A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America

References

• Durie BGM. Concise review of the disease and treatment options. 2017. International Myeloma Foundation North Hollywood, CA, USA. Available at https://www.myeloma.org/sites/default/files/images/publications/UnderstandingPDF/concisereview.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Roodman GD. Pathogenesis of myeloma bone disease. Blood Cells Mol Dis 2004;32:290-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Anderson K. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1046-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameed A, Brady JJ, Dowling P, et al. Bone disease in multiple myeloma: pathophysiology and management. Cancer Growth Metastasis 2014;7:33-42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation. Bone lesions and damage. Available at https://www.themmrf.org/multiple-myeloma/symptoms/bone-lesions/
   Google Scholar
• von Moos R, Strasser F, Gillessen S, et al. Metastatic bone pain: treatment options with an emphasis on bisphosphonates. Support Care Cancer 2008;16:1105-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman R, Body JJ, Aapro M, et al. Bone health in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol 2014;25(Suppl 3):iii124-37
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yong M, Jensen AO, Jacobsen JB, et al. Survival in breast cancer patients with bone metastases and skeletal-related events: a population-based cohort study in Denmark (1999–2007). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;129:495-503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosi P. Diagnosis and treatment of bone disease in multiple myeloma: spotlight on spinal involvement. Scientifica (Cairo) 2013;2013:104546
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bhowmik D, Hines DM, Intorcia M, et al., editors. Healthcare resource utilization and costs of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma. ISPOR 22nd Annual International Meeting; May 20–24, 2017; Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Nash Smyth E, Conti I, Wooldridge JE, et al. Frequency of skeletal-related events and associated healthcare resource use and costs in US patients with multiple myeloma. J Med Econ 2016;19:477-86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkumar SV, Kumar S. Multiple myeloma: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc 2016;91:101-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig H, Miguel JS, Dimopoulos MA, et al. International Myeloma Working Group recommendations for global myeloma care. Leukemia 2014;28:981-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Multiple myeloma. NCCN; 2017. Fort Washington, PA, USA. Available at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/myeloma.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Novartis. Zometa. Prescribing information. Novartis; 2013. East Hanover, NJ, USA. Available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/021223s028lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Diel IJ. Effectiveness of bisphosphonates on bone pain and quality of life in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: a review. Support Care Cancer 2007;15:1243-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid IR, Gamble GD, Mesenbrink P, et al. Characterization of and risk factors for the acute-phase response after zoledronic acid. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95:4380-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett-Lee P, Bloomfield D, Dougherty L, et al. An audit to determine the time taken to administer intravenous bisphosphonate infusions in patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer to bone in a hospital setting. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:1575-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amgen. XGEVA prescribing information. Amgen; 2018. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Available at http://pi.amgen.com/∼/media/amgen/repositorysites/pi-amgen-com/xgeva/xgeva_pi.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Raje N, Terpos E, Willenbacher E, et al. Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:370-81
   Google Scholar
• von Moos R, Body J-J, Rider A, et al. Bone-targeted agent treatment patterns and the impact of bone metastases on patients with advanced breast cancer in real-world practice in six European countries. J Bone Oncol 2018;11:1-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez RK, Adhia A, Wade SW, et al. Prevalence of bone metastases and bone-targeting agent use among solid tumor patients in the United States. Clin Epidemiol 2015;7:335-45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipton A, Fizazi K, Stopeck AT, et al. Superiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events: a combined analysis of 3 pivotal, randomised, phase 3 trials. Eur J Cancer 2012;48:3082-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo K, Lam K, Mittmann N, et al. Comparing cost-effectiveness analyses of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for the treatment of bone metastases. Support Care Cancer 2013;21:1785-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford J, Cummins E, Sharma P, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumours. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1-386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dellis A, Papatsoris A. Cost-effectiveness of denosumab as a bone protective agent for patients with castration resistant prostate cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2016;16:5-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro CL, Moriarty JP, Dusetzina S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of monthly zoledronic acid, zoledronic acid every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases: CALGB 70604 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol 2017;JCO2017737437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stopeck A, Rader M, Henry D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States. J Med Econ 2012;15:712-23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snedecor SJ, Carter JA, Kaura S, et al. Denosumab versus zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Econ 2013;16:19-29
