Cost-Effectiveness of Natalizumab Compared With Fingolimod for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Treatment in Colombia

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.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom

AIM

To evaluate the real-world comparative effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness, from a UK National Health Service perspective, of natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RES-RRMS).

METHODS

Real-world data from the MSBase Registry were obtained for patients with RES-RRMS who were previously either naive to disease-modifying therapies or had been treated with interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide (collectively known as BRACETD). Matched cohorts were selected by 3-way multinomial propensity score matching, and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M) were compared between treatment groups. Comparative effectiveness results were used in a cost-effectiveness model comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, using an established Markov structure over a lifetime horizon with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Additional model data sources included the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available sources.

RESULTS

In the comparative effectiveness analysis, we found a significantly lower ARR for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (rate ratio [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.73) or BRACETD (RR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). Similarly, CDI6M was higher for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55) and BRACETD (HR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85). In patients starting fingolimod, we found a lower ARR (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80) compared with starting BRACETD, but no difference in CDI6M (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Differences in CDW6M were not found between the treatment groups. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, natalizumab dominated fingolimod (0.302 higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and £17,141 lower predicted lifetime costs). Similar cost-effectiveness results were observed across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This MSBase Registry analysis suggests that natalizumab improves clinical outcomes when compared with fingolimod, which translates to higher QALYs and lower costs in UK patients with RES-RRMS.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Natalizumab and Fingolimod in Patients with Inadequate Response to Disease-Modifying Therapies in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis inadequately responding to first-line therapies (interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide, known collectively as "BRACETD") often switch to natalizumab or fingolimod.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to estimate the comparative effectiveness of switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD using real-world data and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to natalizumab versus fingolimod using a United Kingdom (UK) third-party payer perspective.

METHODS

Real-world data were obtained from MSBase for patients relapsing on BRACETD in the year before switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD. Three-way-multinomial-propensity-score-matched cohorts were identified, and comparisons between treatment groups were conducted for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M). Results were applied in a cost-effectiveness model over a lifetime horizon using a published Markov structure with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Other model parameters were obtained from the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available UK sources.

RESULTS

The MSBase analysis found a significant reduction in ARR (rate ratio [RR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.72; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67; 95% CI 1.30-2.15; p < 0.001) for switching to natalizumab compared with BRACETD. For switching to fingolimod, the reduction in ARR (RR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.81-1.03; p = 0.133) and increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.99-1.72; p = 0.058) compared with BRACETD were not significant. Switching to natalizumab was associated with a significant reduction in ARR (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.62-0.79; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.01-1.62; p = 0.040) compared to switching to fingolimod. No evidence of difference in CDW6M was found between treatment groups. Natalizumab dominated (higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and lower costs) fingolimod in the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis (0.453 higher QALYs and £20,843 lower costs per patient). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel real-world analysis suggests a clinical benefit for therapy escalation to natalizumab versus fingolimod based on comparative effectiveness results, translating to higher QALYs and lower costs for UK patients inadequately responding to BRACETD.

Real-World Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Classes of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in Saudi Arabia

