Assessment of prolonged proteasome inhibition through ixazomib-based oral regimen on newly diagnosed and first-relapsed multiple myeloma: A real-world Chinese cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and convenience of in-class transition (iCT) from intravenous bortezomib-based induction to ixazomib-based oral regimens. METHODS: This retrospective real-world study was conducted in 16 Chinese hospitals between October 2017 and April 2023 and analyzed newly diagnosed (NDMM) and first-line relapsed multiple myeloma (FRMM) patients who attained at least a partial response from bortezomib-based induction therapy, followed by an ixazomib-based oral regimen for 2 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS: The study enrolled 199 patients, median age: 63 years old, male 55.4%, 53% as high risk (HR), and 47% as standard risk. Cytogenetic risk stratification by metaphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (M-FISH), based on the Mayo Clinic risk stratification system. The median duration of total PI therapy was 11 months, with ixazomib-based treatment spanning 6 months. At the 20-month median follow-up, 53% of patients remained on therapy. The 24-month PFS rate was 84.3% from the initiation of bortezomib-based induction and 83.4% from the start of ixazomib-based treatment. Overall response rate (ORR) was 100% post-bortezomib induction and 90% following 6 cycles of the ixazomib-based regimen. Based on the Sankey diagrams, 89.51% of patients maintained or improved their disease response after 2 cycles of iCT, 6 cycles (90.14%), and 12 cycles (80%). The HR level of Mayo was found to be a significant independent factor in a worse remission (hazard ratio (HR) 2.55; p = 0.033). Ixazomib's safety profile aligned with previous clinical trial data, with 49% of patients experiencing at least one AE of any grade. The most common AEs included peripheral neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and granulocytopenia. CONCLUSION: In the real-world Chinese MM population, NDMM and FRMM patients responded favorably to PI-based continuous therapy, demonstrating substantial response rates. The ixazomib-based iCT allows for sustained PI-based treatment, offering promising efficacy and tolerable AEs.

Carfilzomibe no tratamento de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário, que receberam terapia prévia / Carfilzomib in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received prior therapy

