Pomalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Lenalidomide-Pretreated Multiple Myeloma: A Subanalysis of OPTIMISMM by Frailty and Bortezomib Dose Adjustment.

INTRODUCTION: A proportion of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are older and/or have comorbidities, requiring dose adjustments. Data from OPTIMISMM (NCT01734928) supported the use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) for treating relapsed/refractory MM. This subanalysis of OPTIMISMM assessed outcome by frailty and/or bortezomib dose adjustment. METHODS: Patient frailty (nonfrail vs. frail) was classified using age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Data from patients requiring a bortezomib dose reduction, interruption, and/or withdrawal during PVd treatment were assessed. RESULTS: Among 559 patients, 93 of 281 (33.1%) and 93 of 278 (33.5%) patients who received PVd and bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), respectively, were frail. Overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were higher in nonfrail vs. frail with PVd treatment (ORR, 82.8% vs. 79.6%; PFS, 14.7 vs. 9.7 months); significantly higher than with Vd regardless of frailty. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were higher with PVd vs. Vd, regardless of frailty. Discontinuations of PVd were lower in nonfrail vs. frail patients (19.2% vs. 30.1%); the median duration of treatment was similar (DoT; 8.8 vs. 8.9 months, respectively). Patients who received PVd with a bortezomib dose adjustment (n = 240) had a longer median DoT (9.3 vs. 4.5 months) and PFS (12.1 vs. 8.4 months) vs. those without. CONCLUSION: Frail patients treated with PVd demonstrated a higher ORR and a longer PFS and DoT vs. Vd, despite a higher frequency of grade ≥ 3 TEAEs leading to pomalidomide, bortezomib, and/or dexamethasone discontinuation. Therefore, PVd treatment may improve patient outcomes, regardless of frailty.

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Pomalidomide-Based Regimens for the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma After Lenalidomide Exposure.

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to assess the benefit of pomalidomide-based combination regimens in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) previously treated with lenalidomide. A pooled estimate was obtained for efficacy outcomes including overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, and progression-free survival (PFS) based on multiple trials conducted in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on March 22, 2022 for relevant trials published between January 1, 2016 and the search date. The search identified 12 eligible trials with publications dated between 2016 and 2021. The meta-analyses were conducted among the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (patients treated in all lines of therapy) and 2 subpopulations: 2L (only patients treated in the second line [2L]) and ≥2L (patients treated in the 2L and beyond). RESULTS: From the meta-analyses, ORR was 69.9% for ITT, 74.4% for ≥2L, and 87.2% for 2L. CR rate was 12.1% for ITT, 17.6% for ≥2L, and 29.7% for 2L. One-year PFS rates were 55.1% for ITT, 59.1% for ≥2L, and 74.0% for 2L. Two-year PFS rates were 29.3% for ITT, 36.0% for ≥2L, and 41.9% for 2L. CONCLUSION: Pomalidomide-based combination regimens were effective in patients with RRMM previously treated with lenalidomide and tended to be associated with better outcomes when used earlier in the treatment pathway. A drug class switch may not always be necessary when making treatment decisions for patients with RRMM for whom the benefits of lenalidomide have been exhausted, although this must be supported by comparative studies.

Building a Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology Added Value Framework for Hematologic Malignancies: A Comparative Analysis of Existing Tools.

OBJECTIVES: The Innovative Medicines Initiative-funded, multistakeholders project Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology (HARMONY) created a task force involving patient organizations, medical associations, pharmaceutical companies, and health technology assessment/regulator agencies' representatives to evaluate the suitability of previously established value frameworks (VFs) for assessing the clinical and societal impact of new interventions for hematologic malignancies (HMs). METHODS: Since the HARMONY stakeholders identified the inclusion of patients' points of view on evaluating VFs as a priority, surveys were conducted with the patient organizations active in HMs and part of the HARMONY network, together with key opinion leaders, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators, to establish which outcomes were important for each HM. Next, to evaluate VFs against the sources of information taken into account (randomized clinical trials, registries, real-world data), structured questionnaires were created and filled by HARMONY health professionals to specify preferred data sources per malignancy. Finally, a framework evaluation module was built to analyze existing clinical VFs (American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, and patient-perspective VF). RESULTS: The comparative analysis describes challenges and opportunities for the use of each framework in the context of HMs and drafts possible lines of action for creating or integrating a more specific, patient-focused clinical VF for HMs. CONCLUSIONS: None of the frameworks meets the HARMONY goals for a tool that applies to HMs and assesses in a transparent, reproducible, and systematic way the therapeutic value of innovative health technologies versus available alternatives, taking a patient-centered approach and using real-world evidence.

