<< Neuroscientists show how brain waves can be used to perform certain tasks | Researchers explore optimal induction therapies for managing blood cancer >>
Read in | English | Español | Français | Deutsch | Português | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 简体中文 | Dansk | Nederlands | हिन्दी | Русский

VELCADE based regimens are cost-effective for payers and patients, finds study

Published on December 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM · No Comments

Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company today announced that two studies presented at the 51st American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting found that VELCADE based regimens are more cost-effective for payers and reduced out-of-pocket costs for patients than other commonly used multiple myeloma treatments. The study found that VELCADE-melphalan-prednisone (VMP), a commonly used treatment in multiple myeloma, was more cost-effective compared to MP and delivered more cost-savings compared to melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT), another commonly used treatment regimen, based on a health economic model.

A second study based on claims data found patients with multiple myeloma treated with VELCADE:

  • Incurred fewer out-of-pocket costs than patients treated with the oral drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide
  • Did not require significantly more healthcare visits than patients prescribed thalidomide and lenalidomide.

“These studies support VELCADE’s overall cost-effectiveness and reduced out-of-pocket costs. As measured by the number of healthcare visits, VELCADE appears to be as convenient as oral multiple myeloma treatments,” said Dixie-Lee Esseltine, M.D., Vice President, Global Medical Affairs, Millennium. “This is valuable information for healthcare providers, patients and payers.”

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bortezomib for the Initial Treatment of Multiple Myeloma in the United States (Abstract #1379)

Based on a direct comparison of patient-level data, researchers projected that VMP would be cost-effective over a patient’s lifetime compared with MP in the United States. A second indirect comparison across different trials projected the combination of VMP would cost payers 17.7 percent less over a patient’s lifetime and generate better quality-adjusted life expectancy than MPT. Quality-adjusted life years are a measure of disease burden that take into account both the length and quality of life.

The incremental cost-effectiveness of VMP versus MP was found to be within the generally accepted cost-effectiveness range of $50,000-$100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The projected overall survival years were greatest for patients treated with VMP versus those treated with MPT or MP (4.19, 4.14, and 2.86 years, respectively).

Cancer can be a costly disease for both payers and patients, and this is certainly true in multiple myeloma,” said Professor Lou Garrison, a study co-author and Associate Director in the Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle. “It is therefore important to identify cost-effective therapies. This trial-based modeling study demonstrates that the first-line regimen using VELCADE is cost-effective compared to other commonly used regimens.”

To assess the relative costs and outcomes of different treatment combinations, study methodology generated modeling projections based on a direct comparison from the Phase III VISTA trial, which demonstrated superiority in overall survival of VMP versus MP (San Miguel et al, New England Journal of Medicine 2008) for treatment of multiple myeloma, as well as an indirect comparison of this trial with data published from the IFM 99-06 clinical trial for MPT (Facon et al, Lancet 2007). Costs included per-protocol drug and medical costs, treatment-related adverse events, second-line treatment, and resource utilization during treatment-free interval and progressive disease. Unit costs of medications were obtained from published literature.

Multiple Myeloma: Patient Out-Of-Pocket Costs and Health Care Utilization (Abstract #1366)

Comments
The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News-Medical.Net.



  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading