The financial burden multiple myeloma patients face is often greater than expected when you factor in the cost of caregiving and loss of income.

Sanofi partnered with the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) to conduct a research study to help haematologists further understand the health system and patients’ financial burdens and provide a new way to look at treatment options.

The True Cost of Multiple Myeloma (MM) report started with a systemic literature review and then discussed those findings in roundtables featuring patients, caregivers, and a variety of leaders in the MM space to gather further insights.

One of the biggest expenses of MM is the amount of hospital admissions, both unplanned and planned. These admissions are a significant driver behind the total cost.¹

On average the number of multiple myeloma-related hospital admissions per patient is almost 3 times higher than those of colon cancer (4.5 vs 1.4, respectively).

Another consideration is the burden associated with significant productivity loss. The chart below shows the top burdens on patients and caregivers, all of which carry increased direct and indirect costs to patients and society.²

These burdens take a significant toll on patients’ productivity. A diagnosis with multiple myeloma resulted in an approximate productivity loss of €290,601 per patient over a 20-year period.³

Only 11% of patients remain working post-diagnosis and treatment, with 48% of patients not working due to their disease. The research indicates that 32% of MM patients were forced into early retirement.²

The way healthcare costs for MM have been calculated historically does not paint the whole picture. It is time to tell a complete view because the continued progress of treatments coupled with patients being longer time on therapies, makes healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with the treatments increase, simply due to better treatments and longer time spent on therapies.

Here’s what we know:

• Patients are now spending a longer time in a progression-free state because of better treatments
• The cost offsets associated with more efficacious treatments are not well documented
• A disproportionate emphasis is being placed on drug treatment costs without the consideration of potential offsetting benefits associated with treatment

In a study by Ashcroft et al. 2018, maintenance therapy was shown to delay progression to further lines of therapy and reduce resource use in a 15-month time horizon.⁴ For 2017:

Unplanned hospital admissions represented only 10% of all MM admissions, but accounted for 55% of the total hospitalization costs.¹

The findings indicated that the depth and durability of tumor response to treatment can reduce overall disease cost. If the remission period is prolonged, it’s possible to achieve less active treatment and unplanned hospitalizations.⁵

Improved treatment outcomes may reduce the overall healthcare resource utilization and related costs.⁵

The evidence suggests that finding the optimal treatment pathway for patients, including selecting the optimal treatment as well as the optimal structural model, has the potential to generate cost savings for payers and patients, while improving patient experience.⁴

Governments, healthcare professionals, patient advocates, and industry must dedicate themselves to practical efforts that address patient cost.

MAT-AE-2200366-V2-Oct-23