Indirect treatment comparison of idecabtagene vicleucel versus conventional care in triple-class exposed multiple myeloma.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) versus conventional care (CC) in triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Patients & methods: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient-level data from the pivotal, phase II, single-arm KarMMa trial (NCT03361748) and aggregate-level data from MAMMOTH, the largest independent observational study of CC in heavily pretreated RRMM patients. Results: Ide-cel improved overall response rate (odds ratio: 5.30; 95% CI: 2.96-9.51), progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.36-0.70) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.56) versus CC. Conclusion: These results suggest ide-cel offers improvements in clinical outcomes relative to CC in this heavily pretreated RRMM population.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Triple-Class Exposed Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Findings From the Multinational ITEMISE Study.

PURPOSE: Patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options after exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor (PI), and anti-CD38 antibody (triple-class exposure [TCE]). However, current understanding about the management of these patients and associated health care resource use (HCRU) is limited outside the United States. The objective of the International Treatment pattern and resource use Evaluation for Multiple myeloma In a Study of triple-class Exposed patients (ITEMISE) study was to use a physician-developed survey fielded to hematologists across Europe and Canada to assess the treatment, management, HCRU, and end-of-life care for patients with RRMM after TCE. METHODS: The ITEMISE study used a 3-phase Delphi-like approach that consisted of in-depth interviews with 7 hematology experts; the development of a cross-sectional survey fielded to hematologists across Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom from August to October 2020; and a final workshop of hematology experts to validate the pooled findings. Hematologists were asked to consider the management of patients in the first 3 treatment lines after TCE, including treatment options, treatment duration and outcomes, and frequency of outpatient visits and hospitalizations. FINDINGS: The survey was completed by 202 hematologists (60% from academic hospitals, 38% from other public hospitals, and 2% from private hospitals). Hematologists estimated that 55% of patients would receive active treatment after TCE, the equivalent of fourth-line treatment onward since diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Immunomodulatory drug, anti-CD38 antibody plus immunomodulatory drug, and PI-based regimens (received by 22.5%, 17.8%, and 15.1% of patients, respectively) were reported for first treatment strategy after TCE. Pomalidomide, daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and carfilzomib were the most frequently selected antimyeloma agents. Associated outcomes of median overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate for first treatment after TCE were estimated as 12 months, 4 months, and 40%, respectively. HCRU included outpatient visits and unplanned hospitalizations that were commonly reported during treatment after TCE. IMPLICATIONS: Findings indicate an intent to actively treat patients after TCE with a range of combination regimens frequently consisting of immunomodulatory drugs, PIs, and anti-CD38 antibodies, highlighting the lack of standard of care and suggesting a large clinical unmet need. Estimated clinical outcomes are consistent with data from US studies and indicate the poor prognosis for patients after TCE. Substantial HCRU is associated with management of patients after TCE across Europe and Canada, signifying a high patient and societal impact and a need for better treatment options to reduce this burden.

Real-world analysis of patient characteristics, treatment outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization across Europe in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for stem cell transplantation who received lenalidomide- or bortezomib-based regimens.

We aimed to compare real-world outcomes, resource use, and costs for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with continuous first-line (1 L) lenalidomide or fixed bortezomib in Europe. We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational chart review of transplant-ineligible NDMM patients across 7 countries. Of 453 eligible patients, 220 received 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens; 105 (47.7%) received second-line (2 L) treatment, of which 50 (47.6%) received 2 L bortezomib. 233 patients received 1 L bortezomib-based regimens; 142 (60.9%) had 2 L treatment, of which 104 (73.2%) received 2 L lenalidomide. Patients receiving 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens had better progression-free survival than patients receiving 1 L bortezomib-based regimens (p = .002) and a longer time to 2 L or third-line treatment (both p < .05). Total treatment-associated monthly costs for patients receiving 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens (n = 171, €2,268.55) were significantly greater than for 1 L bortezomib-based regimens (n = 188, €1,724.77) (p < .001) over the follow-up period (median, 38.7 months).

Matching adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy outcomes for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) versus selinexor + dexamethasone and belantamab mafodotin in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, has been investigated in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody in the single-arm phase 2 KarMMa clinical trial. Two therapies with distinct mechanisms of action - selinexor plus dexamethasone (Sd) and belantamab mafodotin (BM) - are currently approved in the United States for heavily pretreated patients, including those who are triple-class refractory. To compare ide-cel versus Sd and ide-cel versus BM, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were performed. Ide-cel extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus both Sd and BM (hazard ratio (HR); 95% confidence interval (CI)). PFS: ide-cel versus Sd, 0.46; 0.28-0.75; ide-cel versus BM, 0.45; 0.27-0.77. OS: ide-cel versus Sd, 0.23; 0.13-0.42; ide-cel versus BM, 0.35; 0.14-0.87. These results suggest ide-cel offers clinically meaningful improvements over currently approved regimens for patients with heavily pretreated RRMM.

Lenalidomide as maintenance treatment for patients with multiple myeloma after autologous stem cell transplantation: A pharmaco-economic assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM); however, relapse occurs. Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (Len-Mt) extends survival and delays relapse and the subsequent initiation of costly second-line regimens. Here, we report the cost-effectiveness of Len-Mt following ASCT from a Dutch healthcare service perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and benefits for patients with NDMM. Efficacy was taken from a pooled meta-analysis of clinical trial data. Costs and subsequent therapy data were taken from sources appropriate for the Dutch market. RESULTS: Lenalidomide produced a quality-adjusted life year gain of 2.46 and a life year gain of 2.79 vs no maintenance treatment. The cost of lenalidomide was partially offset by savings of EUR 77 462 in subsequent treatment costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Len-Mt vs no maintenance treatment was EUR 30 143. Key model drivers included subsequent therapies, dosing schedule, and time horizon. CONCLUSION: Lenalidomide is cost-effective after ASCT vs no maintenance therapy in the Netherlands. By extending PFS, lenalidomide delays the cost burdens associated with relapse and subsequent treatment lines.

Health-related quality-of-life results from the phase 3 OPTIMISMM study: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and low-dose dexamethasone versus bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

In the randomized phase-3 OPTIMISMM study, the addition of pomalidomide to bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone (PVd) resulted in significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), including lenalidomide refractory patients. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from this trial. Patients received PVd or Vd in 21-day cycles until disease progression or discontinuation. HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-MY20, and EQ-5D-3L instruments on day 1 of each treatment cycle. Mean score changes for global QoL, physical functioning, fatigue, side effects of treatment domains, and EQ-5D-3L index were generally stable over time across treatment arms. The proportion of patients who experienced clinically meaningful worsening in global QoL and other domains of interest was similar. These HRQoL results with PVd along with previously demonstrated improvement in PFS vs Vd continue to support its use in patients with RRMM.

Health-related quality of life results from the IFM 2009 trial: treatment with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome 2009 trial (NCT01191060) assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) receiving lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) induction therapy followed by consolidation therapy with either autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) plus RVd (RVd-ASCT) or RVd-alone; both groups then received lenalidomide maintenance therapy for 1 year. Global HRQoL, physical functioning, and role functioning scores significantly improved for both cohorts from baseline to the end of consolidation and were sustained during maintenance and follow-up, with clinically meaningful changes (RVd-alone: p = .0002; RVd-ASCT: p < .001). Similarly, both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in fatigue, pain, and disease symptom scores. Side effects of treatment scores remained stable. In the RVd-ASCT group, there was transient worsening in HRQoL immediately after ASCT. These findings suggest that the clinical improvements observed with RVd-based treatment are accompanied by overall improvements in HRQoL for patients with NDMM.

Relative efficacy of treatment options in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results from a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

Established treatments for transplant-ineligible (TNE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) include melphalan and prednisone (MP) combined with either bortezomib (VMP) or thalidomide (MPT), or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). New treatments for TNE NDMM include Rd plus bortezomib (RVd) and daratumumab plus VMP (VMP + D), daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D + Rd). Relative efficacy of these treatments was compared using a network meta-analysis. Eight trials identified by a systematic literature review were included in the primary analysis; hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used. Rd was superior to other MP-based regimens for OS and PFS. There was strong evidence that, compared with Rd, both D + Rd and RVd improved PFS (HR 0.57; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.43, 0.73 and HR 0.72; 95% CrI 0.56, 0.91, respectively). However, there was strong evidence only for RVd in respect to OS (HR 0.72; 95% CrI 0.52, 0.96).

Productivity losses in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma following stem cell transplantation and the impact of maintenance therapy.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined productivity losses in European patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), to better understand and model the impact of NDMM and lenalidomide maintenance therapy on productivity from a patient and societal perspective. METHODS: A cross-sectional online patient survey was conducted across the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. A partitioned survival model was used to estimate productivity loss and the impact of maintenance therapy, using human capital (HC) and friction cost approaches. RESULTS: Of the 115 eligible survey respondents, 76.5% were economically active at the time of diagnosis and highlighted return to work as an important factor affecting their quality of life; only 39.1% of respondents were economically active post-ASCT. HC analyses estimated average total productivity losses per ASCT patient at EUR 290,601 over a 20-year period. Modelling the impact of maintenance therapy alone for these patients reduced average productivity losses by just over 10%. CONCLUSION: Patients with NDMM aspire to engage in productive lives post-ASCT, but most are unable to do so. Access to treatments extending remission and supporting engagement in a productive life can have a positive impact both for patients and wider society.

Health related quality of life for multiple myeloma patients according to treatment strategy after autologous stem cell transplant: a cross-sectional study using EORTC, EQ-5D and MY-20 scales.

Maintenance (MT) may be prescribed after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but there are often concerns about the impact on quality of life (QoL). QoL was compared between baseline patients (30-100 days post-ASCT and had not commenced MT); MT patients (>100 days post-ASCT and receiving MT), and no MT (>100 days post-ASCT and not receiving MT). Patients completed the EuroQoL five dimension (EQ-5D), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the QoL Questionnaire Myeloma 20 module (QLQ-MY20). Differences between groups were explored with ordinary least squares regressions. Across US and Canada, 303 patients participated. Regression analyses found few differences between MT and no MT. Only diarrhea (EORTC-QLQ C30) and future perspectives (MY-20) domains differentiated; patients on MT scored worse for diarrhea (+9.43; p = .0358) and future perspectives (-11.39; p = .0196). Collectively, the results suggest that MT is not associated with a notable QoL detriment.

The Role of Real-World Evidence in UK Reimbursement: Case Study of Lenalidomide in Myelodysplastic Syndrome Deletion 5q.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty within cost-effectiveness analysis, often driven by lack of mature data from large clinical trials, plays a key role in decisions made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), particularly for early access medicines and orphan drugs. OBJECTIVES: In this case study, we used real-world evidence to address the uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness case for lenalidomide in transfusion-dependent low- and intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) deletion 5q [del(5q)], affecting a small but unique subpopulation with an orphan disease. METHODS: As part of a submission to NICE, we developed a cost-effectiveness model for lenalidomide, resulting in eventual recommendation. RESULTS: Due to data limitations within the trial evidence available, the model was based on surrogate outcomes supported by a disease-wide literature review. The validity of modelled estimates for critical long-term outcomes in terms of time on treatment (32% reaching 26 cycles when the patient access scheme applied in the model vs. 28% in the real-world data) and survival was confirmed using real-world evidence (projected median survival for best supportive care of 4.3 years vs. real-world evidence showing median survival with low- and intermediate-1-risk MDS of 5.7 and 3.5 years, respectively). CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrates the usefulness and relevance of the application of real-world data when trial data are limited.

Chart review across EU5 in MM post-ASCT patients.

AIM: To understand the current treatment patterns, clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization-associated costs for multiple myeloma patients, post autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) across Europe. PATIENTS & METHODS: Medical records were used to abstract data for 337 multiple myeloma patients who had received ASCT. RESULTS: Following ASCT, 7% received maintenance therapy prior to progression. Lenalidomide was the most frequently prescribed maintenance, second- and third-line therapy. Monthly resource use was considerably lower in patients who received maintenance therapy (€638.14 vs €1001.74). Median time to progression was longer for patients who had received maintenance therapy. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the diversity in current treatment patterns post-ASCT. Results suggest patients who receive maintenance therapy have a prolonged remission period, and as a result their associated healthcare resource utilization is spread across the treatment pathway.

The Cost Impact of Lenalidomide for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma in the EU5.

INTRODUCTION: Lenalidomide is an active agent that was approved for use in the EU in 2015 as a first-line therapy for previously untreated, non-transplant eligible multiple myeloma patients. Our objective was to assess the cost impact of lenalidomide when selected as a first-line treatment for transplant-ineligible patients in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (EU5). METHODS: We developed a cost-impact model of the total costs associated with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma over 5 years in the EU5 based on treatment duration and time to progression (TTP) (taken from trial data). We compared a baseline scenario (of current lenalidomide uptake) with two alternative future scenarios. Future Scenario A used an increased uptake of first-line lenalidomide: up to 50% in Year 5. Future Scenario B was similar to the baseline, but included a 20% increased uptake of the triple therapy regimen, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) at second line. RESULTS: Compared to alternative first-line care pathways, lenalidomide provides a time to progression advantage of up to 5.1 months. In the baseline scenario, the costs per patient were €40,692 in Year 1. Future Scenario A showed an additional expenditure of €867 per patient in Year 1, increasing to €3358 per patient by Year 5, a 2.1% and 8.2% increase from baseline, respectively. However, lenalidomide use was associated with a lower monthly hospitalisation per-patient cost (€813) compared with bortezomib (€1173) and thalidomide (€1532). Future Scenario B was associated with a 29% increase in cost. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other first line therapies, lenalidomide delays time to progression resulting in associated savings across a patient's treatment pathway and overall is likely to result in a limited impact on budget. Lenalidomide should, therefore, be considered as a first treatment option for multiple myeloma patients ineligible for transplant. FUNDING: Celgene Ltd.

Association between Transfusion Status and Overall Survival in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple studies show that transfusion independence (TI) in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) has a positive impact on overall survival (OS). To assess this, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between TI and OS in patients with MDS was conducted (PROSPERO ID: CRD42014007264). METHODS: Comprehensive searches of 5 key bibliographic databases were conducted and supplemented with additional search techniques. Included were studies that had recruited adults aged >18 years with MDS and had examined the impact of transfusion status on OS. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies (89 citations) were included. The vast majority reported a statistically significant hazard ratio (HR) for OS in favor of TI patients or in patients who acquired TI after treatment. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Patients classed as TI at baseline showed a 59% decrease in the risk of death compared with transfusion-dependent (TD) patients [HR 0.41; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.29-0.56], and this effect did not appear to interact significantly with illness severity (interaction coefficient HR 1.38; 95% CrI 0.62-3.41). A meta-analysis of studies where patients acquired TI was not possible, but those studies consistently reported a survival benefit for those who acquired TI. CONCLUSION: The findings revealed a 59% pooled reduction in mortality among TI patients when compared with TD patients.

Overall survival of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients after adjusting for crossover in the MM-003 trial for pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone.

In the phase III MM-003 trial, pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) improved overall survival (OS) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in 455 patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Here, a two-stage Weibull method was used to adjust for the crossover of patients in the HiDEX arm to pomalidomide-based therapy. The adjusted difference in median OS between patients in the POM+LoDEX and HiDEX arms was 7·0 months (12·7 vs. 5·7 months, respectively). These findings provide important evidence for understanding the clinical efficacy of pomalidomide on OS benefits seen in RRMM patients.

Lenalidomide for multiple myeloma: cost-effectiveness in patients with one prior therapy in England and Wales.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) versus DEX alone in managing multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have failed one prior therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An individual simulation model was designed to capture the costs and outcomes of LEN/DEX versus DEX therapy in relapsed refractory MM patients. MM009/010 efficacy data were adjusted for treatment cross-over and extrapolated to patient lifetime. Resource use for MM disease progression and adverse events were obtained from expert physicians and costed from the perspective of the National Health Service (England and UK) and included a patient access scheme for LEN. Utility values were obtained from published literature. RESULTS: The simulation model estimated an incremental improvement in time to progression of 9.5 months, an additional 3.2 life-years, and 2.2 quality adjusted life years (QALY) for LEN/DEX compared to DEX alone. Including the costs of therapy with the patient access scheme, adverse events, and disease follow-up, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £30,153/QALY for LEN/DEX compared to DEX alone in MM patients who have failed one prior therapy. CONCLUSION: LEN/DEX is a cost effective oncology therapy from the perspective of the NHS for MM patients with one prior treatment.