Linvoseltamab Demonstrates Lower Care Costs than Teclistamab and Elranatamab for TCE RRMM
Key Takeaways:
- Linvoseltamab has lower care costs than teclistamab: The total cost of care is lower for linvoseltamab due to lower drug acquisition costs and disease management and progression expenses. Linvoseltamab also has lower costs per progression-free (PF) month and overall response than teclistamab.
- Linvoseltamab has comparable, if not lower, care costs than elranatamab: The total cost of care is for linvoseltamab similar, if slightly less, than elranatamab. Linvoseltamab has lower costs per PF month and overall response than elranatamab.
Linvoseltamab, teclistamab, and elranatamab are the main bispecific antibodies approved to treat triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Researchers conducted a comparative analysis of the total cost of care and the cost per outcome of linvoseltamab vs teclistamab and elranatamab.
The study used matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) to compare data from LINKER-MM1, MajesTEC-1, and MagnetisMM-3 trials. Care costs were calculated over 1- and 2-year horizons using Microsoft Excel.
Linvoseltamab vs Teclistamab
Linvoseltamab had a lower total cost of care than teclistamab ($387 773 vs $500 670 in year 1; $488 088 vs $639 013 in year 2). Overall costs were lower for linvoseltamab due to lower drug acquisition costs, administrative and hospitalization expenses, adverse event (AE) management costs, and progression-related care costs.
Additionally, linvoseltamab had lower costs per outcome than teclistamab. Costs per PF month were $40 904 vs $63 057 in year 1 and $29 036 vs $50 877 in year 2. The costs per overall response were $538 573 vs $794 714 in year 1 and $677 901 vs $1 014 307 in year 2.
Linvoseltamab vs Elranatamab
Linvoseltamab had slightly lower total care costs than elranatamab ($383 368 vs $416 359 in year 1; $472 907 vs $475 918 in year 2). Costs in year 2 are more comparable due to a longer adjusted treatment duration for linvoseltamab (11.3 vs 5.6 months), which led to increased drug acquisition costs.
Similar to the analysis against teclistamab, linvoseltamab showed lower costs per outcome than elranatamab as well. Costs per PF month were $43 417 vs $50 529 in year 1 and $29 912 vs $33 304 in year 2. The costs per overall response were $539 955 vs $682 556 in year 1 and $666 066 vs $780 193 in year 2.
Comparative Cost Savings With Linvoseltamab
When compared with teclistamab, linvoseltamab showed overall lower care costs as a result of lower drug aquisition costs and fewer progression-related expenses. The total cost of linvoseltamab was comparable with elranatamab due to linvoseltamab’s longer duration of treatment. These findings highlight linvoseltamab’s lower economic burden for patients with TCE RRMM.
The authors said, “[L]invoseltamab may represent a treatment option with lower economic burden relative to other approved BCMA-targeted bsAbs when using label-based dosing and warrant further investigation in real-world heavily pretreated patients with TCE RRMM.”
Reference
Portuguese AJ, Inocencio TJ, Quon P, et al. Comparative economic analysis of B-cell maturation antigen-targeted bispecific antibodies in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: linvoseltamab versus teclistamab and elranatamab. Curr Med Res Opinion. 2026;20:1-13. doi:10.1080/03007995.2026.2665022
