Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness of Autologous Stem Cell Treatment as Compared to Conventional Chemotherapy for Treatment of Multiple Myeloma in India

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent innovations in treatment of multiple myeloma include autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) along with high dose chemotherapy (HDC). We undertook this study to estimate incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained (QALY) with use of ASCT along with HDC as compared to conventional chemotherapy (CC) alone in treatment of multiple myeloma. A combination of decision tree and markov model was used to undertake the analysis. Incremental costs and effects of ASCT were compared against the baseline scenario of CC (based on Melphalan and Prednisolone regimen) in the patients of multiple myeloma. A lifetime study horizon was used and future costs and consequences were discounted at 5%. Consequences were valued in terms of QALYs. Incremental cost per QALY gained using ASCT as against CC for treatment of multiple myeloma was estimated using both a health system and societal perspective. The cost of providing ASCT (with HDC) for multiple myeloma patients was INR 500,631, while the cost of CC alone was INR 159,775. In the long run, cost per patient per year for ASCT and CC arms was estimated to be INR 119,740 and INR 111,565 respectively. The number of QALYs lived per patient in case of ASCT and HDC alone were found to be 4.1 and 3.5 years respectively. From a societal perspective, ASCT was found to incur an incremental cost of INR 334,433 per QALY gained. If the ASCT is initiated early to patients, the incremental cost for ASCT was found to be INR 180,434 per QALY gained. With current mix of patients, stem cell treatment for multiple myeloma is not cost effective at a threshold of GDP per capita. It becomes marginally cost-effective at 3-times the GDP per capita threshold. However, accounting for the model uncertainties, the probability of ASCT to be cost effective is 59%. Cost effectiveness of ASCT can be improved with early detection and initiation of treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Raab M, Podar K, Breitkreutz I, Richardson P, Anderson K (2009) Multiple myeloma. Lancet 374:324–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kumar L, Vikram P, Kochupillai V (2006) Recent advances in the management of multiple myeloma. Natl Med J India 19:80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghalaut P, Chaudhuri S, Singh R (2013) Recent advances in diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma: an update. The Association of Physicians of India, Medicine Update, pp 360–365

  4. Agarwal M (2016) Multiple myeloma: treatment is getting individualized. Indian Soc Haematol Transfus Med 32(1)

  5. Attal M, Harousseau J, Stoppa A, Sotto E, Fuzibet J, Rossi J et al (1996) A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 335(2):91–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Child J, Morgan G, Davies F, Owen R, Bell S, Hawkins K et al (2003) High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 348(19):1875–1883

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Koreth J, Cutler C, Djulbegovic B, Behl R, Schlossman R, Munshi N et al (2007) High-dose therapy with single autologous transplantation versus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 13:183–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. NSSO (2015) Key indicators of social consumption in India Health NSS 71st Round (January–June 2014). National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mahal A, Karan A, Engelau M (2010) The economic implications of non-communicable disease for India. World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  10. Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017) Social sectors, volume III. SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd. http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/planrel/12thplan/pdf/12fyp_vol3.pdf

  11. PHFI (2011) A critical assessment of the existing health insurance models in India. Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  12. Prinja S, Chauhan AS, Angell B, Gupta I, Jan S (2015) A systematic review of the state of economic evaluation for health care in India. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 13(6):595–613. doi:10.1007/s40258-015-0201-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. ISPOR (2016) Pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research guidelines for India PEOR guidelines [Internet]. https://www.ispor.org/consortiums/asia/PEGuidelines_India_March2016.pdf

  14. Greipp P, Miguel J, Durie B, Crowley J, Barlogie B, Bladé J et al (2005) International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 23(15):3412–3420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fesenfeld M, Hutubessy R, Jit M (2013) Cost-effectiveness of human papilloma virus vaccination in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Vaccine 31:3786–3804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Picot J, Cooper K, Bryant J, Clegg AJ (2011) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib and thalidomide in combination regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 15(41):23–47

  17. Cooper K, Picot J, Bryant J, Clegg A (2014) Comparative cost-effectiveness models for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 30(1):90–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumar L, Ghosh J, Ganessan P, Gupta A, Hariprasad R, Kochupillai V (2009) High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: what predicts the outcome? Experience from a developing country. Bone Marrow Transplant 43(6):481–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ludwig H, Durie B, Bolejack V, Turesson I, Kyle R, Blade J et al (2008) Myeloma in patients younger than age 50 years presents with more favorable features and shows better survival: an analysis of 10 549 patients from the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood 111(8):4039–4047

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta M, Pal R, Tikoo D (2013) Multiple myeloma: the disease and its treatment. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol 2(2):103-21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Agthoven M, Segeren C, Buijt I, Uyl-de Groot C, van der Holt B, Lokhorst H et al (2004) A cost-utility analysis comparing intensive chemotherapy alone to intensive chemotherapy followed by myeloablative chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue in newly diagnosed patients with stage II/III multiple myeloma. Eur J Cancer 40(8):1159–1169

