Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:19:59.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPARATIVE COST-EFFECTIVENESS MODELS FOR THE TREATMENT OF MULTIPLE MYELOMA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2014

Keith Cooper ,
Joanna Picot ,
Jackie Bryant  and
Andrew Clegg
Keith Cooper
Affiliation:
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), University of Southampton
Joanna Picot
Affiliation:
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), University of Southampton
Jackie Bryant
Affiliation:
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), University of Southampton
Andrew Clegg
Affiliation:
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To compare cost effectiveness models for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma, and explore the differences between the models’ structure, parameters, assumptions and results.

Methods: Three cost effectiveness models for the treatment of multiple myeloma, were compared that had been developed to inform resource allocation in the UK for the chemotherapy regimens bortezomib, melphalan and prednisolone (BMP); and melphalan, prednisolone and thalidomide (MPT) versus melphalan and prednisolone (MP). The models used alternative approaches and assumptions to estimate the overall survival and progression-free survival for each of the interventions. Through the use of sensitivity analyses, the most influential parameters and assumptions of each of the models were identified.

Results: The models developed by the manufacturers gave conflicting results, with each manufacturer favouring their drug. The differences between the model results were determined by two parameters: the hazard ratio for overall survival for MPT vs. MP and the cost of bortezomib.

Conclusions: Using models developed for assessing treatments for multiple myeloma we demonstrated that it was feasible to compare models, which then aided decision makers in making reimbursement decisions.

Keywords

Cost-utility analysisThalidomideBortezomibMultiple myeloma
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 90 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Turner, D, Raftery, J, Cooper, K, et al. The CHD challenge: Comparing four cost-effectiveness models. Value Health. 2011;14:53–60.Google Scholar
2. Philips, Z, Ginnelly, L, Sculpher, M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii–xi, 1.Google Scholar
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Bortezomib and thalidomide for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma. London: NICE; 2011.Google Scholar
4. Messori, A, Maratea, D, Nozzoli, C, Bosi, A. The role of bortezomib, thalidomide and lenalidomide in the management of multiple myeloma: An overview of clinical and economic information. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:269–285.Google Scholar
5. Picot, J, Cooper, K, Bryant, J, Clegg, A. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib and thalidomide for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:1–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Summary of Product Characteristics for Thalidomide Celgene. Revision 2 - Published 16/04/09. 2009. European Public Assessment Report. 22-5-2009.Google Scholar
7. Summary of Product Characteristics for Velcade. Revision 17 - Published 20/04/09. 2009. European Public Assessment Report. 22-5-2009.Google Scholar
8. Gulbrandsen, N, Hjermstad, , Wisloff, MJ, Nordic, F, Myeloma Study Group. Interpretation of quality of life scores in multiple myeloma by comparison with a reference population and assessment of the clinical importance of score differences. Eur J Haematol. 2004;72:172–180.Google Scholar
9. McKenzie, L, van der Pol, M. Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D Instrument: The potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health. 2009;12:167–171.Google Scholar
10. Facon, T, Mary, JY, Hulin, C, et al. Melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide versus melphalan and prednisone alone or reduced-intensity autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly patients with multiple myeloma (IFM 99-06): A randomised trial. Lancet. 2007;370:1209–1218.Google Scholar
11. Hulin, C, Facon, T, Rodon, P, et al. Efficacy of melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide in patients older than 75 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: IFM 01/01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3664–3670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Palumbo, A, Bringhen, S, Caravita, T, et al. Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan and prednisone alone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: Randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;367:825–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. MRC Myeloma IX Trial Outcomes: Results from the non transplant (Non-intensive) group. Academic in Confidence Data. 2009.Google Scholar
14. San Miguel, JF, Schlag, R, Khuageva, NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:906–917.Google Scholar
15. BMA, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary 57. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2009.Google Scholar
16. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Lenalidomide for the treatment of multiple myeloma in people who have received at least one prior therapy (TA 171). London: NICE; 2009.Google Scholar
17. Department of Health. NHS reference costs. 2008. UK.Google Scholar
18. Contracting Unit Southampton University Hospital Trust. Unit costs. 2009. (unpublished database).Google Scholar
19. Janssen-Cilag. Bortezomib and thalidomide for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: Bortezomib (Velcade). Executive summary. 1–4. 2009. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
20. Gulbrandsen, N, Waage, A, Gimsing, P, et al. A randomised placebo controlled study with melphalan/prednisone vs melphalan/prednisone/thalidomide: Quality of life and toxicity. Haematologica. 13th Congress of the European Hematology Association, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2008;93.Google Scholar
21. Palumbo, A, Bringhen, S, Liberati, AM, et al. Oral melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: Updated results of a randomized controlled trial. Blood. 2008;112:3107–3114.Google Scholar
22. Wijermans, PW, Zweegman, S, van Marwijk, KM, et al. MP versus MPT in elderly myeloma patients: The final outcome of the HOVON-49 study (Abstract A116). Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2009;9:S18.Google Scholar
23. van Agthoven, M, Segeren, CM, Buijt, I, et al. A cost-utility analysis comparing intensive chemotherapy alone to intensive chemotherapy followed by myeloablative chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue in newly diagnosed patients with stage II/III multiple myeloma: A prospective randomised phase III study. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:1159–1169.Google Scholar
24. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.Google Scholar
25. Haji Ali Afzali, AH, Karnon, J. Addressing the challenge for well informed and consistent reimbursement decisions: The case for reference models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:823–825.Google Scholar
26. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: A report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1638–1646.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cooper Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Cooper Supplementary Material(File)
File 52.7 KB