UTILITY VALUES IN PATIENTS WITH RR MULTIPLE MYELOMA - A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Author(s)
Mehta J1, Harrison O2, Barwood C3, Ubi S3, Bertranou E2, Bouhlabel F4, Low E5, Shah A6, Korde R4, Shah J4, Gaugris S3
1Karyopharm Therapeutics, lexington, MA, USA, 2FIECON, London, LON, UK, 3FIECON Ltd, St. Albans, HRT, UK, 4Karyopharm Therapeutics, Newton, MA, USA, 5Eric Low Consulting, East Lothian, UK, 6Karyopharm Therapeutics, Boston, MA, USA
OBJECTIVES This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to identify utility values in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) to inform the development of future economic models. METHODS Systematic searches were conducted between January 2016 and August 2019 in databases EMBASE, Medline and Medline ® In-Process (EMBASE interface); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA Database, National Health Service, Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit (OvidSP), ScHARRHUD and EuroQol database. Grey literature searching was performed and included searching within the previous two years in websites including Karyopharm, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, NICE and SMC. Congresses including ASCO annual meeting, ASH, BSH and EHA that were held in the previous three years were also searched. Two reviewers screened the abstracts and then the full text publications. Studies were then extracted by one reviewer and assessed for quality by a second reviewer. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. RESULTS Of the 103 HRQoL studies were identified, 85 studies were excluded following a review of the full texts. The remaining 18 studies were supplemented with 5 studies from the grey literature search. 23 studies were extracted. 6 studies provided baseline utilities ranging from 0.590 to 0.810. 17 studies provided utilities for pre-progression health states ranging from 0.610 to 0.840. 15 studies reported utilities for post-progression health states ranging from 0.560 to 0.742. Patients populations and lines of therapies may partly explain the disparities observed however, limited information was provided. Most values were elicited using the EQ-5D tool. 11 studies reported disutility values for over 30 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS A wide range of utility values was reported for rrMM patients at baseline as well as for the pre-progression and post progression health states. Patients populations for whom these utility values were reported need careful examination prior to the incorporation of utilities into economic evaluations.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2020-05, ISPOR 2020, Orlando, FL, USA
Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue 5, S1 (May 2020)
Code
PCN135
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Oncology