Healthcare resource utilisation and sickness absence in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who did not undergo autologous stem cell transplantation: Trends in Sweden with the changing treatment landscape.

OBJECTIVES: The introduction of novel drugs has significantly improved outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients. This study describes survival, healthcare resource utilisation and sickness absence in association with the changing MM treatment landscape over time, focussing on patients who did not undergo autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). METHODS: Population-based, retrospective registry study in Sweden, where 7012 non-ASCT patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2015 were stratified into diagnosis periods 2001-2005 (n = 2053), 2006-2010 (n = 2372) and 2011-2015 (n = 2587). RESULTS: Median survival increased from 2.5 to 3.4 years from 2001-2005 to 2011-2015. During the first 3 years of follow-up, patients diagnosed during 2011-2015 spent 29% and 12% less time in health care (55 days; inpatient admissions and outpatient visits) than patients diagnosed during 2001-2005 (78 days) and 2006-2010 (63 days), respectively. This was associated with less inpatient and more outpatient healthcare usage. Average 3-year sickness absence (362 days) was 31% and 12% less than for patients diagnosed during 2001-2005 (522 days) and 2006-2010 (410 days), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings of improved survival, reduced healthcare needs and greater productivity in non-ASCT MM patients with access to improved treatment practices and novel drugs provide important real-world cost-benefit insights for the continued development and introduction of treatments for MM.

A matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) of daratumumab-bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (D-VMP) versus lenalidomide-dexamethasone continuous (Rd continuous), lenalidomide-dexamethasone 18 months (Rd 18), and melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT).

D-VMP is a novel treatment for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TIE NDMM). D-VMP significantly prolonged PFS versus VMP in the ALCYONE trial. The FIRST trial investigated Rd given in 28-day cycles until disease progression, Rd for 18 cycles, and MPT for 12 cycles for TIE NDMM. As no randomized controlled trials comparing D-VMP to standard-of-care regimens such as those in FIRST are available, an MAIC was performed to assess relative OS and PFS for D-VMP from ALYCONE and Rd continuous, Rd 18, and MPT from FIRST. Individual patient data for D-VMP in ALCYONE were weighted to match aggregated baseline patient characteristics for each arm of FIRST. D-VMP significantly improved OS versus MPT and Rd 18, with a trend favoring D-VMP versus Rd continuous. D-VMP performed significantly better than all FIRST comparators for PFS. This MAIC demonstrates OS and PFS benefits for D-VMP versus Rd continuous, Rd 18, and MPT.

Real-world treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma: Multicenter registry results from Finland 2009-2013.

Outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have improved with the advent of novel therapies, however, real-world evidence of outcomes in clinical practice is scarce. We conducted a multi-center registry study to build a reliable picture of treatment and patient outcomes in Finland. The aim of this study was also to understand any methodological challenges in assessing treatment outcomes using disease registry data. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective, observational study using data from the national Finnish Hematology Registry (FHR) to provide real-world evidence of outcomes for all adult patients diagnosed with and treated for MM between 2009-2013 at one of the six regional hospitals, with at least six months of recorded follow-up. Patients were identified within the FHR by applying eligibility criteria of a diagnosis of MM and verifiable records of medical treatment and lines of treatment during the study period. Patients receiving allogenic stem cell transplantation were excluded from the cohort, as were individuals who only had monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance diagnosis and patients who had not initiated treatment during this period. Kaplan Meier curves were used to calculate overall survival and time to next treatment. Stratification was carried out by drug status (conventional/novel) and by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) status. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Overall survival (OS) was longest in patients who received first-line novel therapy and ASCT (median not reached during 60-month follow-up) versus 46.2 months for novel first-line therapy without ASCT and 25.6 months for first-line conventional therapy without ASCT. Similarly, median time to next treatment were 33.9 months, 12.6 months and 7.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of novel treatments in MM in Finland has had substantial impact on patient outcomes. Given the reality of complex treatment combinations for MM and relatively low patient numbers, assessing individual treatment effectiveness will require substantial cohort sizes and advanced, collaborative analytics on an international scale.

