ArticleCancers2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Elranatamab Versus Teclistamab for the Management of Patients with Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Italy.
Article in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple myeloma remains an incurable malignancy in which patients ultimately experience relapses and refractory disease despite therapeutic advances. Triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory MM (TCE/RRMM) patients represent both a population with high unmet clinical needs and a substantial economic burden for the Italian National Health Service (NHS). Recently, BCMA-CD3 bispecific antibodies, including elranatamab and teclistamab, have expanded the treatment options for these patients. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of elranatamab versus teclistamab in adults with TCE/RRMM from the Italian NHS perspective.
methodsA partitioned survival model with three health states-progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death-was developed over a 25-year lifetime horizon, adopting weekly cycles and a 3% annual discount rate. Clinical data for elranatamab were derived from the MagnetisMM-3 trial, while teclistamab outcomes were estimated through matching-adjusted indirect comparisons using MajesTEC-1 data. Direct medical costs included those associated with drug acquisition and administration, disease management, adverse event management, and end-of-life care. Utility values were obtained from EQ-5D-based assessments in MagnetisMM-3. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness.
resultsElranatamab yielded 3.31 life-years and 2.33 QALYs per patient, compared with 1.83 life-years and 1.27 QALYs for teclistamab. Total lifetime costs were lower for elranatamab (EUR 153,337) versus teclistamab (EUR 224,610), generating EUR 71,273 in savings. Thus, elranatamab is considered to be dominant, due to its higher efficacy and lower cost. Furthermore, the robustness of these findings was confirmed through sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsFrom the Italian NHS perspective, elranatamab represents a clinically superior and economically favorable option for patients with TCE/RRMM. The obtained results support its value and sustainability within the national treatment landscape.
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.