Costs of administration, travelling, and productivity losses associated with hospital administration of multiple myeloma drugs in Finland

References

• Röllig C, Knop S, Bornhäuser M. Multiple myeloma. Lancet. 2015;385:2197–2208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danylesko I, Shimoni A, Nagler A. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation and targeted immunotherapy for multiple myeloma. Clin Lymph Myelom Leuk. 2013;13:S330–S348.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Rhee F, Giralt S, Barlogie B. The future of autologous stem cell transplantation in myeloma. Blood. 2014;124:328–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suomen myeloomaryhmän (FMG) hoitosuositus 11/2017 [Treatment recommendation of the Finnish Myeloma Group 11/2017]. Finnish Hematology Association. Updated 2017 Nov 1 [cited 2018 Dec 11]. Available from: https://www.hematology.fi/sites/default/files/uploads/fmg_suositus_2017_1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stewart AK, Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. New Engl J Med. 2015;372:142–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos MA, Oriol A, Nahi H, et al. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. New Engl J Med. 2016;375:1319–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonial S, Dimopoulos M, Palumbo A, et al. Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. New Engl J Med. 2015;373:621–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soini E, Leussu M, Hallinen T. Administration costs of intravenous biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. SpringerPlus. 2013;2:531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olofsson S, Norrlid H, Karlsson E, et al. Societal cost of subcutaneous and intravenous trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer – An observational study prospectively recording resource utilization in a Swedish healthcare setting. The Breast. 2016;29:140–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krol M, Papenburg J, Koopmanschap M, et al. Do productivity costs matter? The impact of including productivity costs on the incremental costs of interventions targeted at depressive disorders. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:601–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lankila T, Kotavaara O, Antikainen H, et al. Sosiaali- ja terveyspalveluverkon kehityskuva 2025 – Paikkatieto- ja saavutettavuusperusteinen tarkastelu. [Vision of the development of social and health care network in Finland 2025 – Focus on location and availability] Helsinki: Oulun yliopisto, Maantieteen tutkimusyksikkö; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Soini E, Hallinen T, Sokka AL, et al. Cost-utility of first-line actinic keratosis treatments in Finland. Adv Ther. 2015;32:455–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remes K, Anttila P, Silvennoinen R, et al. Real-world treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma: multicenter registry results from Finland 2009–2013. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0208507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornberger J, Rickert J, Dhawan R, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bortezomib in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Swedish perspective. Eur J Haematol. 2010;85:484–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armoiry X, Fagnani F, Benboubker L, et al. Management of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in French hospitals and estimation of associated direct costs: a multi-centre retrospective cohort study. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011;36:19–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picot J, Cooper K, Bryant J, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib and thalidomide in combination regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:1–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy A, Kish JK, Bloudek L, et al. Estimating the costs of therapy in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: a model framework. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2015;8:204–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touati M, Lamarsalle L, Moreau S, et al. Cost savings of home bortezomib injection in patients with multiple myeloma treated by a combination care in outpatient hospital and hospital care at home. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:5007–5014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rannanheimo P, Härkönen U, Kiviniemi V, et al. Carfilzomib in the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma. Finnish Medicines Agency Fimea. Serial publication “Fimea develops, assesses and informs” 2016;2/2016:1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Rannanheimo P, Härkönen U, Kiviniemi V, et al. Elotuzumab in the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma. Finnish Medicines Agency Fimea. Serial publication “Fimea develops, assesses and informs” 2016;12/2016:1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Merola D, Yong C, Noga S, et al. Costs associated with productivity loss among U.S. patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma receiving oral versus injectable chemotherapy. Blood. 2017;130:3423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassalle A, Thomaré P, Fronteau C, et al. Home administration of bortezomib in multiple myeloma is cost-effective and is preferred by patients compared with hospital administration: results of a prospective single-center study. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:314–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jönsson B. Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:357–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muhlbacker AC, Lincke H, Nubling M. Evaluating patients’ preferences for multiple myeloma therapy, a discrete-choice-experiment. GMS Psycho-Social Med. 2008;5:Doc10.
   Google Scholar
• Jin J, Zhu L, Chen M, et al. The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection. Patient Prefer Adher. 2015;9:923–942.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leleu X, Mateos M, Delforge M, et al. Assessment of multiple myeloma patient preferences in treatment choices: an international discrete choice study. Blood. 2015;126:2086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eek D, Krohe M, Mazar I, et al. Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adher. 2016;10:1609–1621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soini E. Biologisten lääkkeiden kustannusvaikuttavuus nivelpsoriaasin hoidossa [Cost-effectiveness of biologic drugs in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis]. Suomalaisen Lääkäriseuran Duodecimin ja Suomen Ihotautilääkäriyhdistyksen asettama työryhmä [Working group of Finnish Medical Society Duodecim and Finnish Dermatologist Society]. Helsinki: Suomalainen Lääkäriseura Duodecim. Updated 2017 Mar 1 [cited 2018 Dec 15]. Available from: http://www.kaypahoito.fi/web/kh/suositukset/suositus?id=nix02465&suositusid=hoi50062
   Google Scholar
• Soini E, Joutseno J, Sumelahti ML. Cost-utility of first-line disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2017;39:537–557.e10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soini E, Riekkinen O, Kröger H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pulse-echo ultrasonometry in osteoporosis management. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:279–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prime Minister's Office. Finland, a land of solutions. Mid-term review. Government Action Plan 2017–2019. Finland: Government Publications; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Soini E, Väätäinen S, Arvonen S. Predicted cost-benefit of Virtual Hospital 2.0 in terms of health care capacity freed: Towards potential economic efficiency with digitalization and customer-responsive secondary care services. Belfast, Northern Ireland: WHO International Healthy Cities Conference; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Soini E, Hallinen T, Kekoni A, et al. Efficient secondary use of representative social and health care data in Finland: Isaacus data lake, analytics and knowledge management pre-production project. Value Heal. 2017;20:A777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar