Assessing the treatment pattern, health care resource utilisation, and economic burden of multiple myeloma in France using the Système National des Données de Santé (SNDS) database: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on health care resource utilisation (HCRU) and costs for French patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are limited due to the quickly evolving MM treatment landscape. This retrospective, national-level study quantified the MM economic burden in France. METHODS: The study included patients with newly diagnosed MM from the Système National des Données de Santé coverage claims database between 2013 and 2018 who received active treatment within 30 days of diagnosis. HCRU included hospitalisations, drugs, consultations, procedures, tests, devices, transport, and sick leave. Costs were annualized to 2019 prices. Drug treatments, reported by line of therapy (LOT), were algorithmically defined using drug regimen, duration of therapy, and gaps between treatments. Analyses were stratified by stem cell transplantation status and LOT. RESULTS: Among 6413 eligible patients, 6229 (97.1%) received ≥ 1 identifiable LOT; most received 1 (39.8%) or 2 LOT (27.5%) during follow-up. Average annual hospitalisation was 6.3 episodes/patient/year (median duration: 11.6 days). The average annual cost/patient was €58.3 K. Key cost drivers were treatment (€28.2 K; 39.5% of total HCRU within one year of MM diagnosis) and hospitalisations (€22.2 K; 48.6% of total HCRU costs in first year). Monthly treatment-related costs increased from LOT1 (€2.447 K) and LOT5 + (€7.026 K); only 9% of patients received LOT5 + . At LOT4 + , 37 distinct regimens were identified. Hospitalisation costs were higher in patients with stem cell transplantation than total population, particularly in the first year. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a high economic burden of MM in France (€72.37 K/patient/year in the first year) and the diversity of regimens used in late-line treatments.

Incidence of corneal adverse events in patients with multiple myeloma and their clinical and economic impact: A real-world retrospective cohort study.

AIMS: Ocular toxicities are common adverse events (AEs) associated with anticancer agents. There is a paucity of data documenting their impact on patient care. This study assessed the clinical and economic burden of corneal AEs and related symptoms (collectively termed corneal AEs) in patients receiving multiple myeloma (MM) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with a newly diagnosed MM (MM cohort) were identified from PharMetrics Plus, a US insurance claims database. Incidence, outpatient (OP) care, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and costs were assessed for corneal AEs of interest: keratopathy/keratitis, blurred vision/decreased acuity, dry eye, eye pain, and photophobia. Incidence of new corneal AEs, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), corneal AE-related HCRU, and costs were assessed and benchmarked against a hematology cohort of patients. RESULTS: The MM cohort included 2,120 patients with a median follow-up of 734.5 days. Overall, 11.7% of patients in the MM cohort and 7.4% in the hematology cohort had ≥1 corneal AE of interest. In the MM cohort, dry eye (6.1%), blurred vision/decreased acuity (3.4%), and keratopathy/keratitis (2.5%) were the most frequent. The overall median corneal AE-related per-patient-per-month (PPPM) cost was $27, predominantly contributed by OP care (median $19 PPPM). During follow-up, 4.8% of patients visited the ED, 3.6% were hospitalized, and 42.5% of patients visited an ophthalmologist/optometrist (∼1.69 visits/year). Costs of these visits were negligible (median PPPM $19) compared to total all-cause costs (median PPPM $17,286). LIMITATIONS: The results can only be generalized to commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients. Claims-based diagnosis of corneal AEs may underestimate true incidences. CONCLUSIONS: Corneal AEs were observed in ∼12% of patients in the MM cohort, the most common were keratopathy/keratitis, dry eye, and blurred vision. Most of them required only OP care. The clinical and economic burden for treating corneal AEs was low when compared with total all-cause or MM-related PPPM costs.

DREAMM-2: Indirect Comparisons of Belantamab Mafodotin vs. Selinexor + Dexamethasone and Standard of Care Treatments in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; BLENREP) demonstrated deep and durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody (DREAMM-2; NCT03525678). METHODS: At the time of this study, STORM Part 2, NCT02336815 (selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone; sel + dex) was systematically identified as the only feasible comparator to the DREAMM-2 cohort. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) evaluated efficacy and safety of belamaf (2.5 mg/kg; n = 97) versus sel + dex (80 mg + 20 mg, respectively; n = 123). Populations were weighted for clinically validated effect modifiers and prognostic factors. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), overall response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), and safety. The relative efficacy of belamaf versus standard of care (SoC) on OS was estimated by a Bucher indirect treatment comparison using the MAIC-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for OS of belamaf (DREAMM-2) versus sel + dex (STORM Part 2) and a HR adjusted for refractoriness to carfilzomib and high-risk cytogenetics of sel + dex (STORM) versus SoC (MAMMOTH). RESULTS: Belamaf demonstrated improved OS (HR 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.34, 0.83; p = 0.005) and DoR (0.41; 0.21, 0.83; p = 0.013) versus sel + dex. There were no statistically significant differences in ORR, TTR, and PFS. Belamaf had a favorable safety profile for most evaluable hematologic (any-grade, Grade 3-4) and non-hematologic (any-grade) adverse events versus sel + dex. Significantly improved OS was observed with belamaf versus SoC (0.29; 0.16, 0.54; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Single-agent belamaf represents a new treatment option for triple-class refractory patients with RRMM.