INTRODUÇÃO: O mieloma múltiplo (MM) é uma neoplasia hematológica maligna caracterizada pela proliferação descontrolada de plasmócitos alterados na medula óssea, resultando na produção aumentada de imunoglobulinas não funcional (proteína monoclonal). O acúmulo destas imunoglobulinas e a interação dos plasmócitos com outras células da medula óssea resultam em anemia, lesões ósseas, infecções, hipercalcemia, injúria renal, fadiga e dor. A incidência mundial informada pelo Globocan é de 2,2 novos casos por 100.000 habitantes em homens e 1,5/100.000 em mulheres, com ocorrência, a nível mundial, de 176 mil novos casos e 117 mil mortes em 2020. Carfilzomibe é um agente antineoplásico, inibidor de proteassoma que se liga seletiva e irreversivelmente nos sítios ativos. Tem atividade antiproliferativa e pró-apoptóticas. PERGUNTA DE PESQUISA: Kyprolis® (carfilzomibe) em combinação com dexametasona é eficaz e seguro no tratamento de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário que receberam uma terapia prévia quando em comparação a bortezomibe, ciclofosfamida, dexametasona, cisplatina, doxorrubicina, doxorrubicina lipossomal, etoposídeo, melfalana, vincristina ou talidomida? EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: O demandante realizou as buscas na literatura utilizando as seguintes bases de dados: The Cochrane Library, Medline via PubMed, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), o que resultou na inclusão de 14 publicações. Na análise conduzida pela Secretaria Executiva foram consideradas 12 publicações referentes a um ensaio clínico randomizado e uma publicação de revisão sistemática. O estudo ENDEAVOR foi um ensaio clínico de fase III, multicêntrico, aberto, que incluiu 929 participantes randomizados para receber carfilzomibe+dexametasona ou bortezomibe+dexametasona. A mediana de SLP foi 18,7 meses (IC 95%, 15,6 a não estimável) no grupo que recebeu carfilzomibe comparado a 9,4 meses (IC 95%, 8,4 a 10,4) no grupo que recebeu bortezomibe, resultando em uma magnitude de benefício absoluto de 9,3 meses (HR 0,53 [IC95% 0,44 a 0,65]; p< 0,0001). A duração mediana de resposta foi 21,3 meses (IC95% 21,3 a não estimável) no grupo carfilzomibe e 10,4 meses (IC95% 9,3 a 13,8) no grupo bortezomibe. Em ambos os grupos, 98% dos participantes apresentaram eventos adversos (qualquer grau), sendo a anemia (43% versus 28%), diarreia (36,7% versus 40,6%) e febre (32,6% versus 15,4%) os eventos mais frequentes nos grupos carfilzomibe e bortezomibe, respectivamente. Os eventos adversos mais comuns grau 3 ou maior foram reportados em 81,9% dos participantes do grupo carfilzomibe (n=379) e 71,1% no grupo bortezomibe (n=324), sendo a anemia (17,3% no grupo carfilzomibe e 10,1% no grupo bortezomibe), hipertensão (14,9% versus 3,3%), trombocitopenia (12,5% versus 14,7%),os três eventos mais frequentes. Insuficiência cardíaca grau 3 ou superior, foi mais frequente no grupo carfilzomibe (6%) que no grupo bortezomibe (2%.). AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA: O demandante apresentou uma análise de custo-efetividade. Na análise do cenário base, em um horizonte temporal de 30 anos, carfilzomibe acrescentou ganhos incrementais de 1,19 QALY, resultando em uma razão de custo utilidade incremental (RCEI) de R$ 195.310,00 por QALY. No cenário proposto pela Secretária-Executiva (horizonte temporal de 10 anos e valor de utilidade derivada do estudo ENDEAVOR), carfilzomibe gerou benefício de 0,63 QALY, com RCEI de R$ 365.830,00 por QALY. ANÁLISE DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: Com o desconto apresentado pelo demandante, a incorporação de carfilzomibe ao SUS implica em custos adicionais ao sistema de saúde no montante de aproximadamente R$ 365 milhões em cinco anos. A principal limitação da análise foi a estimativa da população. MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram identificadas 10 tecnologias potenciais para compor o esquema terapêutico de pacientes adultos com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário: Belantamabe mafodotin, Ciltacabtageno autoleucel, Elranatamab, Iberdomida, Idecabtagene vicleucel, Isatuximabe, nivolumabe, selinexor, teclistamab, venetoclax. Tais medicamentos são anticorpo monoclonal ligado a um antineoplásico, anticorpo biespecífico, anticorpo monoclonal, imumodulador, terapias baseadas em células T autólogas geneticamente modificadas (CAR-T), inibidor SINE, ou inibidor de Bcl-2. A maioria não possui registro na FDA, EMA ou Anvisa. CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: Os resultados sugerem eficácia e segurança do carfilzomibe na população elegível, porém, no horizonte temporal de 10 anos, com QALY < 1, RCEI de R$ 365.830,00 por QALY e impacto orçamentário de aproximadamente R$ 17 milhões no primeiro ano de incorporação e R$ 131 milhões no 5º ano da incorporação, totalizando R$ 365 milhões em cinco anos. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário presentes na 109ª Reunião Ordinária da Conitec, realizada no dia 08 de junho de 2022, sem nenhuma declaração de conflito de interesse, deliberaram por unanimidade, encaminhar o tema para consulta pública com recomendação preliminar desfavorável à incorporação de carfilzomibe para o tratamento de mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário no SUS. Os membros consideraram a evidência científica boa e favorável ao carfilzomibe, porém, a RCEI e o impacto orçamentário foram considerados muito altos para o tratamento de uma doença que já tem outras opções terapêuticas disponíveis no SUS. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: Entre os dias 08/07/2022 e 27/07/2022 foram recebidas 421 contribuições, sendo 152 pelo formulário para contribuições técnico-científicas e 269 pelo formulário para contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião de pacientes, familiares, amigos ou cuidadores de pacientes, profissionais de saúde ou pessoas interessadas no tema. A maioria foi a favor da incorporação de carfilzomibe no SUS (97% via formulário técnico-científico e 100%). O principal benefício apontado nas contribuições técnico-científicas foi sobre a eficácia, aumento da sobrevida e qualidade de vida, além da disponibilidade de mais uma opção terapêutica e promoção da igualdade no tratamento nos sistemas público e privado de saúde. A empresa detentora do registro do medicamento atualizou o preço do medicamento, e consequentemente os valores do impacto orçamentário e avaliação econômica. No impacto orçamentário o valor ficou em R$ 95,3 milhões em cinco anos. Nas contribuições de experiência e opinião, a totalidade dos respondentes discordou da recomendação preliminar da Conitec. No âmbito das opiniões e experiências positivas, foi mencionada a necessidade de garantir o acesso ao carfilzomibe, especialmente por representar uma alternativa para pacientes recidivados e refratários. Também foi citada a eficácia da tecnologia. Como dificuldades, destacou-se a falta de acesso pelo SUS. Em relação a outros medicamentos, foram mencionados benefícios, mas, também, a eficácia limitada no caso de pacientes recidivados. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário da Conitec, em sua 112ª Reunião Ordinária, realizada no dia 31 de agosto de 2022, deliberaram por maioria simples, recomendar a não incorporação no SUS de carfilzomibe para o tratamento de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário, que receberam terapia prévia, no SUS. Não houve apresentação de dados clínicos adicionais. Com o preço do medicamento atualizado, ainda assim não se mostrou custo-efetivo. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº 765/2022. DECISÃO: Não incorporar, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, o carfilzomibe para o tratamento de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado ou refratário, conforme a Portaria nº 107, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 184, seção 1, página 75, em 27 de setembro de 2022.

