Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations.

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

Economic evaluations of artificial intelligence-based healthcare interventions: a systematic literature review of best practices in their conduct and reporting.

Objectives: Health economic evaluations (HEEs) help healthcare decision makers understand the value of new technologies. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in healthcare interventions. We sought to review the conduct and reporting of published HEEs for AI-based health interventions. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review with a 15-month search window (April 2021 to June 2022) on 17th June 2022 to identify HEEs of AI health interventions and update a previous review. Records were identified from 3 databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central). Two reviewers screened papers against predefined study selection criteria. Data were extracted from included studies using prespecified data extraction tables. Included studies were quality assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist. Results were synthesized narratively. Results: A total of 21 studies were included. The most common type of AI intervention was automated image analysis (9/21, 43%) mainly used for screening or diagnosis in general medicine and oncology. Nearly all were cost-utility (10/21, 48%) or cost-effectiveness analyses (8/21, 38%) that took a healthcare system or payer perspective. Decision-analytic models were used in 16/21 (76%) studies, mostly Markov models and decision trees. Three (3/16, 19%) used a short-term decision tree followed by a longer-term Markov component. Thirteen studies (13/21, 62%) reported the AI intervention to be cost effective or dominant. Limitations tended to result from the input data, authorship conflicts of interest, and a lack of transparent reporting, especially regarding the AI nature of the intervention. Conclusion: Published HEEs of AI-based health interventions are rapidly increasing in number. Despite the potentially innovative nature of AI, most have used traditional methods like Markov models or decision trees. Most attempted to assess the impact on quality of life to present the cost per QALY gained. However, studies have not been comprehensively reported. Specific reporting standards for the economic evaluation of AI interventions would help improve transparency and promote their usefulness for decision making. This is fundamental for reimbursement decisions, which in turn will generate the necessary data to develop flexible models better suited to capturing the potentially dynamic nature of AI interventions.

Health technology assessment of tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19: A proposed approach and best-practice recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop best-practice guidance for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies when appraising diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. METHODS: We used a policy sandbox approach to develop best-practice guidance for HTA agencies to approach known challenges associated with assessing tests and treatments for COVID-19. The guidance was developed by a multi-stakeholder workshop of twenty-one participants representing HTA agencies, clinical and patient experts, academia, industry, and a payer, from across Europe and North America. The workshop was supported by extensive background work to identify the key challenges, including: targeted reviews of existing COVID-related methods guidance for assessing interventions and clinical guidelines, engagement with clinical experts, a survey and workshop of HTA agencies, a systematic review of published economic evaluations, and a workshop of health economic modelers. RESULTS: We suggest HTA agencies should consider using other types of evidence (e.g., real world) where high-quality randomized controlled trials may be lacking and healthcare systems would value timely HTA outputs. A "living" HTA approach may be useful, given the context of an evolving disease, scientific understanding and evidence base, allowing for decisions to be efficiently revisited in response to new information; particularly, if supported by a common "disease model" for COVID-19. Innovative ways of engaging with the public and clinicians, and early engagement with regulators and payers, are recommended. CONCLUSIONS: HTA agencies should consider the elements of this guidance that are most suited to their existing processes to enable them to assess the effectiveness and value of interventions for COVID-19.

Living Health Technology Assessment: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically performed as one-off evaluations and can potentially become out-of-date due to the availability of new data, new comparators, or other factors. Recently, living approaches have been applied to systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to enable evidence syntheses to be updated more easily. In this paper, we provide a definition for 'Living HTA' where such a living approach could be applied to the entire HTA process. Living HTA could involve performing regular or scheduled updates using a traditional manual approach, or indeed in a semi-automated manner leveraging recent technological innovations that automate parts of the HTA process. The practical implementation of living HTA using both approaches (i.e., manual approach and using semi-automation) is described along with the likely issues and challenges with planning and implementing a living HTA process. The time, resources and additional considerations outlined may prohibit living HTA from becoming the norm for every evaluation; however, scenarios where living HTA would be particularly beneficial are discussed.

Advancing the use of real world evidence in health technology assessment: insights from a multi-stakeholder workshop.

Introduction: Real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) holds significant potential for informing healthcare decision-making. A multistakeholder workshop was organised by the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN) and the GetReal Institute to explore the status, challenges, and opportunities in incorporating RWE into HTA, with a focus on learning from regulatory initiatives such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Data Analysis and Real World Interrogation Network (DARWIN EU®). Methods: The workshop gathered key stakeholders from regulatory agencies, HTA organizations, academia, and industry for three panel discussions on RWE and HTA integration. Insights and recommendations were collected through panel discussions and audience polls. The workshop outcomes were reviewed by authors to identify key themes, challenges, and recommendations. Results: The workshop discussions revealed several important findings relating to the use of RWE in HTA. Compared with regulatory processes, its adoption in HTA to date has been slow. Barriers include limited trust in RWE, data quality concerns, and uncertainty about best practices. Facilitators include multidisciplinary training, educational initiatives, and stakeholder collaboration, which could be facilitated by initiatives like EHDEN and the GetReal Institute. Demonstrating the impact of "driver projects" could promote RWE adoption in HTA. Conclusion: To enhance the integration of RWE in HTA, it is crucial to address known barriers through comprehensive training, stakeholder collaboration, and impactful exemplar research projects. By upskilling users and beneficiaries of RWE and those that generate it, promoting collaboration, and conducting "driver projects," can strengthen the HTA evidence base for more informed healthcare decisions.

