Cost-Effectiveness of Novel Agent Regimens for Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients in India.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes for multiple myeloma have improved dramatically since the introduction of novel therapeutic agents. While these drugs are highly effective in improving survival outcomes and quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma, they come at a significant cost. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of bortezomib-based triplet or quadruplet drug regimens in isolation and followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) in the Indian context. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the health and economic outcomes of novel drug regimens with and without AHSCT for the treatment of NDMM in India. We estimated the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in each scenario. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed and compared against the current willingness-to-pay threshold of a one-time per capita gross domestic product of ₹146,890 (US$1,927.70) for India. Parameter uncertainty was assessed through Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Among seven treatment sequences, the VCd (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone) alone arm has the lowest cost and health benefits as compared to four treatment sequences, namely VTd (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone) alone, VRd (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) alone, VRd plus AHSCT and DVRd (Daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) plus AHSCT. It was found that VTd plus AHSCT and VCd plus AHSCT arms were extendedly dominated (ED) by combination of two alternative treatments. Among the five non-dominated strategies, VRd has a lowest incremental cost of ₹ 2,20,093 (US$2,888) per QALY gained compared to VTd alone followed by VRd plus AHSCT [₹3,14,530 (US$4,128) per QALY gained] in comparison to VRd alone. None of the novel treatment sequences were found to be cost-effective at the current WTP threshold of ₹1,46,890 (US$1,927.7). CONCLUSION: At the current WTP threshold of one-time per capita GDP (₹ 146,890) of India, VRd alone and VRd plus AHSCT has 38.1% and 6.9% probability to be cost-effective, respectively. Reduction in current reimbursement rates of novel drugs, namely VRd, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone under national insurance program and societal cost of transplant by 50%, would make VRd plus AHSCT and VTd plus AHSCT cost-effective at an incremental cost of ₹40,671 (US$34) and ₹97,639 (US$1,281) per QALY gained, respectively.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different combination therapies for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in India.

Background: Over the years, there has been introduction of newer drugs, like bendamustine and ibrutinib, for the management of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Though these drugs lead to better survival, they are also associated with higher cost. The existing evidence on cost effectiveness of these drugs is from high-income countries, which has limited generalisability for low-income and middle-income counties. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of three therapeutic regimens, chlorambucil plus prednisolone (CP), bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) and ibrutinib for CLL treatment in India. Methods: A Markov model was developed for estimating lifetime costs and consequences in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 CLL patients following treatment with different therapeutic regimens. The analysis was performed based on a limited societal perspective, 3% discount rate and lifetime horizon. The clinical effectiveness of each regime in the form of progression-free survival and occurrence of adverse events were assessed from various randomised controlled trials. A structured comprehensive review of literature was undertaken for the identification of relevant trials. The data on utility values and out of pocket expenditure was obtained from primary data collected from 242 CLL patients across six large cancer hospitals in India. Findings: As compared to the most affordable regimen comprising of CP as first-line followed by BR as second-line therapy, none of the other therapeutic regimens were cost-effective at one time per capita gross-domestic product of India. However, if the current price of either combination of BR and ibrutinib or even ibrutinib alone could be reduced by more than 80%, regimen comprising of BR as first-line therapy followed by second-line ibrutinib would become cost-effective. Interpretation: At the current market prices, regimen comprising of CP as first-line followed by BR as second-line therapy is the most cost-effective strategy for CLL treatment in India. Funding: Department of Health Research, Government of India.

Autologous stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma: Impact of melphalan dose on the transplant outcome.

We evaluated impact of melphalan dose on transplant outcomes for multiple myeloma. Between 1995 and 2019 459 consecutive patients received a transplant; 69(15%) received melphalan ≤150 mg/m2 (Mel 150 cohort) and 390 (85%) melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL 200 cohort). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from the date of transplant. Progression-free survival (PFS), engraftment, transplant response, and cumulative relapse at 2 years were secondary outcome measures. Patients in Mel 150 cohort had adverse clinical and laboratory parameters at base line. Transplant response was better for Mel 200 cohort (p < 0.024). Median OS at a median follow-up of 88 months was similar in the two cohorts; 100 Vs 102 months (Mel 200), p = 0.817. Median PFS (60.0 Vs 53 months, p = 0.746), relapse at two years (32.4% Vs 30.9%, p = 0.745) and grade 3-4 mucositis (p = 0.823) were similar. Initial treatment prepares patients better for subsequent similar transplant outcomes despite differences in baseline characteristics.

Multiple Myeloma: Impact of Time to Transplant on the Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is a standard therapy for transplant eligible patients of multiple myeloma (MM). To evaluate impact of time to transplant on subsequent outcomes, we analyzed data on consecutive MM patients who received novel agents-based induction prior to transplant. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2019, 363 MM patients underwent ASCT. Patients' median age was 52 years, ranging from 20 to 72 years, 233 (64.2%) were males. Median interval from diagnosis to transplant was 11.5 months (range, 4-67.5); 201 (55.4%) patients underwent ASCT within 12 months (early) and 162 (44.6%) beyond 12 months since diagnosis (delayed ASCT). Primary objective was progression-free survival. Secondary objectives were-response rate to transplant, overall survival (OS), and transplant-related mortality (TRM). RESULTS: Post-ASCT complete response (CR) (77.1% vs. 64.8%; P < .025) and CR+ very good partial response rate (89% vs. 81.5%; P < .03) was higher for early ASCT cohort. Engraftment characteristics, regimen-related toxicities, and day +100 TRM (3.5% vs 3.7%; P = .564) were similar in 2 cohorts. Median OS for early versus late cohort from date of diagnosis is 127.0 (95% CI, 98.9-155.1) versus 104.5 months (95% CI, 79.3-129.6; P = .356) and from date of transplant is 119.0 (95% CI, 93.4-144.6) versus 89.5 months (95% CI, 57.4-121.6), P < .02. Median PFS is better for early transplant cohort; 69.5 (95% CI, 56.7-82.3) versus 50.0 months (95% CI, 35.6-64.4), P < .05, respectively. CONCLUSION: Early transplant for myeloma is associated with higher response rate and better progression-free survival.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluate the cost and outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and conventional chemotherapy as the second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in India. METHODS: Using a Markov model, the clinical effectiveness of managing HR+, HER2- MBC in postmenopausal women with either a CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) and fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and chemotherapy (single-agent paclitaxel or capecitabine) was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were estimated from two different points of view: scenario I, as per the prevailing market prices of the drugs; and scenario II, as per the reimbursement rates set up by the publicly financed national health insurance scheme. Incremental cost per QALY gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and was assessed for cost effectiveness using a threshold of 1-time the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in India from a societal perspective. RESULTS: In scenario I, an MBC patient was found to incur a lifetime cost of Indian Rupees (₹) 2.54 million ($34,644), ₹2.53 million ($34,496), ₹512,598 ($6,984), ₹326,026 ($4,442) and ₹237,115 ($3,230) for the ribociclib and palbociclib combination arms, fulvestrant monotherapy, single-agent paclitaxel and the single-agent capecitabine treatment arms, respectively. The lifetime cost for CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant monotherapy, paclitaxel, and capecitabine arms was estimated to be ₹1.94 million ($26,459), ₹1.92 million ($26,220), ₹315,387 ($4,296), ₹187,392 ($2,553) and ₹153,263 ($2,088), respectively, in scenario II. The mean QALYs lived per MBC patient with CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant, paclitaxel and capecitabine were estimated to be 1.4, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. None of the treatment arms are cost effective at current prices and reimbursement rates at a threshold of 1-time the per capita GDP of India. However, a 78% reduction in the current market price or a 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate of fulvestrant in the government-funded insurance program will make it a cost-effective treatment option for HR+, HER2- MBC patients in India. CONCLUSION: CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MBC patients. A 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate for fulvestrant monotherapy will make it a cost-effective treatment option in the Indian context.

