Budget Impact of Belantamab Mafodotin (Belamaf) Adoption in the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the United States
© 2021 Shah et al..
PURPOSE: Estimate the budget impact of belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received ≥4 prior therapies, including an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a proteasome inhibitor, and an immunomodulatory agent.
METHODS: A budget impact analysis (BIA) was developed to estimate the cost difference between current (no belamaf) and projected (with belamaf) market scenarios over 3 years. Comparators were identified from a systematic literature review and included selinexor + dexamethasone or best supportive care. The number of treatment-eligible patients were estimated using an epidemiology model. Base-case analyses were conducted from a US commercial payer perspective (cost year: 2019). Model inputs included market share estimates, treatment duration, and costs of drug acquisition/administration, concomitant medications, adverse event (AE) management, treatment monitoring, and subsequent treatments based on published literature/cost databases. Budget impact, calculated as the difference in costs between current and projected scenarios over 3 years, was reported as cost per member per month (PMPM) and per member per year (PMPY). One-way sensitivity analysis assessed which key parameters most affected model outcomes. Alternative scenarios were tested (1- or 5-year time horizon; Medicare perspective; negligible cost of mental status change AE).
RESULTS: In a hypothetical commercial payer health plan with 1 million members, 33 patients were identified as treatment-eligible over 3 years. Introducing belamaf for patients with RRMM resulted in an estimated budget-neutral PMPM cost of -$0.0003 and PMPY of -$0.004, based on n=9/33 patients receiving treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed that budget impact in the base case was most sensitive to changes in treatment duration and drug acquisition costs. Base-case results were consistent across all scenarios assessed.
CONCLUSION: BIA indicates that adoption of belamaf in this patient population would be budget neutral for a US health plan.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:13 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR - 13(2021) vom: 01., Seite 789-800 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Shah, Anshul [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
BCMA |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 26.04.2022 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.2147/CEOR.S310619 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM33073637X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM33073637X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226203600.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.2147/CEOR.S310619 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1102.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM33073637X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34531667 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Shah, Anshul |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Budget Impact of Belantamab Mafodotin (Belamaf) Adoption in the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the United States |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 26.04.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2021 Shah et al. | ||
| 520 | |a PURPOSE: Estimate the budget impact of belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received ≥4 prior therapies, including an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a proteasome inhibitor, and an immunomodulatory agent | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: A budget impact analysis (BIA) was developed to estimate the cost difference between current (no belamaf) and projected (with belamaf) market scenarios over 3 years. Comparators were identified from a systematic literature review and included selinexor + dexamethasone or best supportive care. The number of treatment-eligible patients were estimated using an epidemiology model. Base-case analyses were conducted from a US commercial payer perspective (cost year: 2019). Model inputs included market share estimates, treatment duration, and costs of drug acquisition/administration, concomitant medications, adverse event (AE) management, treatment monitoring, and subsequent treatments based on published literature/cost databases. Budget impact, calculated as the difference in costs between current and projected scenarios over 3 years, was reported as cost per member per month (PMPM) and per member per year (PMPY). One-way sensitivity analysis assessed which key parameters most affected model outcomes. Alternative scenarios were tested (1- or 5-year time horizon; Medicare perspective; negligible cost of mental status change AE) | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: In a hypothetical commercial payer health plan with 1 million members, 33 patients were identified as treatment-eligible over 3 years. Introducing belamaf for patients with RRMM resulted in an estimated budget-neutral PMPM cost of -$0.0003 and PMPY of -$0.004, based on n=9/33 patients receiving treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed that budget impact in the base case was most sensitive to changes in treatment duration and drug acquisition costs. Base-case results were consistent across all scenarios assessed | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: BIA indicates that adoption of belamaf in this patient population would be budget neutral for a US health plan | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a BCMA | |
| 650 | 4 | |a belamaf | |
| 650 | 4 | |a budget impact analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a multiple myeloma | |
| 650 | 4 | |a payer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a relapsed/refractory | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tosh, Jonathan C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ambavane, Apoorva |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nikolaou, Andreas |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hogea, Cosmina |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Samyshkin, Yevgeniy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gorsh, Boris |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maiese, Eric M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Feng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR |d 2012 |g 13(2021) vom: 01., Seite 789-800 |w (DE-627)NLM216296978 |x 1178-6981 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:13 |g year:2021 |g day:01 |g pages:789-800 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S310619 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 13 |j 2021 |b 01 |h 789-800 | ||