Cost-Analysis of Subcutaneous vs Intravenous Administration of Natalizumab Based on Patient Care Pathway in Multiple Sclerosis in Spain

Comparative efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous natalizumab on annualized relapse rate: A post-hoc analysis of the REFINE study

BACKGROUND

The non-inferiority of the efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) vs intravenous (IV) administration of natalizumab (NTZ) once every 4 weeks in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) was recently demonstrated on the primary outcome of the REFINE study, i.e. MRI "combined unique active lesions number" (CUAL). To provide further evidence on the comparative efficacy of the two NTZ formulations, the effect of NTZ-SC vs NTZ-IV on annualized relapse rate (ARR) was investigated re-analysing the REFINE dataset.

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of the REFINE study dataset aimed at exploring the non-inferiority of the efficacy of NTZ-SC vs NTZ-IV on ARR, i.e. the main secondary outcome of the REFINE study. Robustness of the non-inferiority analysis on CUAL with respect to the presence of cases from the SC arm who received a rescue treatment, including NTZ-IV, was also assessed by sensitivity analyses. Three non-inferiority margins were selected, corresponding to 25 %, 33 %, and 50 % fractions of the effect size of NTZ-IV vs placebo observed in the AFFIRM study on ARR (i.e. 0.125, 0.170, and 0.250).

RESULTS

Ninety-nine RRMS patients were included. The mean difference in the effect of NTZ-SC vs NTZ-IV on ARR was close to 0. The lower bound of the 95 % confidence interval (worst case scenario) was -0.119, corresponding to 25 % (p = 0.025) of the effect of NTZ-IV vs placebo on ARR. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of the primary non-inferiority analysis on the outcome CUAL.

CONCLUSIONS

NTZ-SC resulted not inferior to NTZ-IV on ARR for all the non-inferiority margins. The non-inferiority analysis of the efficacy of NTZ-SC vs NTZ-IV on CUAL was demonstrated to be robust with respect to rescued patients.

Cost and effectiveness of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) is a highly effective one-off treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RR-MS), potentially representing an optimal front-loading strategy for costs.

OBJECTIVE

Exploring cost/effectiveness of AHSCT and high-efficacy disease-modifying treatments (HE-DMTs) in RR-MS, estimating costs at our centre in Italy, where National Health Service (NHS) provides universal health coverage.

METHODS

Costs (including drugs, inpatient/outpatient management) for treatment with AHSCT and HE-DMTs were calculated as NHS expenditures over 2- and 5-year periods. Cost-effectiveness for each treatment was estimated as "cost needed to treat" (CNT), i.e. expense to prevent relapses, progression, or disease activity (NEDA) in one patient over n-years, retrieving outcomes from published studies.

RESULTS

Costs of AHSCT and HE-DMTs were similar over 2 years, whereas AHSCT was cheaper than most HE-DMTs over 5 years (€46 600 vs €93 800, respectively). When estimating cost-effectiveness of treatments, over 2 years, mean CNT of HE-DMTs for NEDA was twofold that of AHSCT, whereas it was similar for relapses and disability. Differences in CNT were remarkable over 5 years, especially for NEDA, being mean CNT of HE-DMTs €382 800 vs €74 900 for AHSCT.

CONCLUSIONS

AHSCT may be highly cost-effective in selected aggressive RR-MS. Besides priceless benefits for treated individuals, cost-savings generated by AHSCT may contribute to improving healthcare assistance at a population level.

Drug Expenditure, Price, and Utilization in US Medicaid: A Trend Analysis for New Multiple Myeloma Medications from 2016 to 2022

INTRODUCTION

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the most common plasma cell tumor type. In late 2015, the FDA approved three new medications for MM. These medications were ixazomib, daratumumab, and elotuzumab. However, their utilization, reimbursement, and price in the Medicaid program have not been analyzed before.

METHODS

A retrospective drug utilization study using the national Medicaid pharmacy claims data from 2016 to 2022 in the US. The primary metrics of analysis were utilization (number of prescriptions), reimbursement (total spending), and price (reimbursement per prescription).

RESULTS

The overall Medicaid utilization of MM medications increased from 1671 prescriptions in 2016 to 34,583 prescriptions in 2022 (1970% increase). Moreover, the overall Medicaid reimbursement for the new MM medications increased from USD 9,250,000 in 2016 to over USD 214,449,000 in 2022 (2218% increase). Daratumumab had much higher utilization, reimbursement, and market shares than its competitors. Ixazomib was the most expensive medication compared to daratumumab and elotuzumab.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that CMS utilization and spending on MM medications have significantly grown since 2016. Daratumumab has by far the highest utilization, spending, and market share. The utilization of and spending on specific pharmaceuticals are clearly impacted by policy and clinical guideline recommendations.