ArticleBMJ open2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone versus bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for stem cell transplantation.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating clinical and economic outcomes in the elderly myeloma management: a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone with daratumumab (D-VMP) versus bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (VMP) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT).
methodsA Markov model was established and three exclusive health states, progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death were included. The cycle length was set at 1.5 months and the time horizon was set at 20 years. The efficacy data were derived from the ALCYONE trial, and the utility values were obtained from previously published studies. The discount rate in the model was 3% per annum, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $150 000.00/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the USA. Moreover, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the parameter uncertainty.
resultsD-VMP achieved an effectiveness of 6.91 QALYs at a cost of $858 695.42, while VMP achieved an effectiveness of 4.70 QALYs at a cost of $357 387.82. The incremental effectiveness and cost of D-VMP versus VMP were 2.21 QALYs and $501 307.6, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US $226 836.02/QALY. The cost of daratumumab, utility for PFS, cost of subsequent therapies in the VMP group and cost of subsequent therapies in the D-VMP group were the most influential factors, and the probabilities of D-VMP and VMP as the cost-effective option were 0% and 100% at the WTP threshold of $150 000.00/QALY, respectively.
conclusionsCompared with VMP, D-VMP is unlikely to be a cost-effective regimen for patients with NDMM who are ineligible for ASCT from the US payer's perspective.
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.