Outcome-based reimbursement in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East.

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

A Review of Economic Models Submitted to NICE's Technology Appraisal Programme, for Treatments of T1DM & T2DM.

Background: In the UK, 4.7 million people are currently living with diabetes. This is projected to increase to 5 million by 2025. The direct and indirect costs of T1DM and T2DM are rising, and direct costs already account for approximately 10% of the National Health Service (NHS) budget. Objective: The aim of this review is to assess the economic models used in the context of NICE's Technology Appraisals (TA) Programme of T1DM and T2DM treatments, as well as to examine their compliance with the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) guidelines on computer modelling. Methods: A review of the economic models used in NICE's TA programme of T1DM and T2DM treatments was undertaken. Relevant TAs were identified through searching the NICE website for published appraisals completed up to April 2021. The review also examined the associated Evidence Review Group (ERG) reports and Final Appraisal Documents (FAD), which are publicly accessible. ERG reports were scrutinised to identify major issues pertaining to the economic modelling. The FAD documents were then examined to assess how these issues reflected on NICE recommendations. Results: Overall, 10 TAs pertaining to treatments of T1DM and T2DM were identified. Two TAs were excluded as they did not use economic models. Seven of the 8 included TAs related to a novel class of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), gliflozins, and one to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) devices. There is a lack of recent, robust data informing risk equations to enable the derivation of transition probabilities. Despite uncertainty surrounding its clinical relevance, bodyweight/BMI is a key driver in many T2DM-models. HbA1c's reliability as a predictor of hard outcomes is uncertain, chiefly for macrovascular complications. The external validity of T1DM is even less clear. There is an inevitable trade-off between the sophistication of models' design, their transparency and practicality. Conclusion: Economic models are essential tools to support decision-making in relation to market access and ascertain diabetes technologies' cost effectiveness. However, key structural and methodological issues exist. Models' shortcomings should be acknowledged and contextualised within the framework of technology appraisals. Diabetes medications and other technologies should also be subject to regular and consistent re-appraisal to inform disinvestment decisions. Artificial intelligence could potentially enhance models' transparency and practicality.

Using real-world evidence in healthcare from Western to Central and Eastern Europe: a review of existing barriers.

As part of the HTx (Next Generation Health Technology Assessment) project, this study was aimed at identifying the main barriers for application of real-world evidence (RWE) for the purposes of health technology assessment in the Central and Eastern European countries. A mixed methods approach was employed to identify the main barriers: a scoping review of the literature and a series of discussions with stakeholders. Based on the applied approaches, we attempted to summarize the main barriers and challenges related to transferability of RWE in five main groups: technical, regulatory, clinical, scientific and perceptional barriers. Further research should pursue the development of detailed, consensus-based guidelines to improve the harmonization and standardization of RWE.

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

OBJECTIVES: As healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach. METHODS: Key databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer. RESULTS: Overall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.

Out of Date or Best Before? A Commentary on the Relevance of Economic Evaluations Over Time.

The impact of time on the applicability and relevance of historical economic evaluations can be considerable. Ignoring this may lead to the use of weak or invalid evidence to inform important research questions or resource allocation decisions, as historical economic evaluations may have reached different conclusions compared to if a similar study had been conducted more recently. There are multiple factors that contribute towards evidence becoming outdated including changes to the relevant decision problem (e.g. comparators), changes to parameters (such as costs, utilities and resource use) and methodological updates (e.g. recommendations on uncertainty analysis). Researchers reviewing economic evaluations need to consider whether changes over time would influence the study design and results if the evaluation were repeated, to the extent that it is no longer helpful or informative. In this paper, we summarise these key issues and make recommendations about how and whether researchers can future proof their economic evaluations.

Assessing Technologies for COVID-19: What are the Challenges for Health Technology Assessment Agencies? Findings From a Survey and Roundtable Workshop.

