Chemotherapy-based versus chemotherapy-free stem cell mobilization (± plerixafor) in multiple myeloma patients: an Italian cost-effectiveness analysis
  • 1.

    Alegre A, Tomas JF, Martinez-Chamorro C, Gil-Fernandez JJ, Fernandez-Villalta MJ, Arranz R, et al. Comparison of peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma: high-dose cyclophosphamide plus GM-CSF vs G-CSF alone. Bone Marrow Transpl. 1997;20:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1700867. e-pub ahead of print 1997/08/01

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 2.

    Goldschmidt H, Hegenbart U, Wallmeier M, Hohaus S, Haas R. Factors influencing collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells following high-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1997;98:736–44. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2141.1997.2783095.x. e-pub ahead of print 1997/10/23

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 3.

    Mohty M, Hubel K, Kroger N, Aljurf M, Apperley J, Basak GW, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients: a position statement from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2014;49:865–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2014.39. e-pub ahead of print 2014/04/02

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 4.

    Petrucci MT, Avvisati G, La Verde G, De Fabritiis P, Ribersani M, Palumbo G, et al. Intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is a valid alternative to high-dose cyclophosphamide for mobilizing peripheral blood CD34+ cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Acta Haematol. 2003;109:184–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000070967. e-pub ahead of print 2003/07/11

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 5.

    Hamadani M, Kochuparambil ST, Osman S, Cumpston A, Leadmon S, Bunner P, et al. Intermediate-dose versus low-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma treated with novel induction therapies. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2012;18:1128–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.01.005. e-pub ahead of print 2012/01/18

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 6.

    Hiwase DK, Bollard G, Hiwase S, Bailey M, Muirhead J, Schwarer AP. Intermediate-dose CY and G-CSF more efficiently mobilize adequate numbers of PBSC for tandem autologous PBSC transplantation compared with low-dose CY in patients with multiple myeloma. Cytotherapy. 2007;9:539–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/14653240701452800. e-pub ahead of print 2007/09/21

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 7.

    Jantunen E, Putkonen M, Nousiainen T, Pelliniemi TT, Mahlamaki E, Remes K. Low-dose or intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for progenitor cell mobilisation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2003;31:347–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1703840. e-pub ahead of print 2003/03/14

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 8.

    Dingli D, Nowakowski GS, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman S, Litzow MR, et al. Cyclophosphamide mobilization does not improve outcome in patients receiving stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2006;6:384–8. https://doi.org/10.3816/CLM.2006.n.014. e-pub ahead of print 2006/04/28

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 9.

    Oyekunle A, Shumilov E, Kostrewa P, Burchert A, Trumper L, Wuchter P, et al. Chemotherapy-based stem cell mobilization does not result in significant paraprotein reduction in myeloma patients in the era of novel induction regimens. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2018;24:276–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.10.008. e-pub ahead of print 2017/10/19

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 10.

    Uy GL, Costa LJ, Hari PN, Zhang MJ, Huang JX, Anderson KC, et al. Contribution of chemotherapy mobilization to disease control in multiple myeloma treated with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2015;50:1513–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2015.190. e-pub ahead of print 2015/08/25

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Andreola G, Vanazzi A, Radice D, Babic A, Rabascio C, Negri M, et al. Who should be really considered as a poor mobilizer in the plerixafor era? Transfus Apher Sci. 2012;47:27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2012.03.004. e-pub ahead of print 2012/04/07

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 12.

    DiPersio JF, Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, Kaufman JL, et al. Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;113:5720–6. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-08-174946. e-pub ahead of print 2009/04/14

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 13.

    Lanza F, Lemoli RM, Olivieri A, Laszlo D, Martino M, Specchia G, et al. Factors affecting successful mobilization with plerixafor: an Italian prospective survey in 215 patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Transfusion. 2014;54:331–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.12265. e-pub ahead of print 2013/06/21

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 14.

    Lanza F, Gardellini A, Laszlo D, Martino M. Plerixafor: what we still have to learn. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2015;15:143–7. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2015.971750. e-pub ahead of print 2014/10/16

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    Sanchez-Ortega I, Querol S, Encuentra M, Ortega S, Serra A, Sanchez-Villegas JM, et al. Plerixafor in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma: effectiveness in cases with very low circulating CD34+ cell levels and preemptive intervention vs remobilization. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2015;50:34–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2014.196. e-pub ahead of print 2014/09/16

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    Clark RE, Bell J, Clark JO, Braithwaite B, Vithanarachchi U, McGinnity N, et al. Plerixafor is superior to conventional chemotherapy for first-line stem cell mobilisation, and is effective even in heavily pretreated patients. Blood Cancer J 2014; 4: e255. e-pub ahead of print 2014/11/02; https://doi.org/10.1038/bcj.2014.79

  • 17.

    Abdel-Rahman F, Tuffaha HW, Sharma S, Jazar HA, Hussein N, Saad A, et al. GCSF with or without chemotherapy compared to plerixafor with GCSF as salvage mobilization regimen in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma: collection effectiveness and cost effectiveness analysis. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2014; 20: 130-6. e-pub ahead of print 2013/05/17; https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155213484785.

  • 18.

    Awan F, Kochuparambil ST, Falconer DE, Cumpston A, Leadmon S, Watkins K, et al. Comparable efficacy and lower cost of PBSC mobilization with intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF compared with plerixafor and G-CSF in patients with multiple myeloma treated with novel therapies. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013; 48: 1279-84. e-pub ahead of print 2013/04/16; https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2013.52.

  • 19.

    Chaudhary L, Awan F, Cumpston A, Leadmon S, Watkins K, Tse W, et al. Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients treat in the novel therapy-era with plerixafor and G-CSF has superior efficacy but significantly higher costs compared to mobilization with low-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF. J Clin Apher. 2013;28:359–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.21280. e-pub ahead of print 2013/06/15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 20.

    Martin AP, Richards S, Haycox A, Houten R, McLeod C, Braithwaite B, et al. Evaluating the use of plerixafor in stem cell mobilisation – an economic analysis of the PHANTASTIC trial. J Clin Apher. 2016;31:434–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.21433. e-pub ahead of print 2015/09/30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 21.

    Micallef IN, Sinha S, Gastineau DA, Wolf R, Inwards DJ, Gertz MA, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-adapted algorithm of plerixafor use for autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2013;19:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.08.010. e-pub ahead of print 2012/08/28

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 22.

    Milone G, Martino M, Leotta S, Spadaro A, Zammit V, Cupri A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of on-demand plerixafor added to chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2018;59:42–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2017.1324161. e-pub ahead of print 2017/06/03

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 23.

    Tichopád A, Vitova V, Koristek Z, Lysak D. Cost-effectiveness of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization strategies including plerixafor in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients. J Clin Apher. 2013;28:395–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.21290. e-pub ahead of print 2013/08/08

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 24.

    Lohr SL Sampling: design and analysis, 2nd edn Brooks/Cole: Boston, USA, 2010.

  • 25.

    Drummond MF, Schulper MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 4th edn Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015.

  • 26.

    Neumann PJ, Ganiats TG, Russell LB, Sanders GD, Siegel JE (eds). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, 2nd edn Oxford University Press: New York, USA, 2016.

  • 27.

    Briggs A, Schulper M, Claxton K Decision modelling for health economic evaluation, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.

  • 28.

    Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Mak. 1993;13:322–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9301300409. e-pub ahead of print 1993/10/01

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 29.

    Standing Conference on the Relations between the State, the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano. National agreement on tariffs for inter-regional mobility of patients. Version in force for 2014-5 and 2016. Rome, 2 February 2017 (in Italian). In.

  • 30.

    Ministero della Salute. Ministry of Health. Decree 18 October 2012. Tariffs for acute hospitalization, rehabilitation and post-acute residential hospitalization. Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale, n. 23, 28 January 2013. Annex 3. Outpatient health care services (in Italian). In.

  • 31.

    Ministero della Salute. Ministry of Health. Annual report on hospitalizations. Data obtained from hospital discharge forms 2017. Rome, January 2019 (in Italian). In.

  • 32.

    Brouwer W, Rutten F, Koopmanschap M Costing in economic evaluations. In: Drummond M, McGuire A (eds). Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001, pp 68-93.

  • 33.

    Fattore G, Torbica A, Mangone M. Cost analysis of four therapeutic strategies for managing mild and severe patients: an application of the bootstrap method (in Italian). Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;7:135–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Lazzaro C, Ruffo P, Gozzo M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever therapy in the management of asthma. Italian evaluation (in Italian). Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;11:39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • 35.

    Lazzaro C, Barone C, Caprioni F, Cascinu S, Falcone A, Maiello E, et al. An Italian cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel albumin (nab-paclitaxel) + gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients: the APICE study. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18:435–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1464394. e-pub ahead of print 2018/04/12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Torrinomedica S.r.l. Ricerca Farmaci [database on the Internet]. Rome: Torrinomedica S.r.l. (in Italian). In, 2019.

  • 37.

    Agenzia delle Entrate. Italian Revenue Agency. National tariffs per kilometer for cars and motorbikes set by the Auto club of Italy – Art. 3, paragraph 1, of the legislative decree 2 September 1997, n. 314. Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale, n. 295, 20 December 2018, ordinary supplement n. 57: 9 (in Italian). In.

  • 38.

    Comune di Milano. Municipality of Milan. Authorized parking for non-residents’ car (in Italian). In, 2019.

  • 39.

    Banca d’Italia. Bank of Italy. Survey on Household Income and Wealth 2016: Table 13 (in Italian). In.

  • 40.

    Istituto Nazionale per la Previdenza Sociale. National Institute for Social Security. Channel Information. Minima daily wages (in Italian). In.

  • 41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Sculpher M The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluations. In: Drummond M, McGuire A (eds). Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001, pp 94-112.

  • 43.

    Sistema Statistico Nazionale – Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. National Institute for Statistics. Consumer prices index for the whole nation (reference year 2015=100) – monthly data (in Italian). In.

  • 44.

    Fattore G. for the Italian Association of Health Economics working group. Proposed guide-lines for the economic evaluation of health care programmes in Italy (in Italian). Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;11:83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • 45.

    Ministero della Salute. Ministry of Health. Decree 8 February 2013. Criteria for the composition and proper functioning of ethical committees (13A03474). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, Serie Generale, n. 96, 24 April 2013 (in Italian). In.

  • 46.

    Briggs AH Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A (eds). Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001, pp 172-214.

  • 47.

    Lazzaro C, Lopiano L, Cocito D. Subcutaneous vs intravenous administration of immunoglobulin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: an Italian cost-minimization analysis. Neurol Sci. 2014;35:1023–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-014-1632-9. e-pub ahead of print 2014/01/29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 48.

    Pagano M, Gauvreau K Principles of biostatistics, 2nd edn Duxbury Press: Pacific Grove, USA, 2000.

  • 49.

    Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1–134. e-pub ahead of print 1999/08/17

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 50.

    Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Mak. 1990;10:212–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9001000308. e-pub ahead of print 1990/07/01

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 51.

    Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10:779–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.635. e-pub ahead of print 2001/12/18

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 52.

    Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SA, Polsky D (eds). Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015.

  • 53.

    Lanza F, Campioni DC, Hellmann A, Milone G, Wahlin A, Walewski J, et al. Individual quality assessment of autografting by probability estimation for clinical endpoints: a prospective validation study from the European group for blood and marrow transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2013;19:1670–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.08.005. e-pub ahead of print 2013/08/31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 54.

    Pierelli L, Berto P, Accorsi P, Milone G, Lopatriello S, Aiello A, et al. The costs of mobilisation and collection of peripheral blood stem cells in multiple myeloma and lymphoma in an European country: results from The Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) and Societa Italiana di Emaferesi e Manipolazione Cellulare (SIdEM) survey. Transfus Apher Sci. 2013;49:615–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2013.07.025. e-pub ahead of print 2013/08/27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 55.

    Laszlo D, Marcacci GP, Martino M, Radice D, Rabascio C, Lucchetti B, et al. A comparison of chemo-free strategy with G-CSF plus plerixafor on demand versus intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF as PBSC mobilization in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: An Italian explorative cost Analysis. Transfus Apher Sci. 2020;59:102819 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2020.102819. e-pub ahead of print 2020/06/06

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 56.

    Shaughnessy P, Chao N, Shapiro J, Walters K, McCarty J, Abhyankar S, et al. Pharmacoeconomics of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization: an overview of current evidence and gaps in the literature. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2013;19:1301–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.05.008. e-pub ahead of print 2013/05/21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 57.

    Kymes SM, Pusic I, Lambert DL, Gregory M, Carson KR, DiPersio JF. Economic evaluation of plerixafor for stem cell mobilization. Am J Manag Care. 2012;18:33–41. e-pub ahead of print 2012/03/23

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 58.

    Tuffaha HW, Hussein AA, Abdel-Rahman FA. Comparative Cost Utility Analysis of Plerixafor Plus GCSF Versus Cyclophosphamide Plus GCSF as Salvage Mobilization Regimens in Multiple Myeloma Patients. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2012;18:S248 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2011.12.132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 59.

    Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, Naylor CD, Lee KL, Armstrong PW, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N. Engl J Med. 1995;332:1418–24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199505253322106. e-pub ahead of print 1995/05/25.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 60.

    Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1637–41. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.14.1637. e-pub ahead of print 2003/07/30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 61.

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2018. In.

  • 62.

    Martone N, Lucioni C, Mazzi S, Fadda V. Cost-effectiveness evaluations of new cancer drugs available on the Italian market (in Italian). Glob Reg Health Tech Assess. 2014;1:31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • 63.

    Van de Wyngaert Z, Nerich V, Fouquet G, Chretien ML, Caillot D, Azar N, et al. Cost and efficacy of peripheral stem cell mobilization strategies in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:2254–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-020-0940-3. e-pub ahead of print 2020/05/25

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 64.

    O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ et al. Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts’ probabilities, Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2006.

  • 65.

    Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Value Health. 2012;15:796–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.012. e-pub ahead of print 2012/09/25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 66.

    Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x. e-pub ahead of print 2003/01/22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Read original article here.