Minimal residual disease assessment by multiparameter flow cytometry in transplant-eligible myeloma in the EMN02/HOVON 95 MM trial.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) is the most effective tool to define a deep response in multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted an MRD correlative study of the EMN02/HO95 MM phase III trial in newly diagnosed MM patients achieving a suspected complete response before maintenance and every 6 months during maintenance. Patients received high-dose melphalan (HDM) versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) intensification, followed by bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRd) versus no consolidation, and lenalidomide maintenance. Bone marrow (BM) samples were processed in three European laboratories, applying EuroFlow-based MFC protocols (eight colors, two tubes) with 10-4-10-5 sensitivity. At enrollment in the MRD correlative study, 76% (244/321) of patients were MRD-negative. In the intention-to-treat analysis, after a median follow-up of 75 months, 5-year progression-free survival was 66% in MRD-negative versus 31% in MRD-positive patients (HR 0.39; p < 0.001), 5-year overall survival was 86% versus 69%, respectively (HR 0.41; p < 0.001). MRD negativity was associated with reduced risk of progression or death in all subgroups, including ISS-III (HR 0.37) and high-risk fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) patients (HR 0.38;). In the 1-year maintenance MRD population, 42% of MRD-positive patients at pre-maintenance became MRD-negative after lenalidomide exposure. In conclusion, MRD by MFC is a strong prognostic factor. Lenalidomide maintenance further improved MRD-negativity rate.

Burden of Treatment-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is a complication of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment. OBJECTIVE: This real-world, retrospective study used electronic medical record (EMR) data from 3 Swedish clinics to assess the occurrence and economic burden of TIPN in patients with MM. METHODS: Eligible patients had an MM diagnosis in the Swedish Cancer Registry between 2006 and 2015 and initiated treatment during that period. Follow-up was until last EMR visit, death, or study end (April 2017). The current analyses included patients receiving bortezomib, lenalidomide, carfilzomib, or thalidomide at any treatment line. To discern healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with TIPN from other causes, patients with TIPN were matched with those without on baseline characteristics, treatment, and line of therapy. All analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Overall, 457 patients were included; 102 (22%) experienced TIPN. Patients experiencing TIPN during first-line treatment mostly received bortezomib-based regimens (n = 48/57 [84%]); those with TIPN during second- and third/fourth-line treatment mostly received lenalidomide/thalidomide-based regimens (19/31 [61%], 8/14 [57%], respectively). Patients with TIPN had higher HCRU/costs than those without TIPN (mean differences in hospital outpatient visits: 5.2, p = 0.0031; total costs per patient-year: EUR 17,183, p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Effective MM treatments associated with a reduced incidence of TIPN could result in decreased healthcare expenditure.