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Proskorovsky I, Lewis P, Williams C, Jordan K, Kyriakou C, Ishak J et al. (2014) Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to EQ-5D in patients with multiple myeloma. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 12(1):35

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Beck EJ, Harling G, Gerbase S, DeLay P (2010) The cost of treatment and care for people living with HIV infection: implications of published studies, 1999–2008. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 5(3):215–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hendriks ME, Kundu P, Boers AC, Bolarinwa OA, Te Pas MJ, Akande TM et al (2014) Step-by-step guideline for disease-specific costing studies in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed methodology. Glob Health Action 7:23573

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Adam T, Bishai D, Khan MM, Evans DB (2004) Methods for the costing component of the multi-country evaluation of IMNCI. Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development, World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prinja S, Gupta A, Verma R, Bahuguna P, Kumar D, Kaur M, Kumar R (2016) Cost of delivering health care services in public sector primary and community health centres in North India. PLoS ONE 11(8):e0160986. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160986

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Prinja S, Balasubramanian D, Jeet G, Verma R, Kumar D, Bahuguna P, Kaur M, Kumar R (2016) Cost of delivering secondary level health care services through public sector district hospitals in India. Indian J Med Res (forthcoming)

  28. Prinja S, Jeet G, Verma R, Kumar D, Bahuguna P, Kaur M, Kumar R (2014) Economic analysis of delivering primary health care services through community health workers in 3 North Indian States. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91781. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091781

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Prinja S, Mazumder S, Taneja S, Bahuguna P, Bhandari P, Mohan P, Hombergh H, Kumar R (2013) Cost of delivering child health care through community level health workers: how much does extra does IMNCI cost? J Trop Pediatr 59(6):489–495. doi:10.1093/tropej/fmt057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Prinja S, Manchanda N, Mohan P, Gupta G, Sethy G, Sen A, Hombergh HVD, Kumar R (2013) Cost of neonatal intensive care delivered through district level public hospitals in India. Indian Pediatr 50:765–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gupta I, Chowdhury S, Prinja S, Trivedi M (2016) Out-of-pocket spending on out-patient care in india: assessment and options based on results from a district level survey. PLoS ONE 11(11):e0166775. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166775

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Prinja S, Bahuguna P, Gupta R, Sharma A, Rana SK, Kumar R (2015) Coverage and financial risk protection for institutional delivery: how universal Is provision of maternal health care in India? PLoS ONE 10(9):e0137315

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Prinja S, Gupta R, Bahuguna P, Sharma A, Aggarwal AK, Phogat A, Kumar R (2016) A composite indicator to measure universal health care coverage in india: way forward for post-2015 health system performance monitoring framework. Health Policy Plann. pii:czw097 (Epub ahead of print)

  34. Prinja S, Jagnoor J, Chauhan AS, Aggarwal S, Nguyen H, Ivers R (2016) Economic burden of hospitalization due to injuries in North India: A cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:673. doi:10.3390/ijerph13070673

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. (2015) The economic times: forex rates. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/forex

  36. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide 2012: international agency for research on cancer. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/factsheetspopulation.aspx

  37. Prakash J, Niwas SS, Parekh A, Vohra R, Wani IA, Sharma N, Usha (2009) Multiple myeloma–presenting as acute kidney injury. J Assoc Physicians India 57:23–6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Maheshwari A (2014) Cost effectiveness of treatment of guillain barre syndrome with iv immunoglobulins versus plasmapharesis [MD thesis]. PGIMER, Chandigarh

  39. Sangwan A (2015) Cost of trauma care in secondary and tertiary care public sector hospitals in north india [MPH thesis]. PGIMER, Chandigarh

  40. Kouroukis CT, O’brien BJ, Benger A, Marcellus D, Foley R, Garner J, Ingram C, Haines P, Henderson-O’Connor N, Meyer R (2003) Cost-effectiveness of a transplantation strategy compared to melphalan and prednisone in younger patients with multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 44(1):29–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India

    Shankar Prinja, Gunjeet Kaur, Gaurav Jyani & Pankaj Bahuguna

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

    Pankaj Malhotra & Subhash Varma

  3. Department of Nephrology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

    Raja Ramachandran

Authors
  1. Shankar Prinja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gunjeet Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pankaj Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gaurav Jyani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raja Ramachandran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pankaj Bahuguna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Subhash Varma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shankar Prinja.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prinja, S., Kaur, G., Malhotra, P. et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Autologous Stem Cell Treatment as Compared to Conventional Chemotherapy for Treatment of Multiple Myeloma in India. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 33, 31–40 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-017-0776-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-017-0776-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation