COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT STRATEGIES FOR MULTIPLE MYELOMA IN ELDERLY PATIENTS- A NETWORK META-ANALYSIS
Author(s)
Buchberger M1, Rochau U2, Vukicevic D1, Willenbacher W3, Chaimani A4, Efthimiou O4, Siebert U5
1UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Hall i.T., Austria, 2UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and HTA, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and HTA/ ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Medicine, Hall i.T./ Innsbruck, Austria, 3ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Area Health Technology Assessment/Internal Medicine V—Hematology and Oncology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, 4University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, 5and Director, Division for HTA, ONCOTYROL – Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Hall i.T., Austria
OBJECTIVES: To examine the comparative effectiveness of different first-line strategies currently used for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) > 65 years who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation, for the outcomes overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Treatment alternatives include multidrug regimens combining 2-5 drugs of different classes: prednisone (P), high-dose dexamethasone (D), low-dose dexamethasone (d), thalidomide (T), lenalidomide (R), bortezomib (V), cyclophosphamide (C), and melphalan (M). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CRD databases. We used a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for all treatment comparisons and outcomes. We ranked treatments using cumulative ranking probabilities. RESULTS: The NMA comprised thirteen randomized controlled trials including 5573 patients comparing eleven treatment strategies. Treatment with VMPT-VT showed a statistically significant OS benefit compared to MPR and MP regimens. VTD showed a significant survival benefit compared to MP. Regarding PFS, the VMPT-VT strategy was superior to most of the other treatments. The NMA showed significantly better PFS for MPR-R compared to CTD, Rd, MPR, MPT, and MP. Comparison of Rd-Rd against Rd, MPT, and MP showed a significant benefit of Rd-Rd. The analysis showed VTD, MPV, and MPT to be favorable compared to MP regarding PFS. Based on the cumulative ranking probabilities, VMPT-VT, VTD, and Rd-Rd might be more effective than other treatment strategies in terms of OS. With respect to PFS, VMPT-VT, MPR-R, and Rd-Rd might be more effective. CONCLUSIONS: The NMA suggests that VMPT-VT, Rd-Rd, MPR-R, and VTD are more effective in terms of OS and PFS than other multidrug regimens for the first-line treatment of elderly patients with MM. However, further research should be considered to provide information on toxicity, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness for the different therapy approaches to consider all trade-offs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2016-10, ISPOR Europe 2016, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 7 (November 2016)
Code
PCN14
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
Oncology
Explore Related HEOR by Topic