Medication use evaluation of the financial and clinical implications of ixazomib compared to bortezomib in the outpatient setting.

In the past decade, several new therapies have been approved for use in multiple myeloma, including the novel oral agent, ixazomib. Ixazomib, like bortezomib and carfilzomib, is a proteasome inhibitor, a class of agents that are a mainstay of treating multiple myeloma in both the frontline and relapsed settings. Ixazomib is administered orally and offers many potential advantages over the subcutaneous or intravenous administration of bortezomib. In this single-center, retrospective medication use evaluation, adult patients with multiple myeloma receiving either ixazomib or bortezomib in the outpatient setting were assessed to evaluate financial implications and tolerability. A total of 28 patients were included. The total wholesale acquisition cost for one cycle of ixazomib was $9942, and $6412 for bortezomib. Average reimbursement per cycle was $9205 for ixazomib and $5664 for bortezomib. Secondarily, the incidence of interruption in therapy was evaluated. Ixazomib was associated with a slightly higher incidence of interruption compared to bortezomib, 42.9% and 35.7%, respectively. It is notable that ixazomib has similar drug reimbursement rates to bortezomib, but slightly higher rates of interruption in therapy. In conclusion, if tolerable for the patient, ixazomib may offer a financially acceptable alternative for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Association of adverse events and associated cost with efficacy for approved relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma regimens: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Several new treatment options have been approved for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, associations of the efficacy of each approved regimen with adverse events (AEs) and the total cost per cycle were compared with a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed Publisher, and Web of Science were searched from January 1999 to July 2018 for phase 3 RCTs of regimens (approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) used in RRMM. The relative ranking of agents was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. The primary efficacy, safety, and cost outcomes were progression-free survival with the regimen, grade 3 to 4 AEs, and the total cost per cycle (regimen cost plus average cost of managing AEs). RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 7718 patients and evaluating 14 different regimens were identified. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone were ranked highest for reducing progression (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09-0.19; SUCRA, 1) but carried the highest probability of total cost per cycle ($41,420; 95% Credible Interval [CrCl], $58,665-$78,041; SUCRA, 0.02). Panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone were the least effective and least safe (SUCRA, 0.24), whereas bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone emerged as least effective with the highest total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.33). Carfilzomib and dexamethasone emerged as the winner when this regimen was considered in terms of efficacy and safety (SUCRA, 0.61) and efficacy and total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this NMA can provide additional guidance for the decision-making process when one is choosing the most appropriate regimen for RRMM.

Impact of age, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic deprivation and novel pharmaceuticals on the overall survival of patients with multiple myeloma in New Zealand.

The impact of age, ethnicity and socio-economic deprivation in the era of novel anti-myeloma agents is unclear. Using linked national data from New Zealand, we evaluated the incidence, prevalence and overall survival (OS) of individuals who were diagnosed with myeloma between 2004 and 2016. The crude incidence rate increased from 5·42 to 8·47/100 000 and the age-standardised rate increased from 4·01 to 5·28/100 000. The estimated prevalence in December 2016 was 37·8/100 000. Median OS increased from 34·8 (95% CI 31·4, 39·3) months in 2004-2007 to 50·7 (48·5, 57·3) months in 2012-2016. Following the public funding of bortezomib in 2011, the median OS for individuals >70 years increased from 19·4 (16·3, 23·1) to 28·6 (24·5, 32·8) months. For those ≤70 years of age who did not have autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), median OS increased from 49·1 (37·1, 57·5) to 62·7 (51·7, 79·2) months; but for those who had ASCT, there was no difference in median OS. Socio-economic deprivation was an independent adverse prognostic factor. Maori/Pasifika and those in the most deprived quintile experienced no improvement in survival after bortezomib was funded. Our study confirms the increasing incidence and improving survival of myeloma patients, and the negative impact of Maori/Pasifika ethnicity and socio-economic deprivation on survival.