Cost Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Plus Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Advanced and Metastatic Cervical Cancer in India-A Model-Based Economic Analysis.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer have a poor prognosis with a 1-year survival rate of 10%-15%. Recently, an antiangiogenic humanized monoclonal antibody bevacizumab has shown to improve the survival of these patients. This study was designed to assess the cost effectiveness of incorporating bevacizumab with standard chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer in India. METHODS: Using a disaggregated societal perspective and lifetime horizon, a Markov model was developed for estimating the costs and health outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer treated with either standard chemotherapy alone or in combination with bevacizumab. Effectiveness data for each of the treatment regimen were assessed using estimates from Gynecologic Oncology Group 240 trial. Data on disease-specific mortality in metastatic cervical cancer, health system cost, and out-of-pocket expenditure were derived from Indian literature. Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Over the lifetime of one patient with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer, bevacizumab along with standard chemotherapy results in a gain of 0.275 (0.052-0.469) life-years (LY) and 0.129 (0.032-0.218) quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), at an additional cost of $3,816 US dollars (USD; 2,513-5,571) compared with standard chemotherapy alone. This resulted in an incremental cost of $19,080 USD (7,230-52,434) per LY gained and $34,744 USD (15,782-94,914) per QALY gained with the use of bevacizumab plus standard chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Addition of bevacizumab to the standard chemotherapy is not cost effective for the treatment of advanced and metastatic cervical cancer in India at a threshold of 1-time per-capita gross domestic product.

Development of National Cancer Database for Cost and Quality of Life (CaDCQoL) in India: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The rising economic burden of cancer on healthcare system and patients in India has led to the increased demand for evidence in order to inform policy decisions such as drug price regulation, setting reimbursement package rates under publicly financed health insurance schemes and prioritising available resources to maximise value of investments in health. Economic evaluations are an integral component of this important evidence. Lack of existing evidence on healthcare costs and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) makes conducting economic evaluations a very challenging task. Therefore, it is imperative to develop a national database for health expenditure and HRQOL for cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present study proposes to develop a National Cancer Database for Cost and Quality of Life (CaDCQoL) in India. The healthcare costs will be estimated using a patient perspective. A cross-sectional study will be conducted to assess the direct out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE), indirect cost and HRQOL among cancer patients who will be recruited at seven leading cancer centres from six states in India. Mean OOPE and HRQOL scores will be estimated by cancer site, stage of disease and type of treatment. Economic impact of cancer care on household financial risk protection will be assessed by estimating prevalence of catastrophic health expenditures and impoverishment. The national database would serve as a unique open access data repository to derive estimates of cancer-related OOPE and HRQOL. These estimates would be useful in conducting future cost-effectiveness analyses of management strategies for value-based cancer care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval was granted by Institutional Ethics Committee vide letter no. PGI/IEC-03/2020-1565 of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented to the policymakers at national level.

Quality of life assessment & out-of-pocket expenditure in multiple myeloma: An observational study.

Background & objectives: Prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved significantly in the past two decades. However, the symptoms burden is high at onset and treatment is generally prolonged with significant financial burden. This study was undertaken to assess the quality of life (QoL) and to analyse out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) incurred on MM patients being treated at a tertiary care cancer centre in north India. Methods: This observational, cross-sectional study included 116 patients (aged >18 yr) of MM (both newly diagnosed and those with recurrent disease). For QoL assessment, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-validated questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C 30 version 3.0) and disease-specific QLQ MY20 were used. For assessing OOPE incurred on treatment, the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) questionnaire was used. Results: Bone pains (68.1%), fatigue (59.7%) and dyspnoea (54.6%) were common symptoms. The mean global health status/QoL score was 59.62±19.21. International Staging System (ISS) score correlated with global health status score, and gastritis was the main adverse effect. QoL score showed negative correlation to side effects of treatment (-0.53) of MY20 domain. On multivariate analysis, ISS stage (P<0.001) and adverse effects of treatment (P=0.02) were predictive factors. The median OOPE was ₹ 7900 (IQR, ₹ 4950-13,550) towards medical and ₹ 1150 (IQR, ₹ 500-3100) for non-medical expenses for the past one month. Interpretation & conclusions: Regular assessment of QoL in the clinical management of multiple myeloma patients has the potential of improving treatment outcomes. Measures to reduce out-of-pocket expenditure may improve treatment compliance.