, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 89–103 | Cite as

Cost-Utility Analysis of Melphalan plus Prednisone With or Without Interferon-α2b in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Results from a Randomised Controlled Trial
  • Erik Nord
  • Finn Wisøff
  • Martin Hjorth
  • Jan Westin
Original Research Article


This study evaluated the cost utility of adding interferon-α2b to conventional treatment in patients with multiple myeloma. It also provides a methodology for transforming complex quality-of-life profiles into a single index value on the conventional 0 to 1 quality-adjusted life-year scale (QALY).

From 1990 to 1992,583 patients with newly diagnosed, symptomatic multiple myeloma were enrolled in a randomised, multicentre, phase III study to evaluate the addition of interferon-α2b to treatment with melphalan and prednisone.

Addition of interferon-α2b yielded a 12% increase in median survival time, at the expense of a slight reduction in quality of life during the first year of treatment. The gain in survival time was not large enough to reach statistical significance. Patients receiving interferon-α2b also had a 5- to 6-month prolongation of the plateau phase.

Cost per QALY gained by adding interferon-α2b was conservatively estimated at $US110 000. Potentially better cost effectiveness may be found in different treatment regimens or in certain patient subgroups.


Melphalan Multiple Myeloma Prednisone Health Profile Plateau Phase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kyle RA, Bayrd ED. The monoclonal gammopathies: multiple myeloma and related cell disorders. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1976Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Turesson I, Zettervalll O, Cuzick J, et al. Comparison of trends in the incidence of multiple myeloma in Malm0, Sweden and other countries. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 421–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wisløff F, Andersen P, Andersson TR, et al. Has the incidence of multiple myeloma in old age been underestimated? Eur J Haematol 1991; 47: 333–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gregory WM, Richards MA, Malpas JS. Combination chemotherapy versus melphalan and prednisolone in the treatment of multiple myeloma: an overview of published trials. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 334–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alexanian R, Dimopoulos M. The treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 484–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oken MM. Standard treatment of multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 1994; 69: 781–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hjorth M, Westin J, Dahl IMS, et al. Interferon-alpha 2B added to melphalan-prednisone for initial and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 212–22Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Norwegian Ministry of Health. The DRG system: price list for 1996. Oslo: Mimeo, 1996Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gold MR, Siegel FE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wisløff F, Eika S, Hippe E, et al. Measurement of health related quality of life in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1996; 92: 604–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas-Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of health care vs personal valuation of health states. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 463–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elvik R. The validity of using health state indexes in measuring the consequences of traffic injury for public health. Soc Sci Med 1995; 40: 1385–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sintonen H. The 15-D measure of health related quality of life. Working paper 42. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 1995Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nord E. Health index models for use in resource allocation decisions: a critical review in the light of observed preferences for social choice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 31–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams A. The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle. Discussion paper 136. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1995Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosser R, Cottee M, Rabin R, et al. Index of health-related quality of life. In: Hopkins A, editor. Measures of quality of life, and the uses to which they may be put. London: Royal College of Physicians of London, 1992Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A fifteen-dimensional measure of health related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In Walker SR, Rosser RM, editors. Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hurley S. A review of cost-effectiveness analyses. Med J Aust 1990; 153 Supp.: S20–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gerard K. Cost-utility in practice: a policy makers guide to the state of the art. Health Policy 1992; 21: 249–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 1993; 24: 227–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teeling Smith G. The economics of hypertension and stroke. Am Heart J 1990; 119: 725–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Desch CE. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cancer treatment: rational allocation of resources based on decision analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 18: 1460–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nord E. Towards quality assurance in QALY calculations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 37–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsevat J, Cook EF, Green ML, et al. Health values of the seriously ill. Ann Intern Med 1994; 122: 514–20Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Browman GP, Bergsagel D, Sicheri, et al. Randomized trial of interferon mainentance in multiple myeloma: a study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2354–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ludwig H, Cohen AM, Pollack A, et al. Interferon-alpha for induction and maintenance in multiple myeloma: results of two multicenter randomized trials and summary of other studies. Ann Oncol 1995; 5: 467–76Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wisløff F, Hjort M, Kaasa S, et al. Effect of interferon on the health-related quality of life of multiple myeloma patients: results of a Nordic randomized trial comparing melphalanprednisone to melphalan-prednisone alpha-interferon. Br J Haematol 1996; 94: 324–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Nord
    • 1
  • Finn Wisøff
    • 2
  • Martin Hjorth
    • 3
  • Jan Westin
    • 4
  1. 1.National Institute of Public HealthOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of HaematologyUllevål HospitalOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of MedicineLidkøping HospitalLidkøpingSweden
  4. 4.Medical ClinicUniversity of LundLundSweden

Personalised recommendations