Cost-effectiveness analysis of early vs. late autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma

Chintan Pandya, Shahrukh Hashmi, Nandita D Khera, Morie Gertz, Angela Dispenzieri, William Hogan, Mustaqeem Siddiqui, Katia Noyes, Shaji K Kumar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1084-1091
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Transplantation
Volume28
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014

Fingerprint

Stem Cell Transplantation
Multiple Myeloma
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Transplants
Stem Cells
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Health Insurance Reimbursement
Costs and Cost Analysis
Standard of Care
Health Care Costs
Disease-Free Survival
Disease Progression
Decision Making
Economics
Mortality
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • autologous stem cell transplant
  • cost-effective analysis
  • decision tree
  • early vs. delayed stem cell transplant
  • multiple myeloma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness analysis of early vs. late autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. / Pandya, Chintan; Hashmi, Shahrukh; Khera, Nandita D; Gertz, Morie; Dispenzieri, Angela; Hogan, William; Siddiqui, Mustaqeem; Noyes, Katia; Kumar, Shaji K.

In: Clinical Transplantation, Vol. 28, No. 10, 01.10.2014, p. 1084-1091.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6a85d889aa6349d99aef214a4d2ade83,
title = "Cost-effectiveness analysis of early vs. late autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "autologous stem cell transplant, cost-effective analysis, decision tree, early vs. delayed stem cell transplant, multiple myeloma",
author = "Chintan Pandya and Shahrukh Hashmi and Khera, {Nandita D} and Morie Gertz and Angela Dispenzieri and William Hogan and Mustaqeem Siddiqui and Katia Noyes and Kumar, {Shaji K}",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ctr.12421",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1084--1091",
journal = "Clinical Transplantation",
issn = "0902-0063",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness analysis of early vs. late autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma

AU - Pandya, Chintan

AU - Hashmi, Shahrukh

AU - Khera, Nandita D

AU - Gertz, Morie

AU - Dispenzieri, Angela

AU - Hogan, William

AU - Siddiqui, Mustaqeem

AU - Noyes, Katia

AU - Kumar, Shaji K

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - autologous stem cell transplant

KW - cost-effective analysis

KW - decision tree

KW - early vs. delayed stem cell transplant

KW - multiple myeloma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006421869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006421869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ctr.12421

DO - 10.1111/ctr.12421

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85006421869

VL - 28

SP - 1084

EP - 1091

JO - Clinical Transplantation

JF - Clinical Transplantation

SN - 0902-0063

IS - 10

ER -