Belantamab mafodotin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in heavily pretreated patients: a US cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) require several lines of therapy, with typically shorter remission duration with each additional line. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; DREAMM-2; NCT03525678) was compared with selinexor plus dexamethasone (SEL+DEX; STORM Part 2; NCT02336815) among patients with RRMM who have received at least four prior therapies. The base case used a US commercial payer's perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Efficacy data were based on parametric survival analysis of DREAMM-2 and matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison between DREAMM-2 and STORM Part 2, which assessed relative treatment effects between belamaf and SEL+DEX. Cost inputs included drug treatment, concomitant medications, adverse event management, subsequent treatments, and disease management. RESULTS: Belamaf decreased total treatment costs per patient by $14,267 and increased patient life years by 0.74 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.49 versus SEL+DEX. Patients receiving belamaf accrued 0.12 fewer progression-free life years versus patients on SEL+DEX. CONCLUSIONS: From a US commercial payer's perspective, belamaf had lower costs, and increased QALYs and life-year gain, compared with SEL+DEX. Belamaf is therefore likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with RRMM who have received four or more prior lines of therapy.

Recent real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in US patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) previously receiving 1-3 therapy lines, newer agents demonstrated improved outcomes versus older agents. Real-world treatment pattern data are limited. We assessed real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with RRMM (≥2 prior therapy lines). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: An electronic medical record (EMR) analysis and chart review were conducted using International Oncology Network (ION) EMR data. Patients ≥18 years old initiating first-line MM treatment 1 January 2011, to 31 May 2017, were stratified into older/newer treatment cohorts (approval date before vs during/after 2012). Treatment patterns and outcomes were described; no statistical tests were performed. RESULTS: In the EMR analysis (n = 1601) and chart review (n = 456), bortezomib, lenalidomide, and bortezomib-lenalidomide combinations dominated first-line treatment. Median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was 12.0 to 3.5 months (first- to fifth-line), and median real-world overall survival (rwOS) was 48.2 to 5.8 months. A trend for increased rwPFS/rwOS with newer versus older treatments was observed. Most common AEs were fatigue, bone pain, and anemia. EXPERT OPINION: Real-world data describing treatment patterns in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma are limited. Evaluation of new treatments on patient outcomes will influence treatment patterns and patient outcomes in the real-world setting. CONCLUSIONS: Although a trend for improved rwPFS and rwOS with newer versus older treatments was suggested, additional treatment options to improve patient outcomes are needed.

Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in severe asthma: An indirect treatment comparison.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma is a heterogeneous disease. Patients with both eosinophilic and allergic asthma phenotypes may be eligible for treatment with mepolizumab and omalizumab. Evidence on the relative effectiveness of these treatments in this 'overlap' population would be informative for clinical and payer decision making. METHODS: A systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison (Bayesian framework) were performed to assess the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of mepolizumab and omalizumab, as add-ons to standard of care. Studies included in the primary analysis were double-blind, randomized controlled trials, ≥12 weeks' duration enrolling patients with severe asthma with a documented exacerbation history and receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus ≥1 additional controller. Two populations were examined: patients potentially eligible for 1) both treatments (Overlap population) and 2) either treatment (Trial population). RESULTS: In the Overlap population, no differences between treatments in clinically significant exacerbations and exacerbations requiring hospitalization were found, although trends favored mepolizumab (rate ratio [RR]:0.66 [95% credible intervals (Crl):0.37,1.19]; 0.19[0.02,2.32], respectively). In the Trial population, mepolizumab treatment produced greater reductions in clinically significant exacerbations (RR:0.63 [95% CrI:0.45,0.89]) but not exacerbations requiring hospitalization compared with omalizumab (RR:0.58 [95% Crl: 0.16,2.13]), although the trend favored mepolizumab. Both treatments had broadly comparable effects on lung function, and similar tolerability profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst this analysis has limitations due to a restricted evidence base and residual heterogeneity, it showed that in patients with severe asthma, mepolizumab seems to be at least as effective as omalizumab and that the tolerability profiles of the two treatments did not meaningfully differentiate.

Cost effectiveness of tiotropium in patients with asthma poorly controlled on inhaled glucocorticosteroids and long-acting ß-agonists.

BACKGROUND: A considerable proportion of patients with asthma remain uncontrolled or symptomatic despite treatment with a high dose of inhaled glucocorticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs). Tiotropium Respimat(®) added to usual care improves lung function, asthma control, and the frequency of non-severe and severe exacerbations, in a population of adult asthma patients who are uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS/LABA. OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the cost effectiveness of tiotropium therapy as add-on to usual care in asthma patients that are uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS/LABA combination from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model was developed which considers levels of asthma control and exacerbations. The model analysed cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted to test the robustness of the base case outcomes. All costs are given at 2012 prices. RESULTS: The model found that in this category of asthma with unmet need, add-on tiotropium therapy generated an incremental 0.24 QALYs and £5,238 costs over a lifetime horizon, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £21,906 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis suggested that findings were most dependent on the costs of managing uncontrolled asthma and the cost of treatment with tiotropium. CONCLUSION: In this modelled analysis of two clinical trials, tiotropium was found to be cost effective when added to usual care in patients who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with high-dose ICS/LABA. Further research should investigate the long-term treatment effectiveness of tiotropium.