Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-BCMA Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Despite its promising outcomes, anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) is the most expensive myeloma treatment developed to date, and its cost-effectiveness is an important issue. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of anti-BCMA CAR-T compared to standard antimyeloma therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The model included myeloma patients in Japan and the United States who have received ≥3 prior lines of antimyeloma therapy, including immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. A Markov model was constructed to compare the CAR-T strategy, in which patients receive either idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) followed by 3 lines of multiagent chemotherapy after relapse, and the no CAR-T strategy, in which patients receive only chemotherapy. Data from the LocoMMotion, KarMMa, and CARTITUDE-1 trials were extracted. Several assumptions were made regarding long-term progression-free survival (PFS) with CAR-T. Extensive scenario analyses were made regarding regimens for no CAR-T strategies. The outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with willingness-to-pay thresholds of ¥7,500,000 in Japan and $150,000 in the United States. When a 5-year PFS of 40% with cilta-cel was assumed, the ICER of the CAR-T strategy versus the no CAR-T strategy was ¥7,603,823 per QALY in Japan and $112,191 per QALY in the United States over a 10-year time horizon. When a 5-year PFS of 15% with ide-cel was assumed, the ICER was ¥20,388,711 per QALY in Japan and $261,678 per QALY in the United States over a 10-year time horizon. The results were highly dependent on the PFS assumption with CAR-T and were robust to changes in most other parameters and scenarios. Although anti-BCMA CAR-T can be cost-effective even under current pricing, a high long-term PFS is necessary.

Daratumumab in first-line therapy is cost-effective in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

Triplet regimens, such as lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) or thalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (VTd), are standard induction therapies for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The addition of daratumumab to RVd and VTd has been investigated in the GRIFFIN and CASSIOPEIA trials, respectively, resulting in improvement in the rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. In this study, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with a 10-year time horizon to compare first-line and second-line use of daratumumab for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. Because long-term follow-up data for these clinical trials are not yet available, we developed a Markov model that uses MRD status to predict progression-free survival. Daratumumab was used either in the first-line setting in combination with RVd or VTd or in the second-line setting with carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Kd). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated from a Japanese and US payer perspective. In the Japanese analysis, D-RVd showed higher QALYs (5.43 vs 5.18) and lower costs (¥64 479,793 vs ¥71 287 569) compared with RVd, and D-VTd showed higher QALYs (5.67 vs 5.42) and lower costs (¥43 600 310 vs ¥49 471,941) compared with VTd. Similarly, the US analysis demonstrated dominance of a strategy incorporating daratumumab in first-line treatment regimens. Given that overall costs are reduced and outcomes are improved when daratumumab is used as part of a first-line regimen, the economic analysis indicates that addition of daratumumab to first-line RVd and VTd regimens is a dominant strategy compared with reserving its use for the second-line setting.