SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2019
Cost Effectiveness of Transplant, Conventional Chemotherapy, and Novel Agents in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health-related quality of life and financial toxicity in Chinese patients with multiple myeloma: a two-year real-world multicentre study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- The Experience of Undocumented Individuals Denied Stem Cell Transplant for Hematologic Malignancies.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Elranatamab Versus Current Therapies for the Management of Patients with Triple-Class Exposed, Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma, Including Other Bispecific and Physician's Choice of Treatment in Spain.Oncology and therapy · 2025Article
- [Comparison of etoposide combined with G-CSF and cyclophosphamide combined with G-CSF in mobilization of autologous peripheral hematopoietic stem cells in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2022Article
- Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022Review
- The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Transplant-Ineligible Myeloma Patients with Bortezomib plus Thalidomide plus Dexamethasone (VTD) or Bortezomib plus Melphalan plus Prednisolone (VMP) Treatment in Southern Taiwan.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Novel Agents in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma.Cancers · 2021Review
- [Problems and progress of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatments for multiple myeloma (MM) have been rapidly evolving. Newly developed treatment regimens are likely to be more effective but also cost more than conventional therapies.
objectiveWe conducted a systematic review to compare the cost effectiveness of different classes of MM treatment.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases for studies published during 1990-2018 comparing the cost effectiveness of transplant, chemotherapeutic and novel MM treatments. Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility by two investigators. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the 16-item, validated Quality of Health Economics Studies instrument.
resultsTwenty-four publications were included in the systematic review and summarized according to treatment regimen and line. For first-line treatment, transplant was the most cost-effective option for transplant-eligible MM patients [the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $4053-€45,460 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and $3848-$72,852 per life-year gained (LYG)], and the ICER for novel agents compared with conventional chemotherapy was $59,076 per QALY and $220,681 per LYG. For second-line treatment, in comparisons of novel agent-based regimens, ICERs were inconsistent. However, bortezomib-based regimens, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone were each cost effective compared with dexamethasone alone (ICERs showed cost saving, £30,153 per QALY gained, and €39,911 per LYG, respectively).
conclusionsFor transplant-eligible MM patients, transplant is a cost-effective first-line treatment. More cost-effectiveness analyses comparing novel agents in the first-line treatment regimen are warranted to determine which agent or regimen is the most cost effective. In the second-line setting, it is unclear which novel agent-based regimen is most cost effective, but bortezomib-based regimens, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone were each cost effective compared with dexamethasone alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.