Although its origins date to 2006, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) gained prominence around 2015 when it focused its health technology assessment (HTA) efforts on a new highly effective, though expensive, treatment for hepatitis C. ICER, a small, private organization, seemed to fill a void in the United States because it offered a systematic value assessment approach and made its analyses publicly accessible. Drawing inspiration from England and Wales’ HTA body, ICER has used the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and cost-effectiveness analysis. That decision gives ICER a powerful approach applicable to a wide range of technologies, but it has also spurred controversy. The organization has responded to criticisms by revising its “value framework.” Changes include separation of budget impact analysis from value determinations, introduction of other value measures beyond the QALY, increasing consideration of contextual elements, and adoption of a “societal perspective” where data support it.

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review

Importance
Multiple myeloma is a hematologic malignancy characterized by presence of abnormal clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow, with potential for uncontrolled growth causing destructive bone lesions, kidney injury, anemia, and hypercalcemia. Multiple myeloma is diagnosed in an estimated 34 920 people in the US and in approximately 588 161 people worldwide each year.


Observations
Among patients with multiple myeloma, approximately 73% have anemia, 79% have osteolytic bone disease, and 19% have acute kidney injury at the time of presentation. Evaluation of patients with possible multiple myeloma includes measurement of hemoglobin, serum creatinine, serum calcium, and serum free light chain levels; serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation; 24-hour urine protein electrophoresis; and full-body skeletal imaging with computed tomography, positron emission tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging. The Revised International Staging System combines data from the serum biomarkers β2 microglobulin, albumin, and lactate dehydrogenase in conjunction with malignant plasma cell genomic features found on fluorescence in situ hybridization-t(4;14), del(17p), and t(14;16)-to assess estimated progression-free survival and overall survival. At diagnosis, 28% of patients are classified as having Revised International Staging stage I multiple myeloma, and these patients have a median 5-year survival of 82%. Among all patients with multiple myeloma, standard first-line (induction) therapy consists of a combination of an injectable proteasome inhibitor (ie, bortezomib), an oral immunomodulatory agent (ie, lenalidomide), and dexamethasone and is associated with median progression-free survival of 41 months, compared with historical reports of 8.5 months without therapy. This induction therapy combined with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation followed by maintenance lenalidomide is standard of care for eligible patients.


Conclusions and Relevance
Approximately 34 920 people in the US and 155 688 people worldwide are diagnosed with multiple myeloma each year. Induction therapy with an injectable proteasome inhibitor, an oral immunomodulatory agent and dexamethasone followed by treatment with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and maintenance therapy with lenalidomide are among the treatments considered standard care for eligible patients.

Diagnosis and Management of Multiple Myeloma: A Review.

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes.

/pdf/treatment-of-relapsed-and-refractory-multiple-myeloma-40vl3ztt0w.pdf

Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: recommendations from the International Myeloma Working Group.

Multiple myeloma accounts for approximately 10% of hematologic malignancies.

/pdf/multiple-myeloma-2022-update-on-diagnosis-risk-19i93aje.pdf

Multiple myeloma: 2022 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management

Background On the basis of the DREAMM-2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03525678), single-agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) was approved for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who received ≥4 prior therapies, including anti-CD38 therapy. The authors investigated longer term efficacy and safety outcomes in DREAMM-2 after 13 months of follow-up among patients who received belamaf 2.5 mg/kg. Methods DREAMM-2 is an ongoing, phase 2, open-label, 2-arm study investigating belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg) in patients with RRMM who had disease progression after ≥3 lines of therapy and were refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors and refractory and/or intolerant to an anti-CD38 therapy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients that achieved an overall response, assessed by an independent review committee. Results As of January 31, 2020, 10% of patients still received belamaf 2.5 mg/kg. Thirty-one of 97 patients (32%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 21.7%-43.6%) achieved an overall response, and 18 responders achieved a very good partial response or better. Median estimated duration of response, overall survival, and progression-free survival were 11.0 months (95% CI, 4.2 months to not reached), 13.7 months (95% CI, 9.9 months to not reached), and 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.6 months), respectively. Response and survival outcomes in patients who had high-risk cytogenetics or renal impairment were consistent with outcomes in the overall population. Outcomes were poorer in patients with extramedullary disease. In patients who had a clinical response and prolonged dose delays (>63 days; mainly because of corneal events), 88% maintained or deepened responses during their first prolonged dose delay. Overall, there were no new safety signals during this follow-up. Conclusions Extended follow-up confirms sustained clinical activity without new safety signals with belamaf in this heavily pretreated patient population with RRMM.

Longer term outcomes with single-agent belantamab mafodotin in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: 13-month follow-up from the pivotal DREAMM-2 study.

Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial

Jelena Bila

Papers

Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial