Teclistamab Shows Comparable Efficacy but Lower Costs Than Elranatamab in RRMM Study
Key Takeaways:
- The overall response rates (ORR) for teclistamab and elranatamab are similar when used to treat relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), indicating they are comparable treatment options.
- Teclistamab is associated with a lower cost per responder and lower treatment costs per patient, suggesting it has more economic value than elranatamab.
- In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with 1000 simulations, teclistamab had a higher ORR in half the simulations and elranatamab had a higher ORR in the other half. However, teclistamab showed lower estimated costs in all the simulations.
The bispecific antibodies teclistamab and elranatamab are both approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat patients who have triple class exposed (TCE) RRMM. This study used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) survey to compare the efficacy and costs of each drug.
Efficacy and Cost Comparison
The MAIC used data from 2 clinical trials to measure the ORR, which was similar between the 2 drugs: after matching, it was 61.4% for teclistamab and 61% for elranatamab.
Cost per responder was calculated by estimating the costs of drug acquisition and administration over a 6-month duration and dividing the amount by ORR. Teclistamab had a lower cost per responder than elranatamab ($376 930 vs $467 730). Total cost of treatment was lower for teclistamab as well: total per-patient costs were estimated to be $231 435 for teclistamab and $285 201 for elranatamab. Teclistamab’s lower costs are likely due to lower drug acquisition and total treatment prices.
The study also conducted a PSA with 1000 simulations. Teclistamab had the higher ORR for 53.6% of the simulations and elranatamab had the higher ORR for 46.6% of simulations, further highlighting the comparative efficacy of the 2 bispecific antibodies. In all the PSA simulations, however, teclistamab had lower costs overall, indicating that teclistamab might be the more economically viable option.
The authors said, “These results support the economic value of teclistamab relative to elranatamab as a treatment strategy for achieving response in the target population.”
Implications for Treatment Decisions
With comparable clinical effectiveness and lower treatment costs, teclistamab appears to have more economic value than elranatamab for treating RRMM. The findings from this study could help providers and payers make informed decisions about caring for patients with RRMM.
Reference
Gordan LN, Bensimon AG, Mu F, et al. Cost per responder for teclistamab and elranatamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States. J Med Econ. 2025;28(1):910-920. doi:10.1080/13696998.2025.2514909