Resource implications of bortezomib therapy in a large UK cohort: An evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib is a cornerstone in the management of multiple myeloma. It remains an attractive treatment option because it is efficacious, reasonably well tolerated and easy to administer. However, data on resource implications in the UK for both patients and healthcare providers are limited. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 127 patients to assess implications of bortezomib therapy on patients and healthcare resources. A patient-episode was defined as a patient attending the chemotherapy day treatment unit solely for bortezomib administration. Data were collected for the duration of therapy as follows: cost of drug calculated using the UK's bortezomib indicative price as per British National Formulary, cost of drug administration in the chemotherapy day treatment unit calculated using the National Health Service's schedule of service cost, time from check-in to drug administration, patient travel time and distance calculated using Google maps, and cost of travel. RESULTS: Median drug cost and administration cost per patient were £8336 (£2084-£108,368) and £4640 (£290-£15,080), respectively. Median time from check-in to administration was 63 min (range 5-433), median travel time was 90 min (range 8-270) and 80 min (range 8-280) during peak and off-peak periods, respectively. Median return travel distance was 33.4 miles (range 1.2-224) for travel cost per patient per trip was £8.35-£13.20. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world resource analysis demonstrated that delivering bortezomib therapy can be associated with significant cost and time implications for patients and healthcare providers. Our study method sets a basis for evaluating resource implications of other novel approaches to myeloma therapy.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for stem cell transplantation in China.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus low dose dexamethasone (Rd) relative to bortezomib-contained therapy (BCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for stem cell transplantation (ndMM) in China. Materials & methods: A literature review was conducted to identify appropriate evidence for developing a cost-effectiveness model comparing Rd with BCT for lifetime health outcomes and direct medical costs in Chinese ndMM patients. Results: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per gained quality-adjusted life years for Rd versus BCT was ¥49,793. The chance for Rd to be cost effective, under the cost-effectiveness thresholds of three-times the 2018 Chinese gross domestic goods per capita, was 90.8%. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of Rd relative to BCT for ndMM in Chinese patients is highly attractive.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on binary/triple therapy on the basis of ixazomib or bortezomib for refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma.

This study analyzed the cost utility on the use of ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (IRD), lenalidomide/dexamethasone (RD), bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone (VTD), or bortezomib/dexamethasone (VD) for patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma (rrMM). Patients' lifelong direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are simulated by using the Markov model on the basis of the China's healthcare system. VTD, RD, and IRD are 0.12, 0.32, and 0.42 QALYs higher than VD, and $9401, $16,868, and $39,671 higher than those of VD in terms of lifelong cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are 78,342, 52,713, and 94,455, respectively. IRD can extend the life years of patients with rrMM, improve the quality of life, and increase the cost of medical treatment. The use of VD has a comparative advantage of cost utility. For patients who cannot tolerate bortezomib or were drug-fast with first-line bortezomib, RD plan is another economical and effective strategy.

Cost Offsets in the Treatment Journeys of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Multiple new regimens are available for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this context, it is increasingly important to understand the differential costs of regimens used to treat RRMM. METHODS: A treatment journey for RRMM during a 12-month period of therapy was developed to reflect real-world clinical practice based on current treatment guidelines and input from hematologists/oncologists. The journey incorporated prescreening visits, laboratory tests, regimen-specific premedication, treatment-related costs, medical costs, and indirect costs. A cost model was constructed from the standard RRMM treatment pathway to compare overall, direct, and indirect costs across therapies over a 12-month period from initiation of second-line therapy and to determine cost offsets (incremental costs) associated with use of ixazomib-based therapy versus comparator regimens. According to the clinical input, the standard pathway was modified for patients with high unmet need to determine specific cost offsets in these subgroups. FINDINGS: Total costs ranged from $93,683 for bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone to $315,296 for daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone. Drug cost comprised the highest proportion (83%-98%) of total costs of second-line therapy across regimens, which were generally highest for regimens based on recently approved agents. Indirect costs were higher for regimens that required more frequent or longer durations of drug administration, and lower for all-oral regimens. Costs were reduced among frail patients because of the use of adjusted dosing, whereas indirect costs were increased for regimens that required a greater number of clinic visits among patients with barriers to physician access. IMPLICATIONS: Cost model analyses highlight the differential direct and indirect costs associated with multiple regimens for the treatment of RRMM, including many recent new regimens. The results indicate the lower treatment burden and indirect costs associated with administering all-oral regimens compared with regimens that require frequent and/or lengthy subcutaneous or intravenous infusions. Understanding comparative costs associated with the treatment journeys of different patients with RRMM may help inform payer and patient therapeutic choices.

Costs of administration, travelling, and productivity losses associated with hospital administration of multiple myeloma drugs in Finland.

AIM: To estimate the drug administration, travelling, and productivity costs associated with infusion or subcutaneous proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatments (specifically carfilzomib and bortezomib) for multiple myeloma (MM) patients in Finland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Price tariffs of Finnish hospital districts are used as the basis of invoicing sent to healthcare service payers. A review of these price tariff lists was conducted and obtained data analysed to estimate the mean unit cost of PI administration visit. Travelling costs stratified by areas with different population densities were assessed, based on the national travelling reimbursement register data maintained by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland. Productivity costs due to time spent on administration visits and travelling were estimated based on an expert interview and a spatial healthcare accessibility analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen (95%) of the Finnish hospital districts were included in the review. Relevant unit cost information was found for 15 (75%) of the districts. The mean PI administration cost alone was 270€ (95% CI = 189€-351€) per administration and increased to 371€ when travelling costs were included. Productivity costs added, the mean PI administration costs totalled 405€ for bortezomib and 437€ for carfilzomib. LIMITATIONS: The costing rationale of price tariffs may vary between hospital districts. Productivity costs were estimated conservatively, due to lack of data. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of intravenous or subcutaneous PIs to treat MM in healthcare facilities causes significant and potentially avoidable healthcare, travelling, and indirect costs, and they should be included in all health economic evaluations (HEEs). As the cost estimates utilized in this study represent most of central hospitals in the country, they provide useful information for future HEEs. A broader conclusion is that novel oral medications, such as the first oral PI, have a significant potential for reducing administration-related costs of subcutaneous or intravenous PIs.

Modeling Covariate-Adjusted Survival for Economic Evaluations in Oncology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In economic evaluations in oncology, adjusted survival should be generated if imbalances in prognostic/predictive factors across treatment arms are present. To date, no formal guidance has been developed regarding how such adjustments should be made. We compared various covariate-adjusted survival modeling approaches, as applied to the ENDEAVOR trial in multiple myeloma that assessed carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Cd) versus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (Vd). METHODS: Overall survival (OS) data and baseline characteristics were used for a subgroup (bortezomib-naïve/one prior therapy). Four adjusted survival modeling approaches were compared: propensity score weighting followed by fitting a Weibull model to the two arms of the balanced data (weighted data approach); fitting a multiple Weibull regression model including prognostic/predictive covariates to the two arms to predict survival using the mean value of each covariate and using the average of patient-specific survival predictions; and applying an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) derived from a Cox proportional hazard model to the baseline risk estimated for Vd. RESULTS: The mean OS estimated by the weighted data approach was 6.85 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.62-10.70) for Cd, 4.68 years (95% CI 3.46-6.74) for Vd, and 2.17 years (95% CI 0.18-5.06) for the difference. Although other approaches estimated similar differences, using the mean value of covariates appeared to yield skewed survival estimates (mean OS was 7.65 years for Cd and 5.40 years for Vd), using the average of individual predictions had limited external validity (implausible long-term OS predictions with > 10% of the Vd population alive after 30 years), and using the adjusted HR approach overestimated uncertainty (difference in mean OS was 2.03, 95% CI - 0.17 to 6.19). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted survival modeling based on weighted or matched data approaches provides a flexible and robust method to correct for covariate imbalances in economic evaluations. The conclusions of our study may be generalizable to other settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01568866 (ENDEAVOR trial).

Incidence and management of adverse events associated with panobinostat in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell neoplasm that has seen impressive improvements in outcomes in recent years with combination therapies, such as proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. Histone deacetylase inhibition is an additional unique mechanism of action with established biological relevance in multiple myeloma. Panobinostat is the first histone deacetylase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have received at least two prior regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent. While the addition of panobinostat to bortezomib and dexamethasone has demonstrated response and progression-free survival benefits, the incidence and severity of adverse events associated with it can create a challenge for clinicians and patients. Specifically, diarrhea, myelosuppression, an increased risk for infectious complications, cardiotoxicity, and nausea/vomiting may be seen with use. The frequency and grade of adverse event occurrence may differ between doses and schedule of panobinostat as well as with different companion therapies and routes. Herein we discuss the incidence, severity, and practical management of adverse events associated with panobinostat in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Cost-effectiveness of Daratumumab-based Triplet Therapies in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: The prominent efficacy of the addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) or the addition to bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) was proven previously for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, the cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab to traditional doublet regimens versus doublet regimens alone (DRd vs Rd; DVd vs Vd) was unknown. METHODS: We developed a semi-Markov model by using a US payer perspective and 10-year time horizon to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for treatments. Clinical data were obtained from the POLLUX (Phase 3 Study Comparing DRd Versus Rd in Subjects with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma [RRMM]) and CASTOR (Phase 3 Study Comparing DVd Versus Vd in Subjects with RRMM) trials. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. FINDINGS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DVd compared with Vd was $284,180 per QALY; the ICER for DRd compared with Rd was $1,369,062 per QALY. Only when the price of daratumumab was reduced to 37% (US $702/vial) of the current price could the addition of daratumumab to Vd be cost-effective under the US willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY. However, under no discount level of the daratumumab price is the addition of daratumumab to Rd acceptable. When the WTP increased to $300,000/QALY, the addition of DVd had a 56.7% probability of being cost-effective compared with the Vd regimen. IMPLICATIONS: Due to the high price of daratumumab, neither the addition of daratumumab to Rd nor Vd proved to be cost-effective under US WTP. However, if the daratumumab price fell to a certain discount level, the DVd regimen might be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone compared to bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone for the second-line treatment of multiple myeloma in Chile. / Análisis costo-efectividad de lenalidomida en combinación con dexametasona frente a bortezomib combinado con dexametasona en el tratamiento en segunda línea del mieloma múltiple en Chile.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a hematologic malignancy affecting bone marrow derived plasma cells. Current therapies are not able to eradicate the disease and most patients become refractory to the treatment. Lenalidomide and bortezomib have proved effective in the second-line treatment of these patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone compared to bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma previously treated with bortezomib, from the perspective of the Chilean National Health Service. METHODOLOGY: A four-state Markov model (preprogression on treatment; preprogression off treatment, progression and death) was used to simulate the evolution of a cohort of multiple myeloma patients over a 25-year time horizon. Efficacy data, resource use and frequency of adverse events were extracted from MM009/010 studies and a retrospective analysis of retreatment with bortezomib. All inputs were validated by experts. A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and health outcomes. The robustness of the results was evaluated through univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone treatment provided 1.41 incremental life years and 0.83 incremental quality-adjusted life years in comparison with bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone, with an incremental cost of 11 864 597.86 CLP (19 589.86 US$). The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio were estimated at 8 410 266.92 CLP (13 886,35 US$) / incremental life year and 14 271 896.16 CLP (23 564,59 US$)/incremental quality-adjusted life years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone represents a potentially cost-effective alternative for the second-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for transplantation, from the perspective of the Chilean National Health Service.

