Search

Background/research question: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health-state utility values (HSUVs) are measured with different methods and instruments. Deriving HSUVs from generic preference-based instruments (e.g., EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI) is recommended by academic institutions, HTA agencies[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], EbM und Digitale Transformation in der Medizin; 20. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Aim: The approved indication for denosumab (120 mg) was expanded in 2018 to include skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for SRE prevention in patients with MM from the national healthcare system perspective in a representative sample of European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy. Methods: The XGEVA global economic model for patients with MM was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab vs ZA over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the denosumab vs ZA randomized, phase 3 study (“20090482”) in patients newly-diagnosed with MM, and comprised real-world adjusted SRE rates, serious adverse event (SAE) rates, treatment duration, dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Economic inputs comprised country-specific denosumab and ZA acquisition and administration costs, SRE and SAE management costs, and discount rates. Health utility decrements associated with MM disease progression, SRE and SAE occurrence, and route of administration were included. Results: Estimated ICERs (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) for denosumab vs ZA in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy were €26,294, €17,737, €6,982, and €27,228, respectively. Using 1–3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY as willingness to pay thresholds, denosumab was 69–94%, 84–96%, 79–96%, and 50–92% likely to be cost-effective vs ZA, respectively. Limitations: Economic inputs were derived from various sources, and time to event inputs were extrapolated from 20090482 study data. Conclusions: Denosumab is cost-effective vs ZA for SRE prevention in patients with MM in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy, based on often-adopted World Health Organization thresholds. This conclusion is robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Cost-effectiveness estimates varied across the four countries, reflecting differences in healthcare costs and national economic evaluation guidelines. © 2019, © 2019 Amgen Inc. Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Background: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends quality-adjusted life years as the main measure for health outcomes in cost-utility analyses (CUAs). In the absence of health utility values (HUVs), NICE recommends to use “mapping” functions to link outcomes [for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], Brücken bauen – von der Evidenz zum Patientenwohl; 19. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Background: Treatment options for Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia are heterogeneous, and no well established treatment standards exist. Although guidelines from the Eighth International Workshop on Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia were published in 2016, inconsistent awareness and budget constraints have prevented their widespread implementation, and real-life treatment patterns might differ across health-care systems. We aimed to generate information about treatment and outcome patterns for patients with Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia outside of clinical trials. Methods: In this large, observational, retrospective chart review, academic and community physicians in ten European countries were invited to retrospectively complete electronic records for patients with symptomatic Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia who had begun treatment after Jan 1, 2000, and before Jan 1, 2014, and had available clinical and biological data. The primary endpoints were reasons for treatment initiation, treatment choices, progression-free survival, and overall survival. We assessed the variables that affected choice of front-line therapy, progression-free survival, and overall survival in multivariate analyses. Findings: Electronic records were reviewed for 454 eligible patients. The most frequent reasons for starting front-line treatment were anaemia (in 328 [72%] patients) and constitutional symptoms (in 264 [58%] patients). Choice of therapy varied between front-line, second-line, and third-line approaches; age; and type of institution. In the front-line setting, 193 (43%) of 454 patients received monotherapy, 164 (36%) received chemoimmunotherapy, and 95 (21%) received other combination regimens (data on front-line treatment were missing for one patient, and another patient received only steroids). After front-line treatment, median progression-free survival was 29 months (95% CI 25–31), median overall survival was not reached (not reached–not reached), and 10-year overall survival was 69% (62–74). In multivariate analyses, patients who were high risk according to the International Prognostic Scoring System for Waldenström Macroglobulinemia had significantly worse progression-free survival and overall survival than did those who were low risk. Additionally, progression-free survival was shortened in patients treated with monotherapy compared with those treated with chemoimmunotherapy or other combination therapies and in those treated at an academic institution compared with those treated in the community. Constitutional symptoms (excluding fatigue) were associated with worsened overall survival. Interpretation: This large observational dataset should inform and help set guidelines, and improve understanding of treatment practices and outcomes, for European patients with Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia. Funding: Pharmacyclics LLC (an AbbVie company). © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits. © 2018 The Authors

Background: Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Methods: In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019. Findings: From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85–1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. Interpretation: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease. Funding: Amgen. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

In a phase 3 trial of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in patients (n=1776) with bone metastases and solid tumors or multiple myeloma, denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid for the primary end point of prevention of skeletal-related events. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups; however, an ad hoc overall survival analysis in the multiple myeloma subset of patients (n=180) favored zoledronic acid (hazard ratio (HR) 2.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-4.50; P = 0.014). In the present analysis, we found imbalances between the groups with respect to baseline risk characteristics. HRs with two-sided 95% CIs were estimated using the Cox model. After adjustment in a covariate analysis, the CI crossed unity (HR 1.86; 95% CI 0.90-3.84; P = 0.0954). Furthermore, we found a higher rate of early withdrawals for the reasons of lost to follow-up and withdrawal of consent in the zoledronic acid group; after accounting for these, the HR was 1.31 (95% CI 0.80-2.15; P = 0.278). In conclusion, the survival results in multiple myeloma patients in this trial were confounded and will eventually be resolved by an ongoing phase 3 trial. © 2016, Nature Publishing Group. All rights reserved.