Cost utility and budget impact analysis of dexamethasone compared with bortezomib and lenalidomide for the treatment of second line multiple myeloma from a South African public health perspective.
Bortezomib
Cost effectiveness
Lenalidomide
Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
Second-line treatment
Journal
Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E
ISSN: 1478-7547
Titre abrégé: Cost Eff Resour Alloc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170476
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Dec 2022
12 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
01
03
2022
accepted:
09
11
2022
entrez:
12
12
2022
pubmed:
13
12
2022
medline:
13
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multiple myeloma is an incurable haematological malignancy that is associated with a high probability of relapse. The survival of relapsed patients has been greatly improved by the development of novel drugs such as lenalidomide and bortezomib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of these drugs as second-line treatment for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients in the South African public health care system. We modelled 3 treatment strategies for second-line RRMM treatment: dexamethasone (standard of care), bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) from the South African public health perspective. For each strategy we modelled a hypothetical cohort of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients using a three-state Markov model over a 15-year time horizon. Efficacy and utilization data were obtained from the MM009/010 and APEX trials and external studies. Price and cost data were from local sources and presented in 2021 South African Rands. Outcomes were reported in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for BORT and LEN/DEX and compared to a local cost-effectiveness threshold of R38 500 per DALY averted using the assumption that 1 DALY averted is equal to 1 QALY gained. A budget impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the financial impact of the introduction of BORT and LEN/DEX, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties. The modelled total costs of DEX, BORT and LEN/DEX were estimated to be R8 312, R234 996 and R1 135 323, respectively. DEX treatment provided 1.14 QALYs while BORT and LEN/DEX treatments provided 1.49 and 2.22 QALYs, respectively. The ICER of BORT versus DEX was R654 649 and that of LEN/DEX versus BORT was R1 225 542. Both BORT and LEN/DEX treatments were not cost-effective relative to a cost-effectiveness threshold of R38 500 per DALY averted. Both BORT and LEN/DEX significantly increase the 1 year budget-cost of RRMM treatment. Both BORT and LEN/DEX treatments are unlikely to be cost-effective strategies for second-line treatment of RRMM in South Africa. The results indicate that the drug prices of lenalidomide and bortezomib are key drivers of value for money. Price reductions could potentially make BORT more cost-effective.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma is an incurable haematological malignancy that is associated with a high probability of relapse. The survival of relapsed patients has been greatly improved by the development of novel drugs such as lenalidomide and bortezomib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of these drugs as second-line treatment for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients in the South African public health care system.
METHODS
METHODS
We modelled 3 treatment strategies for second-line RRMM treatment: dexamethasone (standard of care), bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) from the South African public health perspective. For each strategy we modelled a hypothetical cohort of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients using a three-state Markov model over a 15-year time horizon. Efficacy and utilization data were obtained from the MM009/010 and APEX trials and external studies. Price and cost data were from local sources and presented in 2021 South African Rands. Outcomes were reported in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for BORT and LEN/DEX and compared to a local cost-effectiveness threshold of R38 500 per DALY averted using the assumption that 1 DALY averted is equal to 1 QALY gained. A budget impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the financial impact of the introduction of BORT and LEN/DEX, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The modelled total costs of DEX, BORT and LEN/DEX were estimated to be R8 312, R234 996 and R1 135 323, respectively. DEX treatment provided 1.14 QALYs while BORT and LEN/DEX treatments provided 1.49 and 2.22 QALYs, respectively. The ICER of BORT versus DEX was R654 649 and that of LEN/DEX versus BORT was R1 225 542. Both BORT and LEN/DEX treatments were not cost-effective relative to a cost-effectiveness threshold of R38 500 per DALY averted. Both BORT and LEN/DEX significantly increase the 1 year budget-cost of RRMM treatment.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both BORT and LEN/DEX treatments are unlikely to be cost-effective strategies for second-line treatment of RRMM in South Africa. The results indicate that the drug prices of lenalidomide and bortezomib are key drivers of value for money. Price reductions could potentially make BORT more cost-effective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36510230
doi: 10.1186/s12962-022-00399-4
pii: 10.1186/s12962-022-00399-4
pmc: PMC9746097
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
69Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Jun;14(3):507-14
pubmed: 22572968
J Med Econ. 2011;14(6):690-7
pubmed: 21892856
Cancer Manag Res. 2013 Apr 10;5:37-48
pubmed: 23596356
Blood. 2012 May 31;119(22):5078-87
pubmed: 22461494
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Apr;14(4):e142-51
pubmed: 23561745
Blood. 2006 Nov 15;108(10):3458-64
pubmed: 16840727
Eur J Haematol. 2018 Apr 20;:
pubmed: 29676004
Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Dec;60(12):2951-2959
pubmed: 31161831
J Med Econ. 2013;16(5):614-22
pubmed: 23281721
Cancer Manag Res. 2018 Aug 21;10:2817-2823
pubmed: 30174457
Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A736
pubmed: 27202638
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Dec 1;94(12):925-930
pubmed: 27994285
Leukemia. 2009 Nov;23(11):2147-52
pubmed: 19626046
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jan;220:362-370
pubmed: 30513486
Blood. 2007 Nov 15;110(10):3557-60
pubmed: 17690257
Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Feb 1;93(2):118-24
pubmed: 25883405
Eur J Haematol. 2010 Dec;85(6):484-91
pubmed: 20846301
Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):929-935
pubmed: 27987642
Medwave. 2018 Jun 29;18(3):e7220
pubmed: 29958267
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Jun 1;35(5):546-555
pubmed: 32125375
Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389(10068):519-527
pubmed: 28017406
Eur J Cancer. 2004 May;40(8):1159-69
pubmed: 15110879
Leukemia. 2011 May;25(5):749-60
pubmed: 21293488
Adv Hematol. 2019 Jan 29;2019:4625787
pubmed: 30838045
S Afr Med J. 2020 Nov 24;111(1):20-22
pubmed: 33404000
J Med Econ. 2020 Oct;23(10):1168-1175
pubmed: 32669063