BACKGROUND: To date, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have not been at the forefront of decision making regarding the adoption of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Instead, policymakers have prioritised rapid action in response to the pandemic emergency, with no assessment of value for money. As COVID-19 vaccination coverage increases and healthcare systems begin to recover, HTA agencies will be expected to assess technologies for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the key challenges when assessing therapeutic and diagnostic technologies for COVID-19, from the perspective of HTA agencies, and identify whether there is a case for novel HTA methods and/or processes to address them. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach, by conducting an online survey of HTA agencies, to collect data about the challenges faced when assessing or planning to assess diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for COVID-19. The online survey was followed by a 'roundtable' workshop of HTA agencies' representatives to discuss the results and to elaborate on their responses. RESULTS: We received 21 completed surveys (response rate of 45%) and 11 of the respondents joined the roundtable discussion. Five themes emerged from the responses: assessing clinical effectiveness (44%), assessing cost effectiveness (19%), practical (19%), political (11%), and decision making (11%) challenges. At the roundtable, attendees elaborated on the challenges and identified two additional themes: how HTA agencies have responded to the pandemic to date, and how their role might change over time. CONCLUSION: HTA agencies face both methodological and logistical challenges when assessing or planning to assess technologies for COVID-19. An interim best-practice HTA framework to address the key challenges would be valuable.

Challenges in synthesising cost-effectiveness estimates.

Economic evaluations help decision-makers faced with tough decisions on how to allocate resources. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations are useful as they allow readers to assess whether interventions have been demonstrated to be cost effective, the uncertainty in the evidence base, and key limitations or gaps in the evidence base. The synthesis of systematic reviews of economic evaluations commonly takes a narrative approach whereas a meta-analysis is common step for reviews of clinical evidence (e.g. effectiveness or adverse event outcomes). As they are common objectives in other reviews, readers may query why a synthesis has not been attempted for economic outcomes. However, a meta-analysis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, costs, or health benefits (including quality-adjusted life years) is fraught with issues largely due to heterogeneity across study designs and methods and further practical challenges. Therefore, meta-analysis is rarely feasible or robust. This commentary outlines these issues, supported by examples from the literature, to support researchers and reviewers considering systematic review of economic evidence.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations of Psychological Therapies for Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This review aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for schizophrenia/bipolar disorder (BD), to determine the robustness of current evidence and identify gaps in the available evidence. METHODS: Electronic searches (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase) identified economic evaluations relating incremental cost to outcomes in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio published in English since 2000. Searches were concluded in November 2018. Inclusion criteria were: adults with schizophrenia/BD; any psychological/psychosocial intervention (e.g., psychological therapy and integrated/collaborative care); probability of cost-effectiveness at explicitly defined thresholds reported. Comparators could be routine practice, no intervention, or alternative psychological therapies. Screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were performed using pre-specified criteria and forms. Results were summarized qualitatively. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017056579). RESULTS: Of 3,864 studies identified, 12 met the criteria for data extraction. All were integrated clinical and economic randomized controlled trials. The most common intervention was cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT, 6/12 studies). The most common measure of health benefit was the quality-adjusted life-year (6/12). Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 5 years. Interventions were found to be cost-effective in most studies (9/12): the probability of cost-effectiveness ranged from 35-99.5 percent. All studies had limitations and demonstrated uncertainty (particularly related to incremental costs). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies concluded psychological interventions for schizophrenia/BD are cost-effective, including CBT, although there was notable uncertainty. Heterogeneity across studies makes it difficult to reach strong conclusions. There is a particular need for more evidence in the population with BD and for longer-term evidence across both populations.

Risk assessment scales to predict risk of hospital treated repeat self-harm: A cost-effectiveness modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk scales are used widely for assessing individuals presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) following self-harm. There is growing evidence that risk scales have limited clinical utility in identifying episodes at highest risk of repeat self-harm. However, their cost-effectiveness in terms of treatment allocation and subsequent repeat self-harm is unknown. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of five risk scales (SAD PERSONS Scale, Modified SAD PERSONS Scale, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, Manchester Self-Harm Rule, Barratt Impulsivity Scale) and single item clinician and patient ratings of risk. METHOD: Quality-Adjusted Life Years were estimated for each episode. The five risk scales and the patient rating were compared to the clinician rating. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for each scale, using a range of ICER thresholds. Sensitivity analysis explored different model assumptions. RESULTS: The formal scales were less cost-effective than the clinician and patient ratings across a range of ICER thresholds (£0-£30,000). The five scales were also less cost-effective than the clinician rating in most alternative scenario analyses. However, the clinician rating would be likely to result in unnecessary treatment costs for over half of patients identified as high risk. LIMITATIONS: Our primary model depended on the assumption that high-intensity care reduced patients' risk of further self-harm. CONCLUSION: The use of formal assessment tools for managing self-harm presentations to EDs did not appear to be cost-effective. While the judgement of a mental health clinician was found to be slightly more cost-effective, it still resulted in incorrect allocation of costs and missed treatment opportunities.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of seasonal influenza vaccination for the elderly population in the European Union.

