Treatment sequences and drug costs from diagnosis to death in multiple myeloma.

Novel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) have improved patient survival, but their high costs strain healthcare budgets. End-of-life phases of treatment are generally the most expensive, however, these high costs may be less justifiable in the context of a less pronounced clinical benefit. To manage drug expenses effectively, detailed information on end-of-life drug administration and costs are crucial. In this retrospective study, we analysed treatment sequences and drug costs from 96 MM patients in the Netherlands who died between January 2017 and July 2019. Patients received up to 16 lines of therapy (median overall survival: 56.5 months), with average lifetime costs of €209 871 (€3111/month; range: €3942-€776 185) for anti-MM drugs. About 85% of patients received anti-MM treatment in the last 3 months before death, incurring costs of €20 761 (range: €70-€50 122; 10% of total). Half of the patients received anti-MM treatment in the last 14 days, mainly fully oral regimens (66%). End-of-life treatment costs are substantial despite limited survival benefits. The use of expensive treatment options is expected to increase costs further. These data serve as a reference point for future cost studies, and further research is needed to identify factors predicting the efficacy and clinical benefit of continuing end-of-life therapy.

Extrapolating empirical long-term survival data: the impact of updated follow-up data and parametric extrapolation methods on survival estimates in multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: In economic evaluations, survival is often extrapolated to smooth out the Kaplan-Meier estimate and because the available data (e.g., from randomized controlled trials) are often right censored. Validation of the accuracy of extrapolated results can depend on the length of follow-up and the assumptions made about the survival hazard. Here, we analyze the accuracy of different extrapolation techniques while varying the data cut-off to estimate long-term survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. METHODS: Empirical data were available from a randomized controlled trial and a registry for MM patients treated with melphalan + prednisone, thalidomide, and bortezomib- based regimens. Standard parametric and spline models were fitted while artificially reducing follow-up by introducing database locks. The maximum follow-up for these locks varied from 3 to 13 years. Extrapolated (conditional) restricted mean survival time (RMST) was compared to the Kaplan-Meier RMST and models were selected according to statistical tests, and visual fit. RESULTS: For all treatments, the RMST error decreased when follow-up and the absolute number of events increased, and censoring decreased. The decline in RMST error was highest when maximum follow-up exceeded six years. However, even when censoring is low there can still be considerable deviations in the extrapolated RMST conditional on survival until extrapolation when compared to the KM-estimate. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that both standard parametric and spline models could be worthy candidates when extrapolating survival for the populations examined. Nevertheless, researchers and decision makers should be wary of uncertainty in results even when censoring has decreased, and the number of events has increased.

Quality of life gains in frail and intermediate-fit patients with multiple Myeloma: Findings from the prospective HOVON123 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients is associated with treatment-related toxicity, which negatively affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Currently, data on changes in HRQoL of frail and intermediate-fit MM patients during active treatment and post-treatment follow-up are absent. METHODS: The HOVON123 study (NTR4244) was a phase II trial in which NDMM patients ≥ 75 years were treated with nine dose-adjusted cycles of Melphalan-Prednisone-Bortezomib (MPV). Two HRQoL instruments (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -MY20) were obtained before start of treatment, after 3 and 9 months of treatment and 6 and 12 months after treatment for patients who did not yet start second-line treatment. HRQoL changes and/or differences in frail and intermediate-fit patients (IMWG frailty score) were reported only when both statistically significant (p < 0.005) and clinically relevant (>MID). RESULTS: 137 frail and 71 intermediate-fit patients were included in the analysis. Compliance was high and comparable in both groups. At baseline, frail patients reported lower global health status, lower physical functioning scores and more fatigue and pain compared to intermediate-fit patients. Both groups improved in global health status and future perspective; polyneuropathy complaints worsened over time. Frail patients improved over time in physical functioning, fatigue and pain. Improvement in global health status occurred earlier than in intermediate-fit patients. CONCLUSION: HRQoL improved during anti-myeloma treatment in both intermediate-fit and frail MM patients. In frail patients, improvement occurred faster and, in more domains, which was retained during follow-up. This implies that physicians should not withhold safe and effective therapies from frail patients in fear of HRQoL deterioration.

