BACKGROUND: Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is the current standard of care for most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who are transplant eligible, yet the timing of ASCT is disputed due to a similar overall (OS) and progression-free survival with an early ASCT (eASCT) or a delayed ASCT (dASCT) approach. OBJECTIVE: We developed a decision analytic model to perform cost-effectiveness analysis of the two commonly used treatment strategies for MM. METHODS: Data on disease progression and treatment effectiveness came from 2001 to 2008 cohort treated at the Mayo Clinic and from published studies. Cost analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: The Consumer Price Index adjusted 2012 costs of eASCT and dASCT were $249 236 and $262 610, respectively. eASCT cohort had a benefit of 1.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 0.23 QALYs more than dASCT, implying that eASCT is preferred (dominant) over dASCT. The most critical variables in one-way sensitivity analysis were treatment-related mortality and OS associated with eASCT strategy. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that eASCT could potentially be a relatively cost-effective treatment option for appropriate patients with MM, and these results would help patients, providers, and payers in decision making for timing of ASCT.
BACKGROUND: Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is the current standard of care for most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who are transplant eligible, yet the timing of ASCT is disputed due to a similar overall (OS) and progression-free survival with an early ASCT (eASCT) or a delayed ASCT (dASCT) approach. OBJECTIVE: We developed a decision analytic model to perform cost-effectiveness analysis of the two commonly used treatment strategies for MM. METHODS: Data on disease progression and treatment effectiveness came from 2001 to 2008 cohort treated at the Mayo Clinic and from published studies. Cost analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: The Consumer Price Index adjusted 2012 costs of eASCT and dASCT were $249 236 and $262 610, respectively. eASCT cohort had a benefit of 1.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 0.23 QALYs more than dASCT, implying that eASCT is preferred (dominant) over dASCT. The most critical variables in one-way sensitivity analysis were treatment-related mortality and OS associated with eASCT strategy. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that eASCT could potentially be a relatively cost-effective treatment option for appropriate patients with MM, and these results would help patients, providers, and payers in decision making for timing of ASCT.
Authors: Gunjan L Shah; Aaron N Winn; Pei-Jung Lin; Andreas Klein; Kellie A Sprague; Hedy P Smith; Rachel Buchsbaum; Joshua T Cohen; Kenneth B Miller; Raymond Comenzo; Susan K Parsons Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Gunjan L Shah; Aaron Winn; Pei-Jung Lin; Andreas Klein; Kellie A Sprague; Hedy P Smith; Rachel Buchsbaum; Joshua T Cohen; Kenneth B Miller; Raymond Comenzo; Susan K Parsons Journal: Bone Marrow Res Date: 2016-10-18
Authors: Kevin C Miller; Morie A Gertz; Francis K Buadi; Suzanne R Hayman; Robert C Wolf; Martha Q Lacy; Angela A Dispenzieri; David Dingli; Prashant Kapoor; Wilson I Gonsalves; Taxiarchis Kourelis; William J Hogan; Shaji K Kumar Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 5.483