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.

Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies.

No consensus has yet been reached on how to analyse uncertainty in economic evaluation studies where individual patient data are available for costs and health effects. This paper summarises the available results regarding the analysis of uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane and argues for using the net-benefit approach when analysing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. The net-benefit approach avoids the interpretation and statistical problems related to the incremental cost effectiveness ratio and implies several advantages. First, traditional statistical methods can be used for confidence-interval estimation and hypothesis testing. Second, calculation of the optimal sample size and the power of the study are facilitated allowing the correlation between costs and effects to vary within and between patient groups. Third, the use of a Bayesian approach to cost-effectiveness analysis is facilitated. Fourth, a formal relation between cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and statistical inference is provided. Finally, the net-benefit approach gives the Fieller's limits of the confidence interval for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the cost-effectiveness plane. Based on these advantages the net-benefit approach should strongly be considered when analysing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Cost-minimization analysis of fingolimod compared with natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Fingolimod and natalizumab have the same European Union licence for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis, and are considered by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) to have broadly similar efficacy. OBJECTIVE: A cost-minimization analysis was performed to compare differences in treatment costs between fingolimod and natalizumab from a societal perspective in Sweden. METHODS: This analysis included costs associated with initiating and following treatment (physician visits and monitoring), continuing therapy (drugs and administration), and lost patient productivity and leisure time. Unit costs (in Swedish krona [SEK]) were based on regional data (median prices for physician visits and monitoring sessions). Natalizumab infusion costs were obtained from the national cost-per-patient database. Drug costs for both therapies were 15,651 SEK/28 days. RESULTS: After 3 years, fingolimod use was associated with savings of 124,823 SEK/patient compared with natalizumab (total cost/patient: 566,718 SEK vs 691,542 SEK). Cost savings with fingolimod were 40,402 SEK/patient after 1 year and 301,730 SEK/patient after 10 years. Treatment with natalizumab was 18% more expensive than fingolimod therapy after 1 year and 23% more expensive after 10 years. LIMITATIONS: Based on the CHMP assessment, it was assumed that fingolimod and natalizumab have similar efficacy. The analysis was conducted for Sweden, and caution is needed in extrapolating the results to other countries. CONCLUSION: Fingolimod is cost-saving compared with natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Sweden.