Comparison of health care costs and resource utilization for commonly used proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-based triplet regimens for the management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-$3,813; P < 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P < 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P < 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

Real-world treatment patterns, healthcare use and costs in triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in the USA.

Aim: To estimate treatment patterns and healthcare costs among triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Materials & methods: Eligible patients had ≥1 line of therapy (LOT) each of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and daratumumab in December 2015-September 2018 and received a new LOT. Results: A total of 154 patients were included with a median follow-up of 6.2 months. Median time from diagnosis to new LOT was 41.0 months. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to therapy discontinuation was 4.2 months. Mean per-patient, per-month MM-related costs were USD 35,657. Most frequently observed regimens were lenalidomide or pomalidomide + daratumumab (18.2%), lenalidomide or pomalidomide + proteasome inhibitors (15.6%) and lenalidomide or pomalidomide monotherapy (11.0%). Conclusion: Triple-class exposed RRMM patients receive heterogeneous treatments for a short duration with high healthcare resource utilization and costs.

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.

Serum Free Light Chain Assessment Early After Stem Cell Transplantation as a Prognostic Factor in Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is an incurable cancer commonly treated with stem cell transplantation (SCT). Response is traditionally evaluated 100 days after SCT, both to allow for hematopoietic reconstitution and due to immunoglobulins' long half-lives. Free light chains (FLC) have significantly shorter half-lives and may provide evidence of response or treatment failure earlier after SCT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied 83 consecutive patients with multiple myeloma who underwent SCT and found 69 who had FLC measured 30 or 60 days after SCT. Using conventional FLC response criteria, we considered a patient to be at high risk for early relapse if he or she failed to experience a partial response by day 30 or 60. RESULTS: After a median overall follow-up of only 335 days, these high-risk patients had significantly shorter progression-free survival (median, 98 vs. 335 days, P = .001) and overall survival (366 days vs. median not reached, P = .016). CONCLUSION: Early FLC assessment either 1 or 2 months after SCT using standard FLC response criteria was able to identify a subset of patients at high risk of early relapse, and these patients may benefit from earlier interventions.

Controversies in the assessment of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: clinical significance of minimal residual disease negativity using highly sensitive techniques.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment has gained importance in the response evaluation of multiple myeloma. As discussed in part 1 of this two-part series, techniques such as multiparameter flow cytometry, polymerase chain reaction, and next-generation sequencing, of both bone marrow and peripheral blood, have the potential to achieve a high level of sensitivity, up to 1 in 10(-6) cells, enabling analysis of genetically diverse subclones. Here, we review the clinical utility of MRD assessment using these techniques. Specifically, we review the association between MRD-negativity and progression-free or overall survival in various clinical settings (post-induction, post-auto or allo-stem cell transplant, transplant ineligible, maintenance, and relapsed/refractory). Currently, the goal of assessing MRD in multiple myeloma (MM) is to allow for a risk-stratified approach to therapy and for earlier identification of response to novel agents, particularly in the setting of clinical trials.