Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ocrelizumab for the Treatment of Relapsing and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis in Portugal

The cost-utility analysis of adding ocrelizumab to the treatment plan for primary progressive multiple sclerosis in Iran

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding ocrelizumab to supportive care for primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) in Iran.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using a lifetime horizon from the payer's perspective, we developed a decision analytic model with Expanded Disability Status Scales (EDSS) as Markov health states while taking transition probabilities and treatment effects into account. Data were sourced from clinical trials and other literature. The target population was PPMS patients receiving either supportive care or ocrelizumab. We assessed cost- effectiveness through total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainties.

RESULTS

The addition of ocrelizumab to supportive care provided an incremental gain of 0.89 QALYs and an additional cost of US$76,771.34, resulting in an ICER of US$86,220.35 compared to supportive care, which is 5.2 times Iran's GDP per capita (US$16,557). Thus, ocrelizumab is not cost-effective at the threshold of one time GDP per capita. However, the probability of cost-effectiveness increases at higher thresholds. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

While ocrelizumab is not cost-effective at the threshold of one-time GDP per capita, its clinical benefits are significant. Formulating healthcare policies for high-cost medications with low alternatives like ocrelizumab is essential.

Real-world evidence from Germany and the United States: Treatment initiation on low-efficacy versus high-efficacy therapies in patients with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

The hit-hard-and-early (HHAE) strategy where treatment is initiated with high-efficacy therapies opposed to low-efficacy therapies presents a potential paradigm shift in multiple sclerosis (MS) management. This study aimed to assess the adoption of the HHAE strategy in Germany and the United States (US) from 2020 to 2022 based on real-world data.

METHODS

The analysis was based on longitudinal, patient-level data from Germany and the US. For Germany, data was extracted from the Permea platform covering approximately 44 % of all German community pharmacy dispensing. For the US, data from the Komodo Healthcare Map™ was utilized, covering medical benefit data from around 88 % of the US patient population. Patients ≥18 years old and who had at least 2 prescriptions for MS-related disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) between January 2020 and December 2022 were included. To approximate therapy beginners, a washout period of one year before treatment start was applied, excluding all patients who had an MS-related DMD prescription or claim in 2019. Cohort entry date was the day of the first MS-related DMD dispense or claim. DMDs were classified as high-efficacy and low-efficacy based on the Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Consensus Group (MSTCG). Group differences were assessed with two-sided χ2-square and t-tests.

RESULTS

29,604 MS therapy beginners were identified in the German and 49,791 MS therapy beginners were identified in the US dataset. 29.6 % of MS therapy beginners in Germany and 61.6 % in the US followed the HHAE strategy. Between 2020 and 2022, a significant 14 % increase in the HHAE strategy was observed in both countries (p < 0.0001). High-efficacy therapy beginners switched from their initially prescribed therapy less frequently than low-efficacy therapy beginners: 6.9 % of high-efficacy vs. 19.5 % of low-efficacy therapy beginners in Germany (p < 0.0001) and 5.5 % of high-efficacy vs. 25.0 % low-efficacy therapy beginners in the US (p < 0.0001) switched from their first prescribed DMD.

CONCLUSION

Between 2020 and 2022, the adoption of the HHAE strategy increased in both countries, with the US exhibiting nearly double the adoption rates. High-efficacy therapy beginners were less likely to switch from their initially prescribed medication than low-efficacy therapy beginners. Real world evidence can provide valuable insights into rapidly changing treatment patterns in patients with MS.

Utilization of Ocrelizumab within Different Treatment Strategies for Multiple Sclerosis: A 5-Year Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

We aim to provide up-to-date real-world evidence on the persistence, adherence, healthcare resource utilization, and costs of multiple sclerosis (MS) by comparing ocrelizumab to other disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) and within different DMT sequences.

METHODS

We included 3371 people with MS who first received or switched DMT prescriptions from January 2018 to December 2022; they were identified through hospital discharge records, drug prescriptions, and exemption codes from the Campania Region (South Italy). We calculated persistence (time from the first prescription to discontinuation or switching to another DMT), adherence (proportion of days covered (PDC)), DMT costs, and MS hospital admissions and related costs.

RESULTS

The most frequently prescribed DMT was dimethyl fumarate (n = 815; age 38.90 ± 11.91 years; 69.5% females), followed by ocrelizumab (n = 682; age 46.46 ± 11.29 years; 56.3%); 28.8% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab were naïve to DMTs. Using ocrelizumab as a statistical reference, the risk of discontinuation was higher for other highly active (HR = 6.32; 95%CI = 3.16, 12.63; p < 0.01) and low-/medium-efficacy DMTs (HR = 10.10; 95%CI = 5.10, 19.77; p < 0.01); adherence was lower for other highly active DMTs (Coeff = -0.07; 95%CI = -0.10, -0.04; p < 0.01) and low-/medium-efficacy DMTs (Coeff = -0.16; 95%CI = -0.19, -0.14; p < 0.01). monthly DMT costs were higher for other highly active DMTs (Coeff = 77.45; 95%CI = 29.36, 125.53; p < 0.01) but lower for low-/medium-efficacy DMTs (Coeff = -772.31; 95%CI = -816.95, -727.66; p < 0.01). The hospital admissions and related costs of MS were similar between ocrelizumab, other highly active DMTs, and other low-/medium-efficacy DMTs, and with ocrelizumab as the first-line DMT after other highly active DMTs and after low-/medium-efficacy DMTs, which was possibly due to the low number of observations.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2018 to 2022, ocrelizumab was among the most frequently prescribed DMTs, with 28.8% prescriptions to incident MS patients, confirming its relevance in clinical practice. Ocrelizumab was associated with the highest persistence and adherence, pointing towards its favorable benefit-risk profile. The costs of ocrelizumab were lower than those of other highly active DMTs.

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying drugs of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, autoimmune, and inflammatory disease. The economic burden of MS is substantial, and the high cost of Disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) prices are the main drivers of healthcare expenditures. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of DMDs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. The search covered articles published between May 2001 and May 2023. Studies that were written in English and Persian and examined the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of DMDs in patients with MS were included in our review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, and the quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the Quality of Health Economics Studies Instrument (QHES). All costs were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars using Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

RESULTS

The search yielded 1589 studies, and 49 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were mainly based on a European setting. Most studies employed Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness. The lowest and highest numerical value of outcome measures were -1,623,918 and 2,297,141.53, respectively. Furthermore, the lowest and highest numerical value of the cost of DMDs of RRMS were $180.67, and $1474840.19, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of all studies, it can be concluded that for the treatment of patients with MS, care-oriented strategies should be preferred to drug strategies. Also, among the drug strategies with different prescribing methods, oral disease-modifying drugs of RRMS should be preferred to injectable drugs and intravenous infusions.