Back to Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 8

Cost-effectiveness of bortezomib for multiple myeloma: a systematic review

Authors Chen W, Yang Y, Chen Y, Du F, Zhan H

Received 13 January 2016

Accepted for publication 14 March 2016

Published 3 May 2016 Volume 2016:8 Pages 137—151


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Michael Liebman

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Professor Giorgio Lorenzo Colombo

Wendong Chen,1 Yicheng Yang,2 Yi Chen,3 Fen Du,3 Huan Zhan3

1Normin Health, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Xian Janssen, Beijing, People's Republic of China; 3Normin Health Changsha Representative Office, Changsha, People's Republic of China

Objectives: To review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) assessing bortezomib (BTZ) for multiple myeloma (MM) and explore possible bias affecting the cost-effectiveness of BTZ.
Methods: Literature was searched for published CEAs assessing BTZ or BTZ-containing regimens for MM from 2003 to 2015. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were adjusted by 2014 country-specific gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC) to compare the cost-effectiveness threshold of the World Health Organization (3 GDPPC per gained quality-adjusted life year [QALY]).
Results: A total of 17 published CEAs were included in this review. When compared to non-BTZ treatments, BTZ-containing regimens were cost-effective for induction treatment prior to stem cell transplantation (SCT) in Canada, Poland, and Germany (ICER per QALY: 0.9299–2.254 GDPPC). BTZ/melphalan/prednisolone (VMP) was cost-effective for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM patients when compared to melphalan plus prednisolone (MP), melphalan/prednisone/lenalidomide with lenalidomide maintenance, and cyclophosphamide/thalidomide/dexamethasone (CTD) (ICER per QALY: dominant to 2.374 GDPPC) in Canada, UK, and USA. BTZ was cost-effective for relapsed/refractory MM when compared to best supportive care (ICER per life year: 0.9317–1.8210 GDPPC) in the UK and the USA, thalidomide in USA (0.5178 GDPPC/LY), and dexamethasone (DEX) in four Nordic countries (€54,451–€81,560/QALY). However, the cost-effectiveness for VMP versus MP plus thalidomide (MPT) and continuous lenalidomide (LEN) plus low-dose DEX (RD) for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM patients and BTZ versus LEN/DEX for relapsed/refractory MM patients could be unreliable because of the bias associated with model design and the indirect comparisons of treatment effects.
Conclusion: Published CEAs suggested that BTZ or BTZ-containing regimens were cost-effective when compared to most non-BTZ treatments for MM. However, the conflicting cost-effectiveness for VMP versus MPT for previously untreated and SCT-ineligible MM and BTZ versus LEN/DEX for relapsed/refractory MM needs more robust evidence for further clarification.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness, bortezomib, multiple myeloma, systematic review

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]