A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatment regimens in multiple myeloma. (4th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Asrar, Mir Mahmood; Lad, Deepesh P.; Prinja, Shankar; Bansal, Dipika
• Is Part Of: Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. Volume 21:Number 4(2021)
• Page Start: 799
• Page End: 809
• Publication Date: 2021-07-04
• Subjects: Multiple myeloma -- cost effectiveness analysis -- health economics -- cost utility analysis -- critical appraisal; Pharmacology -- Economic aspects -- Periodicals; 338.47615105
• DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2020.1779064
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-7167

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: The expansion of advanced expensive therapeutic innovations for Multiple Myeloma (MM) led to increased disclosure of economic evaluations. The present analysis systematically reviewed and appraised the reporting quality of economic evaluations in MM. Methodology: A comprehensive literature search in Ovid, MEDLINE(R), PubMed, and Cochrane libraries was conducted for studies published in the past decade. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction in a standardized form. Study methodological quality assessment was performed using 10-item Drummond's tool. Results: Of potentially eligible 1150 retrieved studies, 17 met eligibility criteria. Six evaluations (35%) were in newly diagnosed MM and 11 (65%) in relapse refractory (RR) MM. Nine studies (53%) embraced the payer's perspective, five (29%) adopted health care system, one (6%) societal and two did not report. Six (35%) employed partitioned survival model, 4(24%) discrete event simulation, 4(24%) Markov model and 2(12%) used decision tree model. The methodological quality has improved significantly; 16 (94%) studies comprehended a well-defined question by affirming the analysis perspective and examined both costs and outcomes while 13 (71%) provided a comprehensive description of competing alternatives. Conclusion: The addition of novel drugs to the treatment armamentarium of MM is considerably cost-effective. The evaluations became more frequent, methodological quality has improved in the last decade.