Background: Due to the fast growing relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatment landscape, a comparison of all the available treatments was warranted. For clinical practice it is important to consider both immediate effects such as response quality and prolonged benefits such as progression-free survival (PFS) in a meta-analysis. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the choice of outcome on the treatment rankings in RRMM.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFImportance: Although the number of treatments for elderly patients with non-transplant-eligible (NTE) multiple myeloma (MM) has increased substantially, evidence is lacking on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel treatment sequences.
Objective: To determine the optimal sequence of treatment for patients with NTE MM from the perspective of the patient, physician, and society.
Design, Setting, And Participants: Using data from a Dutch observational registry, this economic evaluation combined evidence from network meta-analyses in a patient-level simulation model and modeled time-to-event and types of events from a hospital perspective with a lifetime horizon.
Decision making for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) not transplant eligible (NTE) is complicated by a lack of head-to-head comparisons of standards of care, the increase in the choice of treatment modalities, and the promising results that are rapidly evolving from studies with novel regimens. To support evidence-based decision making, we performed a network meta-analysis for NTE MM patients that synthesizes direct and indirect evidence and enables a comparison of all treatments. Relevant randomized clinical trials were identified by a systematic literature review in EMBASE®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE®-in-Process and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for January 1999 to March 2016.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPurpose Since 2000, many new treatment options have become available for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM) after a long period in which dexamethasone and melphalan had been the standard treatment. Direct comparisons of these novel treatments, however, are lacking. This makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the relative added value of each new treatment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF