ReviewCancers2021
A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Novel Agents in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma.
Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Article
- Integrating clinical and economic outcomes in the elderly myeloma management: a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Multi-omics profiling and AI-driven clinically deployable risk models in MGUS and smoldering myeloma.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- 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
- The impacts of diagnosis-intervention packet payment on inpatient medical costs for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors: evidence from a retrospective study in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The efficacy and applicability of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell-based regimens for primary bone tumors: A comprehensive review of current evidence.Journal of bone oncology · 2024Review
- Outcomes of Penta-Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated with or without BCMA-Directed Therapy.Cancers · 2023Article
- Myeloma: A Lot of Progress, Still a Long Way to Go.Cancers · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNovel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) promise to improve outcomes but are also associated with substantial increasing costs. Evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of novel treatments is necessary, but a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the cost-effectiveness evidence of novel treatments is currently lacking.
methodsWe searched Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science and EconLIT ProQuest to identify all cost-effectiveness evaluations of novel pharmacological treatment of MM reporting cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and cost per life year (LY) gained since 2005. Quality and completeness of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.
resultsWe identified 13 economic evaluations, comprising 32 comparisons. Our results show that novel agents generate additional LYs (range: 0.311-3.85) and QALYs (range: 0.1-2.85) compared to backbone regimens and 0.02 to 1.10 LYs and 0.01 to 0.91 QALYs for comparisons between regimens containing two novel agents. Lifetime healthcare costs ranged from USD 60,413 to 1,434,937 per patient. The cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY gained ranged from dominating to USD 1,369,062 for novel agents compared with backbone therapies and from dominating to USD 618,018 for comparisons between novel agents.
conclusionsCost-effectiveness ratios of novel agents were generally above current willingness-to-pay thresholds. To ensure access, cost-effectiveness should be improved or cost-effectiveness ratios above current thresholds should be accepted.
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.