Novel Multiple Myeloma Agents Can Add Years, but at High Costs

Although they can stretch survival by several years compared with standard care, novel agents for the treatment of multiple myeloma are accompanied by cost-effectiveness ratios generally above willingness-to-pay thresholds, according to a study published in Cancers.

“In this systematic review, we sought to give a complete overview and assessment of the cost-effectiveness evidence currently available for novel treatments for multiple myeloma patients,”  wrote a research team from The Netherlands. “As such, we provide physicians, payers, and policy makers with the necessary information for evidence-based decision making to ensure accessibility to promising novel treatment.”

The finding stemmed from a systematic review of 13 economic evaluations offering 32 comparisons of novel pharmacological treatment of multiple myeloma published over the past 5 years. Drugs addressed in the cost-effectiveness studies included the novel agents daratumumab, pomalidomide, carfilzomib, elotuzumab, ixazomib, and panobinostat.

According to the review, novel agents could improve patient survival by nearly 4 years compared with standard of care. However, gains came with high costs: novel treatments could increase costs by as much as $535,530 per patient, researchers reported.

“To ensure access to novel, better treatments for multiple myeloma patients now and in the future, there should be a paradigm shift toward improving cost-effectiveness. For example, by using dosing schemes with more favorable cost-effectiveness ratios, or by lowering prices with price negotiations by health care payers,” researchers wrote. “If this is not possible, we should wonder whether we are on the right path with increasing costs, while willingness-to-pay thresholds remain on the same level.”

Reference:
Seefat MR, Cucchi DGJ, Dirven S, Groen K, Zweegman S, Blommestein HM. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of novel agents in the treatment of multiple myeloma. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(22):5606. doi:10.3390/cancers13225606