TY - JOUR
T1 - Policymaker, please consider your needs carefully: does outcomes research in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma reduce policymaker uncertainty regarding value for money of bortezomib?
AU - Franken, Margreet
AU - Gaultney, JG (Jennifer G.)
AU - Blommestein, Hedwig
AU - Huijgens, PC
AU - Sonneveld, Pieter
AU - Redekop, Ken
AU - Uyl - de Groot, Carin
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Introduction:
Dutch policy regulations require outcomes research for the assessment of appropriate drug use and cost-effectiveness after 4 years of temporary reimbursement. We investigated whether outcomes research reduced policymaker uncertainty regarding the question whether the costs are worth public funding. Methods:
Our cohort study included 139 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
who were treated outside of a clinical study; 72 received bortezomib and 67 did not receive bortezomib. Detailed data were retrospectively collected from medical records in 38% of Dutch hospitals. Results: All patients received second-line treatment; 65%, 40%, and 14%, received three, four, or five or more lines of therapy.
Neither a specific treatment sequence nor an appropriate comparator could be identified because of large variation in regimes. Kaplan-Meier curves showed an increased overall survival (mean [median] 29.5 [33.2] vs. 28.0 [21.6] months) for patients treated with bortezomib (Wilcoxon P ¼ 0.01). Total mean costs were €81,626 (range €17,793–€229,783) and €52,760 (range €748–€179,571) for patients receiving bortezomib and patients not receiving bortezomib, respectively. Patients treated with bortezomib, however, were not comparable to other patients despite attempts to correct for confounding. Therefore, it was impossible to develop a feasible model to obtain a valid incremental cost-effectiveness estimate. Conclusions:
It was possible to develop evidence on bortezomib’s use, effects, and costs in everyday practice. Much uncertainty, however, remained regarding its osteffectiveness. Policymakers should carefully consider whether outcomes
research sufficiently decreases uncertainty or whether other options (e.g., finance- and/or outcomes-based risk-sharing arrangements) are more appropriate to ensure sufficient value for money of expensive drugs.
AB - Introduction:
Dutch policy regulations require outcomes research for the assessment of appropriate drug use and cost-effectiveness after 4 years of temporary reimbursement. We investigated whether outcomes research reduced policymaker uncertainty regarding the question whether the costs are worth public funding. Methods:
Our cohort study included 139 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
who were treated outside of a clinical study; 72 received bortezomib and 67 did not receive bortezomib. Detailed data were retrospectively collected from medical records in 38% of Dutch hospitals. Results: All patients received second-line treatment; 65%, 40%, and 14%, received three, four, or five or more lines of therapy.
Neither a specific treatment sequence nor an appropriate comparator could be identified because of large variation in regimes. Kaplan-Meier curves showed an increased overall survival (mean [median] 29.5 [33.2] vs. 28.0 [21.6] months) for patients treated with bortezomib (Wilcoxon P ¼ 0.01). Total mean costs were €81,626 (range €17,793–€229,783) and €52,760 (range €748–€179,571) for patients receiving bortezomib and patients not receiving bortezomib, respectively. Patients treated with bortezomib, however, were not comparable to other patients despite attempts to correct for confounding. Therefore, it was impossible to develop a feasible model to obtain a valid incremental cost-effectiveness estimate. Conclusions:
It was possible to develop evidence on bortezomib’s use, effects, and costs in everyday practice. Much uncertainty, however, remained regarding its osteffectiveness. Policymakers should carefully consider whether outcomes
research sufficiently decreases uncertainty or whether other options (e.g., finance- and/or outcomes-based risk-sharing arrangements) are more appropriate to ensure sufficient value for money of expensive drugs.
U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.009
DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.009
M3 - Article
VL - 17
SP - 245
EP - 253
JO - Value in Health
JF - Value in Health
SN - 1098-3015
ER -