Skip to main content
News

Talquetamab Shows Lower Cost Per Response in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Key Takeaways

  • Talquetamab demonstrated substantially higher response rates than usual care in heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), achieving overall response rates of 73.0% (weekly) and 71.1% (biweekly) vs 31.2% with standard therapies over 6 months.
  • Despite higher total treatment costs, talquetamab showed a lower cost per responder, with costs of $405 470 (weekly) and $443 165 (biweekly) compared with $575 962 for usual care, translating to savings of up to $170 492 per responder.
  • Economic advantages remained consistent across sensitivity analyses and longer-term scenarios, supporting the value of both dosing schedules from a US commercial payer perspective, with additional cost reductions possible through outpatient step-up dosing and prophylactic tocilizumab use.

Talquetamab delivers better response rates than usual care at a lower cost per responder, suggesting it may offer stronger short-term economic value for heavily pretreated patients with RRMM, according to study results published in the Journal of Medical Economics.

Multiple myeloma is a costly, hard-to-treat cancer, especially after resistance to standard therapies, where response rates drop to about 30%. Talquetamab, a GPRC5D-directed bispecific T-cell engager approved in 2023 for adults with RRMM after at least 4 prior therapies, has emerged as a promising option.

“Evidence on the comparative efficacy and costs associated with talquetamab and standard of care therapies is crucial to clinical decision-makers, payers, and other stakeholders,” explained the authors.

An economic analysis examined whether talquetamab’s improved clinical activity translates into better value from a US commercial payer perspective. Investigators used an Excel-based cost-per-responder model comparing weekly and every-other-week talquetamab dosing with usual care over 6 months. The model incorporated drug costs, administration, hospitalization during step-up dosing, monitoring, adverse events, subsequent therapy, and terminal care. Clinical effectiveness inputs, including overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, were drawn from an indirect treatment comparison using MonumenTAL-1 trial data and real-world physician’s choice data from the LocoMMotion and MoMMent studies.

Over 6 months, total cost of care per patient was estimated at $179 556 for usual care, $295 993 for weekly talquetamab, and $315 135 for biweekly talquetamab. Although talquetamab had higher upfront total costs, mainly because of drug acquisition before progression, it achieved far better response rates: 73.0% with weekly dosing and 71.1% with biweekly dosing, compared with 31.2% with usual care. As a result, the cost per responder was lower with talquetamab despite the higher overall spending. Weekly talquetamab had a cost per responder of $405 470 and biweekly talquetamab had a cost per responder of $443 165, vs $575 962 for usual care. That translated into savings of $170 492 per responder for weekly dosing and $132 797 per responder for biweekly dosing.

The findings held up across multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses. Savings per responder remained favorable for talquetamab even when assumptions were varied, with weekly dosing showing savings ranging from $149 916 to $191 068 and biweekly dosing from $110 327 to $155 267. In a 12-month analysis, cost per responder remained lower for talquetamab than usual care and shifting step-up dosing to the outpatient setting with prophylactic tocilizumab reduced costs further.

“The findings of the present study support the economic value of both talquetamab one weekly and talquetamab biweekly for achieving a clinical response in the target RRMM population in the US,” concluded the study authors.

Reference

Lee HC, Yang C, Liu YH, et al. Costs per responder for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with Talquetamab compared with usual care. J Med Econ. 2026;29(1):93-105. doi:10.1080/13696998.2025.2604457