ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021
US Budget Impact Model for Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate the budget impact of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (XVd) in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) from the perspective of a private third-party payer and Medicare in the US.
methodsThe introduction of XVd as an option for patients with previously treated MM compared to no introduction of XVd was considered from a private third-party US payer (with 1,000,000 members) and a Medicare perspective in one-year increments for 3 years. Total annual treatment costs were calculated as the sum of drug costs, costs of treating serious treatment emergent adverse events (grade ≥3), ongoing best supportive care costs, and mortality costs.
resultsThe absolute budget impact (Millions, USD) of including XVd from a private third-party payer plan perspective was $0.06, $0.07, $0.08 and $0.22 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative budget impact of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a per member per month (PMPM) budget impact of $0.005, $0.006, $0.007, and $0.006 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. From a Medicare perspective, the absolute budget impact (Millions, USD) of including XVd was $29.68, $36.62, $39.42 and $105.72 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative budget impact of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% percent for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a PMPM budget impact of $0.041, $0.051, $0.054, and $0.049 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed general consistency with the base-case findings.
conclusionUnderstanding the potential budget impact of new therapies in MM is vital for payers to manage spending and assess treatment value. The introduction of XVd presents a manageable budget impact for a third-party US payer and Medicare.
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.