Lenalidomide-Based Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients, Ineligible for Transplant: A Healthcare Cost-Impact Analysis in Europe

Background:  Multiple myeloma remains an incurable and relapsing haematological cancer. The FIRST study showed that lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent, plus dexamethasone improved overall survival of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (ndMM) patients who are not eligible for transplants by 10.4 months when it was used continuously compared with fixed treatment duration (72 weeks) with melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (Facon et al, EHA 2015).  Compared with alternative intravenous agents, lenalidomide as an oral therapy has also been associated with fewer hospital visits (Gualtney et al, J Clin Pharm Ther, 2013; Armoiry et al, J Clin Pharm Ther, 2011; Arikian et al, Curr Med Res Opin, 2015). In an era of increasing cost conscious health systems, additional economic information is playing an important role in access decisions on innovative medicines. This analysis examines the cost impact of lenalidomide when used in the first-line setting for patients with ndMM in the EU5.      

Methods: A healthcare cost impact model was developed to estimate total costs associated with the treatment of ndMM over 5 years in the EU5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK). The model included drug costs and hospitalisation costs of first-line treatment and up to four additional lines of post-progression treatment for lenalidomide-, thalidomide-, bortezomib as well as costs of pomalidomide-based regimens in later lines. The expected rate of lenalidomide uptake in the first-line setting was based on its observed uptake in the US over the last 5 years. Care pathway costs were calculated for the EU5 according to treatment duration and time to progression.  Hospitalisation costs from a retrospective medical chart review in Dutch patients with relapse/refractory MM (Gualtney et al, J Clin Pharm Ther, 2013) were adapted to the first-line setting by adjusting for the duration of treatment and the time to progression for each regimen in each line.

Results: Baseline yearly costs per patient were €48,032 ($53,066). In year 1, first-line lenalidomide use resulted in a cost increase by 1.9% (€923 [$1,020] per MM patient, on average). In year 5, annual costs were expected to increase by 7.7% (€3,732 [$4,123] per MM patient). The monthly drug cost per patient was greater in lenalidomide treated patients compared with those receiving bortezomib or thalidomide (€6,548 [$7,234] vs. €5,151 [$5,691] and €1,742 [$1,925], respectively). However, lenalidomide use was associated with the lowest monthly hospitalisation cost per patient (€641 [$708]) compared with bortezomib and thalidomide (€925 [$1,022] and €1,209 [$1,336] respectively).

Conclusion: Lenalidomide as a treatment option for newly diagnosed patients is a significant development in the management of MM. Use of lenalidomide in this setting is expected to result in an overall MM care pathway cost impact of under 10% over 5 years.  Whilst the drug acquisition cost of lenalidomide is relatively higher than currently used options for ndMM, this is partially offset by savings from displaced use of bortezomib and lenalidomide in the first and second lines, respectively. Additionally there are potential savings from lower resource use. Further studies should be undertaken to evaluate full real life healthcare costs.