| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of bortezomib for multiple myeloma: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s104195 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wendong Chen, Yicheng Yang, Yi Chen, Fen Du, Huan Zhan |
| Abstract |
To review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) assessing bortezomib (BTZ) for multiple myeloma (MM) and explore possible bias affecting the cost-effectiveness of BTZ. 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]). 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. 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2019.
All research outputs
#14,972,904
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#268
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,556
of 312,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#14
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.