OBJECTIVES: The Council of the European Union (EU) has recommended that action should be taken to increase influenza vaccination in the elderly population. The aims were to systematically review and critically appraise economic evaluations for influenza vaccination in the elderly population in the EU. METHODS: Electronic searches of the NHS Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment, MEDLINE and Embase databases were run to identify full economic evaluations. Two levels of screening were used, with explicit inclusion criteria applied by two independent reviewers at each stage. Prespecified data extraction and critical appraisal were performed on identified studies. Results were summarised qualitatively. RESULTS: Of the 326 search results, screening identified eight relevant studies. Results varied widely, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranging from being both more effective and cheaper than no intervention to costing €4 59 350 per life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to variations in influenza strain, vaccination type and strategy, population and modelling characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies suggest that vaccination is cost-effective (seven of eight studies identified at least one cost-effective scenario). All but one study used economic models to synthesise data from different sources. The results are uncertain due to the methods used and the relevance and robustness of the data used. Sensitivity analysis to explore these aspects was limited. Integrated, controlled prospective clinical and economic evaluations and surveillance data are needed to improve the evidence base. This would allow more advanced modelling techniques to characterise the epidemiology of influenza more accurately and improve the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates.

Cost Effectiveness of Characterised Chondrocyte Implantation for Treatment of Cartilage Defects of the Knee in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, treatment options for damage to cartilage in the knee were limited to the use of microfracture or, occasionally, mosaicplasty. The developments of autologous and characterised chondrocyte implantation have provided new treatment options but have large upfront costs. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of characterised chondrocyte implantation in the UK National Health Service. METHODS: An economic model was constructed in Microsoft Excel®, with patients undergoing either microfracture or chondrocyte implantation. Following treatment failure, patients can undergo a series of interventions, ultimately ending in knee replacement. Effectiveness and utility were modelled using clinical trial data, which were supplemented with synthesised registry data, and costs were taken from published sources. Results were expressed in clinical events, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and British pounds. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5 % per year. RESULTS: Chondrocyte implantation is estimated to reduce the lifetime probability of knee replacement by 50 % in comparison with microfracture, and to increase QALYs by 0.72 (16.57 vs. 15.85). Costs were estimated to be £23,307 for chondrocyte implantation, and £8008 for microfracture, with the incremental cost of £15,299 for chondrocyte implantation reflecting reduced resource use offsetting some of the procedure cost. These values gave a cost per QALY gained of £21,245. CONCLUSION: Chondrocyte implantation is estimated to provide substantial patient benefits over a lifetime horizon, with a considerable increase in QALYs. Despite the increase in costs, the procedure is cost effective at standard thresholds used in the UK.

Cost effectiveness of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have progressed following treatment with both bortezomib and lenalidomide have a poor prognosis. In this late stage, other effective alternatives are limited, and patients in Sweden are often left with best supportive care. Pomalidomide is a new anti-angiogenic and immunomodulatory drug for the treatment of MM. Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pomalidomide as an add-on to best supportive care in patients with relapsed and refractory MM in Sweden. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We developed a health-economic discrete event simulation model of a patient's course through stable disease and progressive disease, until death. It estimates life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from a societal perspective. Effectiveness data and utilities were taken from the MM-003 trial comparing pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone (HIDEX). Cost data were taken from official Swedish price lists, government sources and literature. RESULTS: The model estimates that, if a patient is treated with HIDEX, life expectancy is 1.12 years and the total cost is SEK 179 976 (€19 100), mainly indirect costs. With pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, life expectancy is 2.33 years, with a total cost of SEK 767 064 (€81 500), mainly in drug and indirect costs. Compared to HIDEX, pomalidomide treatment gives a QALY gain of 0.7351 and an incremental cost of SEK 587 088 (€62 400) consisting of increased drug costs (59%), incremental indirect costs (33%) and other healthcare costs (8%). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is SEK 798 613 (€84 900) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: In a model of late-stage MM patients with a poor prognosis in the Swedish setting, pomalidomide is associated with a relatively high incremental cost per QALY gained. This model was accepted by the national Swedish reimbursement authority TLV, and pomalidomide was granted reimbursement in Sweden.

Double Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Clinical Outcomes and Real World Healthcare Costs.

Double relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (DRMM), MM that is relapsed and/or refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide, carries a poor prognosis. The healthcare costs of DRMM have not previously been reported. We analyzed detailed medical resource utilization (MRU) costs, drug costs and outcomes for 39 UK patients receiving standard DRMM therapy. Median OS in this cohort was 5.6 months. The mean cost of DRMM treatment plus MRU until death was £23,472 [range: £1,411-£90,262], split between drug costs £11,191 and other resource use costs £12,281. The cost per assumed quality-adjusted life year (QALY) during DRMM was £66,983. These data provide a standard of care comparison when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new drugs in DRMM.