Optimizing choice of oral interferon-free treatment for genotype 1 hepatitis C virus using testing for NS5A resistance: a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Patients with genotype-1 hepatitis C virus infection who have failed to respond to standard therapy or who relapse following treatment may be considered for an interferon-free regimen incorporating a nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitor. Sustained virologic response (SVR) with these regimens is typically >90%, but this is reduced in patients with NS5A resistance. European Association for Study of the Liver guidelines recommend simeprevir + sofosbuvir ± ribavirin (SMV+SOF±R) for re-treating patients failing an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen. An alternative strategy would be to test for NS5A resistance prior to treatment, with therapy optimized based on the results. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate disease progression for treatment-experienced genotype 1 patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis. Targeted treatment with either SMV+SOF±R or sofosbuvir + ledipasvir ± ribavirin (SOF+LDV±R) based on pretreatment NS5A resistance testing was compared to routine SOF+LDV±R without testing. Treatment duration was 12 or 24 weeks for patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F3/F4). SVR data for the treatment options were based on the results of published clinical trials. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. RESULTS: Optimized treatment using NS5A resistance testing yielded 0.163 additional QALYs and increased costs of €2,789 per patient versus no testing. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €17,078/QALY. Sensitivity analysis identified the SVR attributable to each of the treatment regimens as the most sensitive determinant of ICER (range: €10,055/QALY-€43,501/QALY across plausible range). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY, the probability that NS5A-directed treatment will be cost-effective is 81.4%. CONCLUSION: Optimizing therapy with either SMV+SOF±R or SOF+LDV±R based on pretreatment NS5A resistance testing was cost-effective from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service, in treatment-experienced patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis.

Indirect comparison of the antiviral efficacy of peginterferon alpha 2a plus ribavirin used with or without simeprevir in genotype 4 hepatitis C virus infection, where common comparator study arms are lacking: a special application of the matching adjusted indirect comparison methodology.

BACKGROUND: The need to assess relative efficacy in the absence of comparative clinical trials is a problem that is often encountered in economic modeling. The use of matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) in this situation has been suggested. We present the results of a MAIC used to evaluate the incremental benefit offered by adding simeprevir (SMV) to standard therapy in the treatment of patients infected with genotype 4 hepatitis C virus (HCV). METHODS: Individual patient data for a single arm study evaluating the use of SMV with peginterferon alfa 2a + ribavirin (PR) in genotype 4 HCV were available (RESTORE study). A systematic literature review was used to identify studies of PR alone used in the same patient group. By applying the inclusion criteria for each study in turn to the RESTORE dataset and then applying the published MAIC covariate matching algorithm, a series of pseudosamples from RESTORE were generated. After assessment of the matching outcomes, the best matched comparisons were used to derive estimates of efficacy for SMV + PR in patients equivalent to those participating in the PR trial. RESULTS: Five potential comparator studies were identified. After applying the matching process, two emerged as offering the greatest equivalence with the generated RESTORE pseudosamples and were used to estimate SMV + PR efficacy, expressed as the percentage of patients achieving sustained viral response (SVR). In one comparison, SVR in the SMV + PR group was 85% versus 63% for PR alone. In the second comparison, the corresponding SVRs were 77% and 44% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After matching for varying baseline characteristics, both comparisons of RESTORE versus studies of PR alone yielded a benefit for SMV + PR vs PR alone in genotype 4 HCV-infected patients. The incremental gain in SVR associated with use of SMV ranged from 22% to 33%. In the absence of direct comparative studies, the MAIC gives a better perspective than simple comparison of absolute SVR from individual studies.

A network meta-analysis to compare simeprevir with boceprevir and telaprevir in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin in patients infected with genotype 1 Hepatitis C virus.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy and safety of simeprevir, a second generation oral protease inhibitor (PI), compared to telaprevir and boceprevir in combination with pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin (PR) in patients with chronic hepatitis C. METHODS: A systematic literature review and NMA of randomized controlled trials involving anti-virals added to PR were conducted. Electronic database searches and hand searches were conducted to identify relevant publications. Outcomes of interest included sustained virologic response (SVR), incidence of adverse events (AEs), and discontinuation due to AEs. Networks were based on treatment-, dose-, and duration-specific nodes. Sub-group analyses were conducted to investigate heterogeneity, based on Metavir scores, sub-genotypes 1a/1b, and prior response. RESULTS: A total of 15 publications were considered for the base case of the meta-analysis. Simeprevir was associated with higher SVR rates than PR alone. Compared to telaprevir and boceprevir, SVR rates tended to be higher for simeprevir, with odds ratios ranging from 1.27 [0.81-2.00] to 2.61 [1.44-4.74] in treatment-naïve and from 1.04 [0.78-1.38] to 1.74 [0.84-3.61] in treatment-experienced patients, respectively. In terms of safety, the risks of anemia and discontinuations due to AEs were lower for simeprevir compared to PR alone, telaprevir, and boceprevir. The risk of rash was lower for simeprevir compared to telaprevir, and similar compared to PR alone and boceprevir. CONCLUSION: This NMA in genotype 1 HCV patients suggests a similar or better efficacy and tolerability profile for simeprevir compared to telaprevir and boceprevir.