CONTEXTO: El mieloma múltiple es una neoplasia de las células plasmáticas de la medula ósea. Las terapias disponibles no son curativas y la mayoría de los pacientes se vuelve refractario al tratamiento. Agentes como lenalidomida y bortezomib han demostrado su eficacia en el tratamien-to en segunda línea de estos pacientes. OBJETIVO: Evaluar el costo-efectividad de la combinación lenalidomida/dexametasona frente a bortezomib/dexametasona en pacientes con mieloma múltiple, no candidatos a trasplante, previamente tratados con bortezomib, desde la perspectiva del sistema nacional de salud chileno. METODOLOGÍA: Se empleó un modelo de Markov que simula la evolución de una cohorte de pacientes a través de cuatro estados de salud (preprogresión en tratamiento, preprogresión sin tratamiento, progresión o muerte) en un horizonte temporal de 25 años. Los datos de eficacia, uso de recursos y frecuencia de efectos adversos fueron extraídos de los ensayos sobre mieloma múltiple MM-009 y MM-010 y de un estudio retrospectivo de retratamiento con bortezomib. Todos los parámetros fueron validados por expertos. Se aplicó una tasa de descuento en costos y beneficios de 3%. La robustez de los resultados fue evaluada mediante un análisis de sensibilidad univariante y probabilístico. RESULTADOS: El tratamiento con lenalidomida/dexametasona proporciona 1,41 años de vida y 0,83 años de vida ajustados por calidad incrementales respecto a bortezomib/dexametasona, con un costo incremental de 11 864 597,86 pesos chilenos (19 589,86 dólares). La ratio de cos-to-efectividad y costo-utilidad incremental se cifró en 8 410 266,92 pesos chilenos (13 886,35 dólares) por año de vida ganado y 14 271 896,16 pesos chilenos (23 564,59 dólares) por año de vida ajustado por calidad respectivamente. CONCLUSIÓN: La lenalidomida/dexametasona representa una alternativa potencialmente costo-efectiva, desde la perspectiva del sistema nacional de salud chileno, para el tratamiento en segunda línea de pacientes con mieloma múltiple no candidatos a trasplante.

Phase 2 Study of Bortezomib Combined With Temozolomide and Regional Radiation Therapy for Upfront Treatment of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme: Safety and Efficacy Assessment.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of upfront treatment using bortezomib combined with standard radiation therapy (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ), followed by adjuvant bortezomib and TMZ for ≤24 cycles, in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four patients with newly diagnosed GBM were enrolled. The patients received standard external beam regional RT with concurrent TMZ beginning 3 to 6 weeks after surgery, followed by adjuvant TMZ and bortezomib for ≤24 cycles or until tumor progression. During RT, bortezomib was given at 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 29, 32, 36, and 39. After RT, bortezomib was given at 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 4 weeks. RESULTS: No unexpected adverse events occurred from the addition of bortezomib. The efficacy analysis showed a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-8.8), with promising PFS rates at ≥18 months compared with historical norms (25.0% at 18 and 24 months; 16.7% at 30 months). In terms of overall survival (OS), the median OS was 19.1 months (95% CI 6.7-31.4), with improved OS rates at ≥12 months (87.5% at 12, 50.0% at 24, 34.1% at 36-60 months) compared with the historical norms. The median PFS was 24.7 months (95% CI 8.5-41.0) in 10 MGMT methylated and 5.1 months (95% CI 3.9-6.2) in 13 unmethylated patients. The estimated median OS was 61 months (95% CI upper bound not reached) in the methylated and 16.4 months (95% CI 11.8-21.0) in the unmethylated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bortezomib to current standard radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed GBM patients was tolerable. The PFS and OS rates appeared promising, with more benefit to MGMT methylated patients. Further clinical investigation is warranted in a larger cohort of patients.

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.