Belantamab mafodotin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in heavily pretreated patients: a US cost-effectiveness analysis.
Belantamab mafodotin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in heavily pretreated patients: a US cost-effectiveness analysis.
复制标题
Belantamab mafodotin 用于治疗经过大量治疗的患者的复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤：美国成本效益分析。
DOI：
10.1080/17474086.2021.1970522
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Samyshkin,Yevgeniy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nikolaou,Andreas;Ambavane,Apoorva;Shah,Anshul;Ma,Wenkang;Tosh,Jon;Kapetanakis,Venediktos;Willson,Jenny;Wang,Feng;Hogea,Cosmina;Gorsh,Boris;Gutierrez,Ben;Sapra,Sandhya;Suvannasankha,Attaya;Samyshkin,Yevgeniy
背景复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤（RRMM）患者需要多线治疗，每增加一线通常缓解持续时间较短。（belamaf; DREAMM-2; NCT 03525678）与赛林克斯加地塞米松进行比较（SEL+DEX; STORM第2部分; NCT 02336815）在既往接受过至少4种治疗的RRMM患者中进行。基本案例使用了美国商业付款人在10年时间范围内的观点。疗效数据基于DREAMM-2的参数生存分析和DREAMM-2与STORM第2部分之间匹配调整的间接治疗比较，该比较评估了Belamaf与SEL+DEX之间的相对治疗效果。成本输入包括药物治疗，伴随用药，不良事件管理，随后的治疗，和疾病management.ResultsBelamaf降低每位患者的总治疗费用为14,267美元，增加患者的生命年0.74和质量调整生命年（QHMS）由0.49与SEL+DEX。接受belamaf的患者与SEL+DEX.ConclusionsFrom美国商业付款人的角度来看，与SEL+DEX相比，belamaf患者的无进展生命年减少了0.12。因此，Belamaf可能是既往接受过四线或更多线治疗的RRMM患者的一种具有成本效益的治疗选择。
BackgroundPatients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) require several lines of therapy, with typically shorter remission duration with each additional line.Research design and methodsThe 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.ResultsBelamaf 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.ConclusionsFrom 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.