IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v37y2019i12d10.1007_s40273-019-00828-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Transplant, Conventional Chemotherapy, and Novel Agents in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Shuangshuang Fu

    (The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Chi-Fang Wu

    (The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston)

  • Michael Wang

    (The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • David R. Lairson

    (The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston)

Abstract

Background Treatments for multiple myeloma (MM) have been rapidly evolving. Newly developed treatment regimens are likely to be more effective but also cost more than conventional therapies. Objective We conducted a systematic review to compare the cost effectiveness of different classes of MM treatment. Methods We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases for studies published during 1990–2018 comparing the cost effectiveness of transplant, chemotherapeutic and novel MM treatments. Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility by two investigators. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the 16-item, validated Quality of Health Economics Studies instrument. Results Twenty-four publications were included in the systematic review and summarized according to treatment regimen and line. For first-line treatment, transplant was the most cost-effective option for transplant-eligible MM patients [the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $4053–€45,460 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and $3848–$72,852 per life-year gained (LYG)], and the ICER for novel agents compared with conventional chemotherapy was $59,076 per QALY and $220,681 per LYG. For second-line treatment, in comparisons of novel agent-based regimens, ICERs were inconsistent. However, bortezomib-based regimens, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone were each cost effective compared with dexamethasone alone (ICERs showed cost saving, £30,153 per QALY gained, and €39,911 per LYG, respectively). Conclusions For transplant-eligible MM patients, transplant is a cost-effective first-line treatment. More cost-effectiveness analyses comparing novel agents in the first-line treatment regimen are warranted to determine which agent or regimen is the most cost effective. In the second-line setting, it is unclear which novel agent-based regimen is most cost effective, but bortezomib-based regimens, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone were each cost effective compared with dexamethasone alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuangshuang Fu & Chi-Fang Wu & Michael Wang & David R. Lairson, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Transplant, Conventional Chemotherapy, and Novel Agents in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(12), pages 1421-1449, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00828-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00828-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00828-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-019-00828-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00828-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.