Real-world costs of autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantations for haematological diseases: a multicentre study.

Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is an expensive lifesaving procedure, which is increasingly performed in patients with haematological diseases. Developments in the protocol for SCT have resulted in cost estimates that require updating. We aimed to calculate actual costs for SCT and to identify major cost drivers by means of a daily practice cost study. We randomly selected 191 patients, treated at three university hospitals, who underwent an autologous (auto) SCT or allogeneic (allo) SCT in 2007, 2008 or 2009. Allo-SCT included sibling donors, matched unrelated donors (MUD) and umbilical cord blood (UCB). Resource use was collected from the hospital registration systems and medical files. The total costs included selection and harvesting of stem cells, transplantation and 1-year follow-up. The average costs per patient were 45,670 € for auto-SCT and 101,919 € for sibling allo-SCT. The costs of transplantations from unrelated donors were much higher: 171,478 € for allo-SCT-MUD and 254,689 € for allo-SCT-UCB. Hospital inpatient days together with laboratory and other activities were the main cost drivers across all types of SCT. Besides, donor search costs were a large cost component in allo-SCT-sib (18 %) and allo-SCT-MUD (12 %). Real-world costs were above routine reimbursement and appropriate financing is necessary to guarantee the continuation of SCT. The costs calculated in this study provide reliable up-to-date input for cost-effectiveness studies and budget revision.

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs. METHODS: Analyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch population-based registry including patients diagnosed with primary mRCC from January 2008 to December 2010 (i.e., treated between 2008 and 2013). The full disease course of these patients was estimated using a patient-level simulation model based on regression analyses of the registry data. A healthcare sector perspective was adopted; total costs included healthcare costs related to mRCC. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the overall uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In current daily practice, 54% (336/621) of all patients was treated with targeted therapies. Most patients (84%; 282/336) received sunitinib as first-line therapy. Of the patients receiving first-line therapy, 30% (101/336) also received second-line therapy; the majority was treated with everolimus (40%, 40/101) or sorafenib (28%, 28/101). Current treatment practice (including patients not receiving targeted therapy) led to 0.807 QALYs; mean costs were €58,912. This resulted in an additional €105,011 per QALY gained compared to not using targeted therapy at all. Forty-six percent of all patients received no targeted therapy; of these patients, 24% (69/285) was eligible for sunitinib. If these patients were treated with first-line sunitinib, mean QALYs would improve by 0.062-0.076 (where the range reflects the choice of second-line therapy). This improvement is completely driven by the health gain seen amongst patients eligible to receive sunitinib but did not receive it, who gain 0.558-0.684 QALYs from sunitinib. Since additional costs would be €7,072-9,913, incremental costs per QALY gained are €93,107-111,972 compared to current practice. DISCUSSION: Health can be gained if more treatment-eligible patients receive targeted therapies. Moreover, it will be just as cost-effective to treat these patients with sunitinib as current treatment practice.

Access to expensive cancer drugs in Dutch daily practice: should we be concerned?

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether equal access to bortezomib has been achieved under the Dutch policy regulations that guarantee equal access to expensive inpatient drugs. METHODS: We investigated accessibility to bortezomib treatment at national and regional levels by (i) conducting interviews with stakeholders in the Dutch healthcare system to explore prescription barriers and (ii) tabulating sales data from 2004-2009 and trial participation rates. RESULTS: Interviews revealed awareness of the high treatment costs, although prescription barriers were not encountered. National use of bortezomib increased slowly (treating 2% of patients in 2004 to 17% in 2009), indicating a long adjustment period. Furthermore, use remains below the rate estimated by the professional association of haematologists (27%). Regional differences were found for both daily practice use (e.g. ranging from 13-27% in 2009) and clinical trial participation (e.g. ranging from 1-12% in 2006). CONCLUSION: Our results were somewhat conflicting: interviews did not reveal any prescription barriers, but quantitative methods showed regional differences, signs of underutilisation, and access inequality. Investigating use and accessibility, based on data triangulation, provides valuable feedback which can enhance evidence-based decision making for both physicians and policymakers. This could improve appropriate and efficient use and ensure equal access to expensive drugs.