ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2024
Health care costs among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with ixazomib or daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in the United States.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2024. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAvailable treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) include multiclass triplet regimens such as lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd backbone) plus ixazomib (proteasome inhibitor [PI]; I) or daratumumab (monoclonal antibody; D). Although prior real-world studies compared PI-Rd triplets, this research extends those findings by comparing health care costs of a PI-based and a monoclonal antibody-based triplet, IRd and DRd, in patients with RRMM in the United States.
objectiveTo describe and compare all-cause and MM-related health care costs in patients with RRMM treated with IRd vs DRd.
methodsThis retrospective longitudinal study used fully adjudicated US claims data from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) and included adult patients who initiated IRd or DRd as second line of therapy (LOT) or later. Index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT; baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause costs per patient per month were assessed during follow-up (2020 US dollars). For MM-related costs, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. Costs were compared using 2-part models and generalized linear models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline confounders across treatment groups.
resultsA total of 265 patients who initiated IRd or DRd were included in this analysis, contributing to 276 distinct LOTs (IRd: n = 153; DRd: n = 123). Baseline characteristics were similar between IRd and DRd cohorts after applying inverse probability of treatment weighting. Weighted (ie, adjusted) mean monthly MM-related total costs were significantly lower for the IRd cohort compared with the DRd cohort (-$8,141;
conclusionsWhen comparing patients with MM in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus commercial insurance database, which reflects the payer perspective, significant cost savings were observed for patients treated with IRd vs DRd owing to lower OP and pharmacy costs. These findings may help inform real-world treatment and reimbursement decisions for patients with RRMM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.