the total cost of illness). Cost of antineoplastics was led by bortezomib (97.4%), whereas the cost driver for immunomodulators was lenalidomide (99.4%). Cost of hospitalization funded by the Italian National Health Service was strongly influenced by transplantation (94.6%), whereas chemotherapy and skeletal fractures did not exceed 1% and 2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some limitations, the CoMiM study provides Italian health care decision-makers with an insight into the stratified cost of illness of multiple myeloma patients.

Cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma: an economic evaluation of the PALM Trial

BACKGROUND

Use of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) filgrastim accelerates neutrophil recovery following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since filgrastim requires multiple daily administrations, forms of rhG-CSF with a longer half life, including pegfilgrastim, have been developed. Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective in supporting neutrophil recovery and reducing febrile neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim has also been successfully used to support patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation for haematological malignancies. To our knowledge, no cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pegfilgrastim in this setting has been published yet.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a CEA to compare a single injection of pegfilgrastim versus repeated administrations of filgrastim in patients who had undergone PBSC transplantation for lymphoma or myeloma. The CEA was set in France and covered a period of 100 ± 10 days from transplant.

METHODS

The CEA was designed as part of an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase II trial. Costs were assessed from the hospital's point of view and are expressed in 2009 euros. Costs computation focused on inpatient, outpatient, and home care. Costs in the two arms of the study were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When differences were statistically significant, multiple regression analyses were performed in order to identify cost drivers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for the major endpoints of the trial; i.e., duration of febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <0.5 × 10(9)/L and temperature ≥38 °C), duration of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L and ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), duration of thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L and <20 × 10(9)/L), and days with a temperature ≥38 °C). Uncertainty around the ICER was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method.

RESULTS

151 patients were enrolled at ten French centres from October 2008 to September 2009. The mean total cost in the pegfilgrastim arm of the study (n = 74) was <euro>25,024 (SD 9,945). That in the filgrastim arm (n = 76) was <euro>28,700 (SD 20,597). Pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim for days of febrile neutropenia avoided, days of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L) avoided, days of thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L) avoided, and days with temperature ≥38 °C) avoided. Pegfilgrastim was less costly and less effective than filgrastim for the number of days with ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L avoided and the number of days with platelets <50.0 × 10(9)/L avoided. Taking uncertainty into account, the probabilities that pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim were 67 % for febrile neutropenia, 86 % for neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L), 59 % for thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L), 86 % for temperature ≥38 °C, 32 % for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), and 43 % for thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L). Conversely, the probability that filgrastim strictly dominated pegfilgrastim for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L) is 5 %.

CONCLUSION

This study found no evidence that the use of pegfilgrastim is associated with greater cost in lymphoma and myeloma patients after high-dose chemotherapy and PBSC transplantation.

The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment of multiple myeloma in the U.S. with bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone versus thalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone or lenalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone with continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment

The outlook for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients has improved enormously over recent years with the incorporation of new agents into standard regimens. Novel regimens combine melphalan and prednisone (MP) with bortezomib (VMP), with thalidomide (MPT), and with lenalidomide with (MPR-R) and without (MPR) lenalidomide maintenance. The efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these regimens have not yet been compared; therefore, we conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis using data from randomized controlled trials versus MP. Using a Markov model developed from a U.S. payer's perspective, we compared VMP with MPT and MPR-R over a lifetime horizon. MPT and MPR-R were chosen because, like VMP, they are superior to MP in response and outcomes. Data from the Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma (VISTA; VMP), Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM) 99-06 (MPT), and MM-015 (MPR-R) trials were used. The IFM 99-06 study was selected because of the superior activity in this study compared with other MPT studies. Using patient-level (VMP) and published (MPT, MPR-R) data, we estimated the health-state transition and adverse event probabilities for each regimen, related costs, and state-specific utility estimates. Costs (in 2010 U.S. dollars) and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. Discounted lifetime direct medical costs were lowest with VMP at $119,102. MPT cost $142,452 whereas MPR-R cost $248,358. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculations projected that VMP would confer cost savings and better health outcomes relative to MPT and MPR-R. We conclude that VMP is highly likely to be cost-effective compared with MP, MPT, and MPR-R.

Health care costs and resource utilization, including patient burden, associated with novel-agent-based treatment versus other therapies for multiple myeloma: findings using real-world claims data

BACKGROUND

. Treatment of multiple myeloma has dramatically improved with the introduction of bortezomib (BOR), thalidomide (THAL), and lenalidomide (LEN). Studies assessing health care costs, particularly economic burden on patients, are limited. We conducted a claims-based, retrospective analysis of total health care costs as well as patient burden (patient out-of-pocket costs and number of ambulatory/hospital visits) associated with BOR/THAL/LEN treatment versus other therapies (OTHER). METHODS. Treatment episodes starting between January 1, 2005 and September 30, 2010 were identified from the claims database of a large U.S. health plan. Health care costs and utilization were measured during 1 year after initiation and analyzed per treatment episode. Multivariate analyses were used to adjust for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and line of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 4,836 treatment episodes were identified. Mean adjusted total costs were similar between BOR ($112,889) and OTHER ($111,820), but higher with THAL ($129,412) and LEN ($158,428). Mean adjusted patient out-of-pocket costs were also similar for BOR ($3,846) and OTHER ($3,900) but remained higher with THAL ($4,666) and LEN ($4,483). Mean adjusted rates of ambulatory visits were similar across therapies (BOR: 69.67; THAL: 66.31; LEN: 65.60;

OTHER

69.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusted analyses of real-world claims data show that total health care costs, as well as patient out-of-pocket costs, are higher with THAL/LEN treatment episodes than with BOR/OTHER therapies. Additionally, similar rates of ambulatory visits suggest that any perceived advantage in patient convenience of the orally administered drugs THAL/LEN is not supported by these data.

On the horizon for multiple myeloma

Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) remains highly individualized, with multiple factors that play a role in determining the best course of therapy. Patient-specific criteria such as age of onset, whether the patient is symptomatic at the time of diagnosis, and any detected high-risk cytogenic abnormalities are all considerations when selecting a regimen. Newer agents such as bortezomib and lenalidomide in combination with low-dose steroids have replaced more toxic chemotherapeutic regimens for primary induction and have led to significant increases in progression-free survival. Depending on duration of response prior to relapse, patients may be rechallenged with the same regimen, switched to an alternative, or may undergo hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), which remains a highly effective treatment option for patients who are candidates. However, the cost of transplantation remains high and some patients may require a second transplantation if the initial response is incomplete. With the availability of newer agents for salvage therapies in refractory or relapsed patients, the reliance on HCT may decrease, potentially lowering healthcare costs. In addition, the availability of orally active agents may decrease the need for outpatient infusions, thus decreasing the overall costs associated with treatment and improving patient satisfaction. Finally, combination regimens that use lower doses may prove to be less toxic as well as more effective. Even though MM only accounts for approximately 1% of all cancers in the United States, with 75 million “baby boomers” now reaching the median age of diagnosis, the increased number of cases could have a substantial impact on healthcare costs.

Survival of older patients with cancer in the Veterans Health Administration versus fee-for-service Medicare

PURPOSE

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides high-quality preventive chronic care and cancer care, but few studies have documented improved patient outcomes that result from this high-quality care. We compared the survival rates of older patients with cancer in the VHA and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and examined whether differences in the stage at diagnosis, receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, and unmeasured characteristics explain survival differences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used propensity-score methods to compare all-cause and cancer-specific survival rates for men older than age 65 years who were diagnosed or received their first course of treatment for colorectal, lung, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma in VHA hospitals from 2001 to 2004 to similar FFS-Medicare enrollees diagnosed in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas in the same time frame. We examined the role of unmeasured factors by using sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

VHA patients versus similar FFS SEER-Medicare patients had higher survival rates of colon cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.93) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.95) and similar survival rates of rectal cancer (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.16), small-cell lung cancer (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05), diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.18), and multiple myeloma (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03). The diagnosis of VHA patients at earlier stages explained much of the survival advantages for colon cancer and NSCLC. Sensitivity analyses suggested that additional adjustment for the severity of comorbid disease or performance status could have substantial effects on estimated differences.

CONCLUSION

The survival rate for older men with cancer in the VHA was better than or equivalent to the survival rate for similar FFS-Medicare beneficiaries. The VHA provision of high-quality care, particularly preventive care, can result in improved patient outcomes.

Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30

OBJECTIVE

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is one of the most commonly used measures in cancer care but in its current form cannot be used in economic evaluation because it does not incorporate preferences. We address this gap by estimating a preference-based measure for cancer from the EORTC QLQ-C30.

METHODS

Factor analysis, Rasch analysis, and other psychometric analyses were undertaken on a clinical trial dataset of 655 patients with multiple myeloma to derive a health state classification system amenable to valuation. Second a valuation study was conducted of 350 members of the UK general population using time trade-off. Mean and individual-level multivariate regression models were fitted to derive preference weights for the classification system.

RESULTS

The health state classification system has eight dimensions (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue and sleep disturbance, nausea, constipation, and diarrhea) with four or five levels each. Regression models have few inconsistencies (0 to 2) in estimated preference weights and small mean absolute error ranges (0.046 to 0.054).

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to derive a preference-based measure from the EORTC QLQ-C30 for use in economic evaluation. Future research will extend this to other countries and replicate across other patient groups.

Adjusting for patient crossover in clinical trials using external data: a case study of lenalidomide for advanced multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVES

In some trials, particularly in oncology, patients whose disease progresses under the comparator treatment are crossed over into the experimental arm. This unplanned crossover can introduce bias in analyses because patients who crossover likely have a different prognosis than those who do not cross over; for instance, sicker patients not responding to standard therapy or those expected to benefit the most may be selectively chosen to receive the experimental treatment. Standard statistical methods cannot adequately correct for this bias. We describe an approach designed to minimize the impact of crossover, and illustrate this by using data from two randomized trials in multiple myeloma (MM).

METHODS

The MM-009/010 trials compared lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone (Len+Dex) with dexamethasone alone (Dex). Nearly half (47%) of the patients randomized to Dex crossed over to Len with or without Dex (Len+/-Dex) at disease progression or study unblinding. Data from these trials was used to predict survival in an economic model evaluating the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide. To adjust for crossover, the prediction equations were calibrated to match survival with Dex or Dex-equivalent therapies in trials conducted by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in the United Kingdom. To adjust for differences between the MM and MRC trial populations, a prediction equation was developed from the MRC data and used to predict survival by setting predictors to mean values for patients in the MM-009/010 trials. The expected survival with Dex without crossover was then predicted from the calibrated MM-009/010 equation (i.e., adjusted to match survival predicted from the MRC equation).

RESULTS

The adjusted median overall survival predicted by the MRC equation was 19.5 months (95%CI, 16.6-22.9) for patients with one prior therapy, and 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.5-14.2) for patients with >1 prior therapy. These estimates are considerably shorter than was observed in the clinical trials: 33.6 months (27.1-NE) and 27.3 months (95% CI, 23.3-33.3) as of December 2005.

CONCLUSION

The calibration method described here is simple to implement, provided that suitable data are available; it can be implemented with other types of endpoints in any therapeutic area.

Ideal vial size for bortezomib: real-world data on waste and cost reduction in treatment of multiple myeloma in Brazil

OBJECTIVES

Single-size vials of drugs may be a source of waste and increase in treatment costs. Bortezomib, indicated for multiple myeloma (MM) treatment, is available in 3.5-mg vials, a quantity higher than the average dose commonly prescribed. This analysis aimed to demonstrate, through real-world data, which would be the optimal vial presentation for bortezomib in Brazil and quantify the reduction in medication waste related to this option.

METHODS

From November 2007 to October 2009 all patients with MM treated with bortezomib were identified via the Evidências database. Analysis of prescribed, dispensed, and wasted doses, their costs and projections of the ideal vial size were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (mean body surface area of 1.73 m(2)) received 509 infusions in 131 cycles of treatment (average of 3.77 cycles per patient). The average dose prescribed was 2.1 mg per infusion (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-2.26) with average waste of 39.5% of the vial content (95% CI 35.35-43.76). The mean waste per patient per day was 1.38 mg (95% CI 1.24-1.52). If a 3-mg vial were available, the average drug waste per patient per day would be 0.88 mg (95% CI 0.74-1.03) or 36.2% less. With a 2.5-mg vial the waste would be 1.05 mg (95% CI 0.81-1.29) or 23.9% less. If two presentations were available (2.5 mg and 0.5 mg), the waste would be 0.52 mg (95% CI 0.4-0.63) or 62.5% less. Considering the price of the different vials to be proportional to the original 3.5-mg vial, the cost would be also reduced by the same rates described above.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple adjustment in vial size may reduce the waste of bortezomib by 36% to 62% and can also reduce the cost of treatment.

Modelled cost-effectiveness of high cut-off haemodialysis compared to standard haemodialysis in the management of myeloma kidney

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10-20% of multiple myeloma patients experience dialysis-dependent renal failure. This is principally due to myeloma kidney, a tubulointerstitial injury caused by high circulating concentrations of monoclonal free light chains. Studies have found that between 3% and 37% of patients with myeloma kidney requiring dialysis recover renal function. In-vivo studies indicate that extended haemodialysis using high cut-off dialysers (HCO-HD) can remove significant quantities of free light chains and is associated with a renal recovery rate of 63-74% in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of HCO-HD compared to standard HD in the management of myeloma kidney.

METHODS

The study used a lifetime Excel-based decision tree model that followed all patients from treatment of the initial presentation with myeloma kidney requiring dialysis to death. It was populated with published clinical data, United Kingdom costs and expert opinion, using a National Health Service perspective and 3.5% annual discounting.

RESULTS

HCO-HD was dominant to standard HD, meaning it was both more effective (greater life years and quality adjusted life years) and less costly, due to a greater increase in the proportion of patients recovering renal function. The model projected lifetime costs of £31,345 per patient for patients treated with standard haemodialysis only and £24,845 for the new treatment (discounted). The model predicted an average survival of 19.92 months for patients on standard HD and 33.90 months for the new therapy (discounted).

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis found that treatment of myeloma kidney using an extended schedule of HCO-HD may substantially improve renal recovery in multiple myeloma patients compared to standard HD, resulting in greater life expectancy and cost savings due to avoided chronic dialysis. Limitations of the study include those common to rare diseases including small study sizes and limited natural history data.

Introduction: multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the most common type of primary bone tumor, affecting approximately 50,000 patients in the United States. Although it is currently not curable, recent advancements in treatment are bringing myeloma closer to becoming a chronic disease instead of a terminal illness.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the prevalence of MM as well as provide an overview of the costs associated with treatment.

SUMMARY

The goals of treatment in MM include eradicating all evidence of disease, controlling disease to prevent damage to target organs, preserving normal function and quality of life, relieving pain, and managing myeloma that is in remission. To achieve these goals, treatment must be individually tailored for each patient based on the patient's age, overall health status, symptoms, and laboratory test results. Advancements in the understanding of the pathogenesis of myeloma and the role of genetic mutations are leading to a new standard of treatment. Advancements in diagnostic technology, such as cytogenetic testing, are also being used to tailor treatment for each individual to work toward achieving better response rates, longer periods of remission, and improved quality of life. Increased costs associated with the improved therapies being used to treat MM, and the comorbid conditions associated with the disease, present a challenge to managed care. Health plans and formulary decision makers need to better understand the complexity of therapy to best use resources. The economic burden to the patient must also be considered when developing treatment strategies.

CONCLUSION

Better understanding of the pathophysiology of MM, including the role of cytogenetics, is leading to the development and use of novel agents and treatment options. Head-to-head studies comparing treatments must be performed to best balance the costs associated with treatment and the benefits of improved survival rates and maintaining quality of life.

Economic and clinical impact of multiple myeloma to managed care

BACKGROUND

Because of the development of novel agents such as immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, and bisphosphonates, the standards of care for the multiple myeloma (MM) patient have changed. The costs associated with current and emerging therapies, as well as supportive care, are significant and pose a tremendous financial burden to both patients and managed care.

OBJECTIVE

To review the economic impact of MM and to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of current treatments in bringing value for prolonged life versus the cost of treatment. This chapter will also discuss the need for thorough data review and pharmacoeconomic analyses to determine the most cost-effective therapies.

SUMMARY

Although MM accounts for only a small percentage of all cancer types, the costs associated with treating and managing it are among the highest. Recent developments in diagnosing, treating, and managing myeloma have led to novel treatment strategies. Immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, and bisphosphonates are improving response rates and preserving quality of life. However, these agents are not replacing older treatment modalities, but being used in addition to them. Intensive chemotherapy, stem cell transplantation, and supportive care are all important components in achieving treatment goals. Costs associated with stem cell transplants and complications of the disease add to the economic burden of myeloma. Additional costs for routine diagnostics to measure the progression of the disease or response to treatment need to be considered. Complications (e.g., lytic bone disease, infection, anemia, and renal failure) also add to morbidity and mortality, thus increasing the burden to the patient and the health care system as a whole. Financial and time constraints of caregivers must also be considered, as well as the added administrative burdens to health care providers.

CONCLUSION

New standards of care in the treatment and management of myeloma are likely to lead to significant increases in costs. Although costs are not the only elements to be considered, they are crucial in the management of this already costly disease. All aspects of myeloma treatment and supportive care must be evaluated and analyzed. Cost of pharmaceuticals alone must not be a driving factor in treatment decisions. Economic analyses can be used to demonstrate that the least expensive alternative is not always the most economical, and that it may not produce an optimal outcome for both the health plan and the patient. Although cost containment is clearly an important objective, quality of care is the first priority, and managed care organizations have the challenge of making balanced cost and benefit assessments.