Systematic literature review of health economic models developed for multiple myeloma to support future analyses

References

• Palumbo A, Anderson K. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):1046–1060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andres M, Feller A, Arndt V, et al. Trends of incidence, mortality, and survival of multiple myeloma in Switzerland between 1994 and 2013. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018;53:105–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braunlin M, Belani R, Buchanan J, et al. Trends in the multiple myeloma treatment landscape and survival: a U.S. analysis using 2011–2019 oncology clinic electronic health record data. Leuk Lymphoma. 2021;62(2):377–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang-Chan DYL, Ríos-Tamayo R, Rodríguez BM, et al. Trends of incidence, mortality and survival of multiple myeloma in Spain. A twenty-three-year population-based study. Clin Transl Oncol. 2021;23(7):1429–1439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar SK, Callander NS, Hillengass J, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: multiple myeloma, version 1.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(10):1154–1165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, San Miguel J, Sonneveld P, et al. Multiple myeloma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(Suppl. 4):iv52–iv61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Brennan A, et al. Whole disease modeling to inform resource allocation decisions in cancer: a methodological framework. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1127–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhoff M, van der Maas ME, Steuten LMG. A systematic review of health economic evaluations of diagnostic biomarkers. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):51–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, et al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003;9(1):53–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moons KGM, Groot J, Bouwmeester W, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blommestein HM, Verelst SGR, de Groot S, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of real-world treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma using a full disease model. Eur J Haematol. 2016;96(2):198–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Möller J, Nicklasson L, Murthy A. Cost-effectiveness of novel relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma therapies in Norway: lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib. J Med Econ. 2011;14(6):690–697.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borg S, Nahi H, Hansson M, et al. Cost effectiveness of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(5):554–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinja S, Kaur G, Malhotra P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of autologous stem cell treatment as compared to conventional chemotherapy for treatment of multiple myeloma in India. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2017;33(1):31–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raje N, Roodman GD, Willenbacher W, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America. J Med Econ. 2018;21(5):525–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazzaro C, Castagna L, Lanza F, et al. Chemotherapy-based versus chemotherapy-free stem cell mobilization (±plerixafor) in multiple myeloma patients: an Italian cost-effectiveness analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021;56(8):1876–1887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaultney JG, Redekop WK, Sonneveld P, et al. Critical review of economic evaluations in multiple myeloma: an overview of the economic evidence and quality of the methodology. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(10):1458–1467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aceituno S, Gozalbo I, Appierto M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone compared to bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone for the second-line treatment of multiple myeloma in Chile. Medwave. 2018;18(3):e7220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asano E, Maiolino A, Martins E. Treatment sequencing for patients with multiple myeloma with at least one prior line: comparing progression-free survival and costs under a private payer perspective. Value Health. 2017;20(9):A876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown RE, Stern S, Dhanasiri S, et al. Lenalidomide for multiple myeloma: cost-effectiveness in patients with one prior therapy in England and Wales. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(3):507–514.
   PubMed 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. 2018;36(2):145–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai H, Zhang L, Li N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis on binary/triple therapy on the basis of ixazomib or bortezomib for refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60(12):2951–2959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao Y, Zhao L, Zhang T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for untreated multiple myeloma. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:608685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delea TE, El Ouagari K, Rotter J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid compared with clodronate in multiple myeloma. Curr Oncol. 2012;19(6):392–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolph M, Tremblay G, Leong H. Cost effectiveness of triplet selinexor–bortezomib–dexamethasone (XVd) in previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) based on results from the phase III BOSTON trial. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(11):1309–1325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison LP Jr., Wang ST, Huang H, et al. The cost‐effectiveness of initial treatment of multiple myeloma in the US with bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone versus thalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone or lenalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone with continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment. Oncologist. 2013;18(1):27–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grima DT, Airia P, Attard C, et al. Modelled cost-effectiveness of high cut-off haemodialysis compared to standard haemodialysis in the management of myeloma kidney. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(2):383–391.
   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(6):484–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakubowiak AJ, Campioni M, Benedict Á, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma from a US perspective. J Med Econ. 2016;19(11):1061–1074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaló Z, Vályi-Nagy I, Székely A, et al. PPM6 early phase economic evaluation of new generation sequence diagnostics in multiple myeloma. Value Health. 2020;23:S326–S327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Li J, Peng L, et al. First-line daratumumab in addition to chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are transplant ineligible: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Clin Ther. 2021;43(7):1253–1264.e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu J, Chen W. Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for stem cell transplantation in China. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8(12):979–992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchetti M, Gale RP, Barosi G. Cost-effectiveness of post-autotransplant lenalidomide in persons with multiple myeloma. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2021;13(1):e2021034.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Muto RL, Lenzi M, Franzini JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of daratumumab in heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma patients for the Italian Healthcare System. Value Health. 2017;20(9):A442–A443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narsipur N, Bulla S, Yoo C, et al. PCN69 cost-effectiveness of daratumumab added to lenalidomide and dexamethasone for transplant ineligible multiple myeloma. Value Health. 2020;23:S35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narsipur N, Bulla S, Yoo C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab or bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021;27(12):1691–1702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolaou A, Ambavane A, Shah A, et al. Belantamab mafodotin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in heavily pretreated patients: a US cost-effectiveness analysis. Expert Rev Hematol. 2021;14(12):1137–1145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ollendorf D, Chapman R, Khan S. Treatment options for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: effectiveness, value, and value-based price benchmarks. Boston: Institute for Clinical and Economic Review; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Olry de Labry Lima A, Gimeno-Ballester V, Ríos Tamayo R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant of hematopoietic progenitor cells. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54(11):1908–1919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandya C, Hashmi S, Khera N, et al. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of early vs. late autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Clin Transplant. 2014;28(10):1084–1091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel KK, Giri S, Parker TL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus second-line use of daratumumab in older, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(10):1119–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelligra CG, Parikh K, Guo S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pomalidomide, carfilzomib, and daratumumab for the treatment of patients with heavily pretreated relapsed–refractory multiple myeloma in the United States. Clin Ther. 2017;39(10):1986–2005.e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qerimi V, Nestorovska AK, Sterjev Z, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treating transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients in Macedonia. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:327–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usmani SZ, Cavenagh JD, Belch AR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone in transplant-ineligible US patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Med Econ. 2016;19(3):243–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uyl D, Groot CA, Ramsden R, et al. Lenalidomide as maintenance treatment for patients with multiple myeloma after autologous stem cell transplantation: a pharmaco‐economic assessment. Eur J Haematol. 2020;105(5):635–645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vukićević Đ, Rochau U, Savić A, et al. Long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of multiple myeloma treatment strategies for elderly transplant-ineligible patients in Serbia. Zdr Varst. 2020;59(2):83–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walzer S, Krenberger S, Vollmer L, et al. A cost impact analysis of clonoSEQ® as a valid and CE-Certified minimal residual disease (MRD) diagnostic compared to no MRD testing in multiple myeloma in Germany. Oncol Ther. 2021;9(2):607–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto C, Minakata D, Koyama S, et al. Daratumumab in first-line therapy is cost-effective in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Blood. 2022;140(6):594–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng X, Peng L, Peng Y, et al. Economic evaluation of adding daratumumab to a regimen of bortezomib + dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: based on the latest updated analysis of CASTOR. Clin Ther. 2020;42(2):251–262.e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng X, Liu Q, Peng L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding daratumumab to a regimen of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Adv Ther. 2021;38(5):2379–2390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang TT, Wang S, Wan N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of daratumumab-based triplet therapies in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Clin Ther. 2018;40(7):1122–1139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Bortezomib and thalidomide for the first line treatment of multiple myeloma TA228 27; 2011. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta228/resources/bortezomib-and-thalidomide-for-the-firstline-treatment-of-multiple-myeloma-pdf-82600316845765
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Bortezomib for induction therapy in multiple myeloma before high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation TA311 23; 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta311/resources/bortezomib-for-induction-therapy-in-multiple-myeloma-before-highdose-chemotherapy-and-autologous-stem-cell-transplantation-pdf-82602421404613
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Panobinostat for treating multiple myeloma after at least 2 previous treatments TA380; 2016 [cited 2016 Jan 27]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta380/resources/panobinostat-for-treating-multiple-myeloma-after-at-least-2-previous-treatments-pdf-82602842988229
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Isatuximab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for treating relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma TA658; 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta658/resources/isatuximab-with-pomalidomide-and-dexamethasone-for-treating-relapsed-and-refractory-multiple-myeloma-pdf-82609205373637
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Darzalex in combo with bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone for multiple myeloma (newly diagnosed) – final economic guidance report; 2019 [updated 2019 Sep 16]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/Reviews2019/10148Daratumumab%2BVMPforMM_fnEGR_NOREDACT-ABBREV_Post_29Aug2019_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Revlimid (in combo) bortezomib + dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma – final economic guidance report; 2019 [updated 2019 Jul 5]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/Reviews2019/10141LenalidomideBorDexMM_fnEGR_NOREDACT-ABBREV_EC-Post_19Jun2019_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Ninlaro for multiple myeloma (2nd-beyond) – final economic guidance report; 2019 [updated 2019 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/Reviews2019/10164IxazomibMM_fnEGR_NOREDACT-ABBREV_Post_05Jul2019_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Pomalyst in combination with dexamethasone and bortezomib for multiple myeloma (second-line or beyond) – final economic guidance report; 2019 [updated 2019 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/Reviews2019/10165PomalidomideBortezomibMM_fnEGR_NOREDACT-ABBREV_EarlyConv_Post_18Sep2019_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• World Bank Country and Lending Groups; 2022. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
   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. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(8):1159–1169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asrar MM, Lad DP, Prinja S, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatment regimens in multiple myeloma. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;21:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostopoulos IV, Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I, Gavriatopoulou M, et al. Minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: current landscape and future applications with immunotherapeutic approaches. Front Oncol. 2020;10(10):860.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tantivess S, Chalkidou K, Tritasavit N, et al. Health technology assessment capacity development in low- and middle-income countries: experiences from the international units of HITAP and NICE. F1000Res. 2017;6:2119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programme. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Aguiar PM, Lima TM, Storpirtis S. Systematic review of the economic evaluations of novel therapeutic agents in multiple myeloma: what is the reporting quality? J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(2):189–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) — explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–250.
   PubMed 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(2):164–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper K, Picot J, Bryant J, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness models for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):90–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-McQuire S, Campioni M, Bennison C, et al. Development and validation of a conceptual model of multiple myeloma. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar