Modeling First-Line Daratumumab Use for Newly Diagnosed, Transplant-Ineligible, Multiple Myeloma: A Cost-Effectiveness and Risk Analysis for Healthcare Payers

Diana Beatriz Bayani (), Yihao Clement Lin, Chandramouli Nagarajan, Melissa G. Ooi, Allison Ching Yee Tso, John Cairns and Hwee Lin Wee
Additional contact information
Diana Beatriz Bayani: National University of Singapore
Yihao Clement Lin: Tan Tock Seng Hospital
Chandramouli Nagarajan: Singapore General Hospital
Melissa G. Ooi: National University Cancer Institute
Allison Ching Yee Tso: Tan Tock Seng Hospital
John Cairns: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Hwee Lin Wee: National University of Singapore

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2024, vol. 8, issue 5, No 2, 664 pages

Abstract: Abstract Background and Objective This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two regimens regarded as the standard of care for the treatment of newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in Singapore: (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone and (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Additionally, it aimed to explore potential strategies to manage decision uncertainty and mitigate financial risk. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis from the healthcare system perspective was conducted using a partitioned survival model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with daratumumab-based treatment and the bortezomib-based regimen. The analysis used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials and incorporated local real-world data where available. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings, and a risk analysis was conducted to analyze various payer strategies in terms of their payer strategy and uncertainty burden (P-SUB), which account for the decision uncertainty and the additional cost of choosing a suboptimal intervention. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) was US $90,364 per QALY gained. The results were sensitive to variations in survival for DRd, postprogression treatment costs, cost of hospice care, and hazard ratio for progression-free survival. The scenarios explored indicated that structural assumptions, such as the time horizon of the analysis, significantly influenced the results due to uncertainties arising from immature trial data and treatment efficacy over time. Among the various payer strategies compared, an upfront price discount for daratumumab emerged as the best approach with the lowest P-SUB at US $14,708. Conclusion In conclusion, this study finds that daratumumab as a first-line treatment for myeloma exceeds the cost-effectiveness threshold considered in this evaluation. An upfront price reduction is the recommended strategy to manage uncertainties and mitigate financial risks. These findings highlight the importance of targeted payer strategies to address specific types and sources of uncertainty.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00503-9 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00503-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00503-9

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().