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.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of bortezomib re-treatment in patients with multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Bortezomib is administered for a finite course; thus, patients might remain sensitive to bortezomib-based therapy at relapse. We report a meta-analysis of bortezomib-based retreatment in relapsed/refractory myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified studies of bortezomib-based retreatment in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Proportions of bortezomib-refractory patients and additional prognostic factors were extracted and used in weighted stratified analyses of TTP and OS. Random-effect pooled estimates were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and rates of common AEs. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (n = 1051 patients) were identified. Bortezomib was administered intravenously in all studies. Across studies in which data were available, pooled, weighted average ORR was 39.1% (95% confidence interval, 30.8%-47.4%), and pooled, weighted average median TTP and OS were 7.5 and 16.6 months, respectively. Patients with fewer previous therapies (≤ 4) and relapsed (not refractory) patients achieved higher ORRs, of 43.4% and 57.2%, respectively. Random-effects meta-regression analysis confirmed that relapsed patients were associated with a higher ORR by 28 to 41 percentage points versus refractory patients. In relapsed patients, median TTP and OS were 8.5 and 19.7 months, respectively. Common Grade 3/4 AEs included thrombocytopenia (35%), neutropenia (15%), anemia (14%), pneumonia (10%), and peripheral neuropathy (3%). CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, bortezomib retreatment is well tolerated and appears efficacious in relapsed patients. In an era of new and emerging treatment options for relapsed and/or refractory myeloma, these data indicate that bortezomib retreatment might be a highly effective option in previously treated patients.

Health care costs and resource utilization, including patient burden, associated with novel-agent-based treatment versus other therapies for multiple myeloma: findings using real-world claims data.

BACKGROUND: . Treatment of multiple myeloma has dramatically improved with the introduction of bortezomib (BOR), thalidomide (THAL), and lenalidomide (LEN). Studies assessing health care costs, particularly economic burden on patients, are limited. We conducted a claims-based, retrospective analysis of total health care costs as well as patient burden (patient out-of-pocket costs and number of ambulatory/hospital visits) associated with BOR/THAL/LEN treatment versus other therapies (OTHER). METHODS. Treatment episodes starting between January 1, 2005 and September 30, 2010 were identified from the claims database of a large U.S. health plan. Health care costs and utilization were measured during 1 year after initiation and analyzed per treatment episode. Multivariate analyses were used to adjust for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and line of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 4,836 treatment episodes were identified. Mean adjusted total costs were similar between BOR ($112,889) and OTHER ($111,820), but higher with THAL ($129,412) and LEN ($158,428). Mean adjusted patient out-of-pocket costs were also similar for BOR ($3,846) and OTHER ($3,900) but remained higher with THAL ($4,666) and LEN ($4,483). Mean adjusted rates of ambulatory visits were similar across therapies (BOR: 69.67; THAL: 66.31; LEN: 65.60; OTHER: 69.42). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted analyses of real-world claims data show that total health care costs, as well as patient out-of-pocket costs, are higher with THAL/LEN treatment episodes than with BOR/OTHER therapies. Additionally, similar rates of ambulatory visits suggest that any perceived advantage in patient convenience of the orally administered drugs THAL/LEN is not supported by these data.

The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment of multiple myeloma in the U.S. with bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone versus thalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone or lenalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone with continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment.

The outlook for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients has improved enormously over recent years with the incorporation of new agents into standard regimens. Novel regimens combine melphalan and prednisone (MP) with bortezomib (VMP), with thalidomide (MPT), and with lenalidomide with (MPR-R) and without (MPR) lenalidomide maintenance. The efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these regimens have not yet been compared; therefore, we conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis using data from randomized controlled trials versus MP. Using a Markov model developed from a U.S. payer's perspective, we compared VMP with MPT and MPR-R over a lifetime horizon. MPT and MPR-R were chosen because, like VMP, they are superior to MP in response and outcomes. Data from the Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma (VISTA; VMP), Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM) 99-06 (MPT), and MM-015 (MPR-R) trials were used. The IFM 99-06 study was selected because of the superior activity in this study compared with other MPT studies. Using patient-level (VMP) and published (MPT, MPR-R) data, we estimated the health-state transition and adverse event probabilities for each regimen, related costs, and state-specific utility estimates. Costs (in 2010 U.S. dollars) and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. Discounted lifetime direct medical costs were lowest with VMP at $119,102. MPT cost $142,452 whereas MPR-R cost $248,358. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculations projected that VMP would confer cost savings and better health outcomes relative to MPT and MPR-R. We conclude that VMP is highly likely to be cost-effective compared with MP, MPT, and MPR-R.