Cost per Responder Analysis of Teclistamab Compared to Real-World Physician’s Choice of Carfilzomib and/or Pomalidomide-Based Regimens for Triple-Class Exposed Patients With Refractory/Relapsed Multiple Myeloma
Author(s)
PEDRO C. AGOSTINHO, MBA, Mauricio Resende, BSc.
Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
OBJECTIVES: Assess the economic value of teclistamab compared with real-world physician’s choice of carfilzomib-and/or pomalidomide-based regimens for refractory/relapsed triple-class exposed (TCE) patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in the Brazilian private health system.
METHODS: The costs per overall response (OR) and complete response (CR) rates were calculated using the data from the indirect treatment comparison of teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 and TCE patients treated with carfilzomib-and/or pomalidomide based regimens in LocoMMotion and MoMMent. The time horizon assessed in this study was 1 year. The progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival Kaplan-Meier curves of both regimens were extrapolated. Costs of adverse events, health resources and subsequent treatments were considered. Drug prices were retrieved from the official Brazilian national drug price list and used to calculate the cost of each regimen (based on approved label dosage). The total treatment cost was the sum of all costs formerly mentioned. Teclistamab total cost was weighted by its CR rate between weekly (QW, 53,94%) and biweekly (Q2W, 46,06%). The costs per OR and CR rates were calculated by dividing the total treatment cost of each regimen with its respective OR rate and CR rate, respectively.
RESULTS: Teclistamab showed higher median PFS vs the physician’s choice (11,37 vs 5,09 months). Additionally, teclistamab showed higher CR and OR rates vs the physician’s choice (46,06% vs 1,22%; 63,30% vs 29,98%, respectively). Considering its weighted cost, teclistamab showed lower cost per CR ($376 thousand [k] vs $489k) and lower cost per OR ($516k vs $12,0 millions).
CONCLUSIONS: Teclistamab demonstrated higher median PFS, lower costs per OR and CR vs the physician’s choice. Given its cost profile, higher median PFS and superior response rates, teclistamab can reduce the incurrence of eventual subsequent treatment lines and its costs, which represents a potentially optimal option for TCE patients with refractory/relapsed MM in the Brazilian private health system.
METHODS: The costs per overall response (OR) and complete response (CR) rates were calculated using the data from the indirect treatment comparison of teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 and TCE patients treated with carfilzomib-and/or pomalidomide based regimens in LocoMMotion and MoMMent. The time horizon assessed in this study was 1 year. The progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival Kaplan-Meier curves of both regimens were extrapolated. Costs of adverse events, health resources and subsequent treatments were considered. Drug prices were retrieved from the official Brazilian national drug price list and used to calculate the cost of each regimen (based on approved label dosage). The total treatment cost was the sum of all costs formerly mentioned. Teclistamab total cost was weighted by its CR rate between weekly (QW, 53,94%) and biweekly (Q2W, 46,06%). The costs per OR and CR rates were calculated by dividing the total treatment cost of each regimen with its respective OR rate and CR rate, respectively.
RESULTS: Teclistamab showed higher median PFS vs the physician’s choice (11,37 vs 5,09 months). Additionally, teclistamab showed higher CR and OR rates vs the physician’s choice (46,06% vs 1,22%; 63,30% vs 29,98%, respectively). Considering its weighted cost, teclistamab showed lower cost per CR ($376 thousand [k] vs $489k) and lower cost per OR ($516k vs $12,0 millions).
CONCLUSIONS: Teclistamab demonstrated higher median PFS, lower costs per OR and CR vs the physician’s choice. Given its cost profile, higher median PFS and superior response rates, teclistamab can reduce the incurrence of eventual subsequent treatment lines and its costs, which represents a potentially optimal option for TCE patients with refractory/relapsed MM in the Brazilian private health system.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE185
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology