Browsing by Author "Kapetanakis, Venediktos"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Belantamab mafodotin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in heavily pretreated patients: a US cost-effectiveness analysis
    (Taylor & Francis, 2021) Nikolaou, Andreas; Ambavane, Apoorva; Shah, Anshul; Ma, Wenkang; Tosh, Jon; Kapetanakis, Venediktos; Willson, Jenny; Wang, Feng; Hogea, Cosmina; Gorsh, Boris; Gutierrez, Ben; Sapra, Sandhya; Suvannasankha, Attaya; Samyshkin, Yevgeniy; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) require several lines of therapy, with typically shorter remission duration with each additional line. Research design and methods: The cost-effectiveness of belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; DREAMM-2; NCT03525678) was compared with selinexor plus dexamethasone (SEL+DEX; STORM Part 2; NCT02336815) among patients with RRMM who have received at least four prior therapies. The base case used a US commercial payer's perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Efficacy data were based on parametric survival analysis of DREAMM-2 and matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison between DREAMM-2 and STORM Part 2, which assessed relative treatment effects between belamaf and SEL+DEX. Cost inputs included drug treatment, concomitant medications, adverse event management, subsequent treatments, and disease management. Results: Belamaf decreased total treatment costs per patient by $14,267 and increased patient life years by 0.74 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.49 versus SEL+DEX. Patients receiving belamaf accrued 0.12 fewer progression-free life years versus patients on SEL+DEX. Conclusions: From a US commercial payer's perspective, belamaf had lower costs, and increased QALYs and life-year gain, compared with SEL+DEX. Belamaf is therefore likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with RRMM who have received four or more prior lines of therapy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    DREAMM-2: Indirect Comparisons of Belantamab Mafodotin vs. Selinexor + Dexamethasone and Standard of Care Treatments in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
    (Springer, 2021) Prawitz, Thibaud; Popat, Rakesh; Suvannasankha, Attaya; Sarri, Grammati; Hughes, Rachel; Wang, Feng; Hogea, Cosmina; Ferrante, Shannon Allen; Gorsh, Boris; Willson, Jenny; Kapetanakis, Venediktos; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Introduction: Single-agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; BLENREP) demonstrated deep and durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody (DREAMM-2; NCT03525678). Methods: At the time of this study, STORM Part 2, NCT02336815 (selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone; sel + dex) was systematically identified as the only feasible comparator to the DREAMM-2 cohort. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) evaluated efficacy and safety of belamaf (2.5 mg/kg; n = 97) versus sel + dex (80 mg + 20 mg, respectively; n = 123). Populations were weighted for clinically validated effect modifiers and prognostic factors. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), overall response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), and safety. The relative efficacy of belamaf versus standard of care (SoC) on OS was estimated by a Bucher indirect treatment comparison using the MAIC-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for OS of belamaf (DREAMM-2) versus sel + dex (STORM Part 2) and a HR adjusted for refractoriness to carfilzomib and high-risk cytogenetics of sel + dex (STORM) versus SoC (MAMMOTH). Results: Belamaf demonstrated improved OS (HR 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.34, 0.83; p = 0.005) and DoR (0.41; 0.21, 0.83; p = 0.013) versus sel + dex. There were no statistically significant differences in ORR, TTR, and PFS. Belamaf had a favorable safety profile for most evaluable hematologic (any-grade, Grade 3-4) and non-hematologic (any-grade) adverse events versus sel + dex. Significantly improved OS was observed with belamaf versus SoC (0.29; 0.16, 0.54; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Single-agent belamaf represents a new treatment option for triple-class refractory patients with RRMM.