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snedecor SJ, Carter JA, Kaura S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases secondary to breast cancer. Clin Ther 2012;34:1334-49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison LPJ, Kamal-Bahl S, Towse A. Toward a broader concept of value: identifying and defining elements for an expanded cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health 2017;20:213-16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rochau U, Jahn B, Qerimi V, et al. Decision-analytic modeling studies: an overview for clinicians using multiple myeloma as an example. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015;94:164-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonsalves WI, Leung N, Rajkumar SV, et al. Improvement in renal function and its impact on survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J 2015;5:e296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeage K, Plosker GL. Zoledronic acid: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of bone metastases. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:251-68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henk HJ, Teitelbaum A, Perez JR, et al. Persistency with zoledronic acid is associated with clinical benefit in patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 2012;87:490-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatoum HT, Lin SJ, Smith MR, et al. Zoledronic acid and skeletal complications in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases: analysis of a national medical claims database. Cancer 2008;113:1438-45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashcroft J, Duran I, Hoefeler H, et al. Healthcare resource utilisation associated with skeletal-related events in European patients with multiple myeloma: results from a prospective, multinational observational study. Eur J Haematol 2018. doi:10.1111/ejh.13044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hechmati G, Cure S, Gouepo A, et al. Cost of skeletal-related events in European patients with solid tumours and bone metastases: data from a prospective multinational observational study. J Med Econ 2013;16:691-700
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams C, Lewsey JD, Mackay DF, et al. Estimation of survival probabilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses: a comparison of a multi-state modeling survival analysis approach with partitioned survival and markov decision-analytic modeling. Med Decis Making 2017;37:427-39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatelli L, Jamotte A, Giannopoulou C, et al. PCN19 - Estimation of the health benefit associated with a potential denosumab-induced extension of progression free survival in multiple myeloma patients. Value Health 2017;20:A414-A415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büyükkaramikli NC, de Groot S, Fayter D, et al. Pomalidomide with dexamethasone for treating relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide and bortezomib: an evidence review group perspective of an NICE single technology appraisal. PharmacoEconomics 2017;36:145-59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Disease Control. National vital statistic reports: United States life tables 2012. CDC; 2016. Hyattsville, MD, USA. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_08.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Chung K, Van Brunt K, et al. Health state utilities for skeletal-related events secondary to bone metastases. Eur J Health Econ 2014;15:7-18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;40:1159-69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Payment allowance limits for medicare Part B Drugs. CMMS; 2017. Baltimore, MD, USA. Available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Part-B-Drugs/McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/2017ASPFiles.html
   Google Scholar
• Bell MJ, Miller JD, Namjoshi M, editors. Comparative budget impact of formulary inclusion of zoledronic acid and denosumab for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 16th Annual Meeting; May 21–25, 2011; Baltimore, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Xie J, Namjoshi M, Wu EQ, et al. Economic evaluation of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. J Manag Care Pharm 2011;17:621-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayasekera J, Onukwugha E, Bikov K, et al. The economic burden of skeletal-related events among elderly men with metastatic prostate cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32:173-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian DW, Bhowmik D, Kachru N. Utilization patterns of bone-targeting agents among patients with multiple myeloma: analysis of real-world data. Blood 2015;126:4501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Moos R, Body JJ, Egerdie B, et al. Pain and analgesic use associated with skeletal-related events in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:1327-37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delea T, Langer C, McKiernan J, et al. The cost of treatment of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from lung cancer. Oncology 2004;67:390-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gridelli C, Ferrara C, Guerriero C, et al. Informal caregiving burden in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the HABIT study. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2:475-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1637-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian Y, Bhowmik D, Bond C, et al. Renal impairment and use of nephrotoxic agents in patients with multiple myeloma in the clinical practice setting in the United States. Cancer Med 2017;6:1523-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT Jr, et al. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care 2008;46:349-56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness: the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 2014;371:796-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1253-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015;18:161-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlev A, Song X, Ivanov B, et al. Payer costs for inpatient treatment of pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression among patients with multiple myeloma or bone metastasis secondary to prostate or breast cancer. J Manag Care Pharm 2010;16:693-702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar