ArticleHealth economics review2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of combination therapies involving novel agents for first/second-relapse patients with multiple myeloma: a Markov model approach with calibration techniques.
Article in Health economics review, 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.
- Threshold Price of Belantamab for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in China: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.PharmacoEconomics - open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrating the survival benefits of combination therapies in previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) patients increases, it is essential to determine the most cost-effective treatment through robust economic evaluation. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of combination therapies for first/second-relapse MM patients from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
methodsA Markov model was developed to evaluate three combination therapy groups based on primary drugs (bortezomib, lenalidomide, and carfilzomib). The economic evaluation was conducted within each group individually, rather than across different groups. Clinical inputs for the model were derived from RCT reports, while healthcare costs were sourced from the Zhejiang Province bidding database and a retrospective analysis. Utility values were obtained through an on-site survey using the Chinese version of the EuroQoL Five-dimensional Five-level Questionnaire. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the base-case results.
resultsIn the bortezomib group, bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd) yielded 2.42 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of ¥783,775. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of three times the 2023 per capita GDP in China (¥258,074), pomalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone was the most cost-effective therapy (¥86,129/QALY) in this group. In the lenalidomide group, lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) resulted in 3.06 QALYs at a cost of ¥840,509. Compared to Rd, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of elotuzumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (¥5,095,300/QALY), ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (¥1,605,712/QALY), carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (¥955,255/QALY), and daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (¥851,933/QALY) all exceeded the WTP threshold. In the carfilzomib group, carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Kd) resulted in 3.19 QALYs at a cost of ¥1,961,624. Compared to Kd, the ICERs of daratumumab-carfilzomib-dexamethasone (¥2,250,821/QALY) and isatuximab-carfilzomib-dexamethasone (¥4,977,964/QALY) also exceeded the WTP. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case results.
conclusionsAlthough this study did not fully account for the heterogeneity of subsequent treatment regimens among first/second-relapse MM patients, it highlights that the substantial financial burden associated with combination therapies involving novel agents poses a significant challenge in justifying their economic value.
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.