The very fact that multiple sclerosis (MS) is incurable and necessitates life-long care makes it one of the most burdensome illnesses. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of orally administered medications (e.g., fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide), interferon (IFN)-based therapy, and monoclonal antibodies (MABs) (e.g., natalizumab and rituximab) in the management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Saudi Arabia using real-world data. This was a retrospective cohort study in which patients with RRMS aged ≥18 years without any other chronic health conditions with non-missing data for at least 12 months were recruited from the electronic health records of a university-affiliated tertiary care center. Multiple logistic regressions controlling for age, sex, and duration of therapy were conducted to examine the odds of disability progression, clinical relapse, MRI lesions, and composite outcome (e.g., relapse, lesion development on MRI, disability progression). The number of patients who met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis was 146. Most of the patients were female (70.51%) and young (e.g., ≤35 years of age). There were 40 patients on the orally administered agents (e.g., dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, fingolimod), 66 patients were on IFN-based therapy (e.g., Rebif^®), and 40 patients were on monoclonal antibodies (e.g., rituximab and natalizumab). Patients on MABs had lower odds of the composite outcome (OR = 0.17 (95% CI: 0.068–0.428)). The use of orally administered agents was dominant (e.g., more effective and less costly), with average annual cost savings of USD −4336.65 (95% CI: −5207.89–−3903.32) and 8.11% higher rate of effectiveness (95% CI: −14.81–18.07) when compared with Rebif^®. With regard to the use of MABs in comparison to Rebif^®, MABs were associated with higher cost but a better rate of effectiveness, with an average additional annual cost of USD 1381.54 (95% CI: 421.31–3621.06) and 43.11% higher rate of effectiveness (95% CI: 30.38–61.15) when compared with Rebif^®. In addition, the use of MABs was associated with higher cost but a better rate of effectiveness, with an average additional annual cost of USD 5717.88 (95% CI: 4970.75–8272.66) and 35% higher rate of effectiveness (95% CI: 10.0–42.50) when compared with orally administered agents. The use of MABs in the management of RRMS among the young patient population has shown to be the most effective therapy in comparison to both IFN-based therapy (e.g., Rebif^®) and orally administered agents, but with higher cost. Orally administered agents resulted in better outcomes and lower costs in comparison to IFN-based therapy. Future studies should further examine the cost-effectiveness of different disease-modifying therapies for the management of RRMS using more robust study designs.

How have Economic Evaluations in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Evolved Over Time? A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) over the last two decades has prompted the economic assessments of these treatments by reimbursement authorities. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the modeling approach and data sources used in economic evaluations of DMTs for RMS, identify differences and similarities, and explore how economic evaluation models have evolved over time.

METHODS

MEDLINE®, Embase®, and EBM Reviews databases were searched using Ovid® Platform from database inception on 25 December 2019 and subsequently updated on 17 February 2021. In addition, health technology assessment agency websites, key conference proceedings, and gray literature from relevant websites were screened. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Drummond and Philips checklists.

RESULTS

A total 155 publications and 30 Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were included. Most of these were cost-utility analysis (73 studies and 25 HTA reports) and funded by medicines manufacturers (n = 65). The top three countries where studies were conducted were the USA (n = 29), the UK (n = 16), and Spain (n = 10). Studies predominantly used Markov cohort models (94 studies; 25 HTAs) structured based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) with 21 health states (20 studies; 12 HTA reports). The London Ontario and British Columbia data sets were commonly used sources for natural history data (n = 33; n = 13). Twelve studies and ten HTAs from the UK assumed a waning of DMT effect over the long term, while this was uncommon in studies from other countries. Nineteen studies adjusted for multiple sclerosis (MS)-specific mortality estimates, while 18 studies used data from the national life table without adjustment. Studies prominently referred to mortality data that were about two decades old. The data on treatment effect was generally obtained from randomized controlled trials (43 studies; 7 HTAs) or from published evidence synthesis (23 studies; 24 HTAs). Utility estimates were derived from either published studies and/or supplemented with data from RCTs. Most of the models used the lifetime horizon (n = 37) with a 1-year cycle length (n = 63).

CONCLUSION

As expected, similarities as well as differences were observed across the different economic models. Available evidence suggests models should continue using the Markov cohort model with 21 EDSS-based states, however, allowing the transition to a lower EDSS state and assuming a sustained treatment effect. With reference to the data sources, models should consider using a contemporary MS-specific mortality data, recent natural history data, and country-specific utility data if available. In case of data unavailability, a sensitivity analysis using multiple sources of data should be conducted. In addition, future models should incorporate other clinically relevant outcomes, such as the cognition, vision, and psychological aspects of RMS, to be able to present the comprehensive value of DMTs.

Incorporating patients' preferences in the value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a narrative review

Introduction: Despite the increasing role of patients in the US healthcare system, patients have yet been engaged in the value assessment of their treatments, including disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). The objectives of this review were therefore to summarize existing studies on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and patients' preferences of DMTs for MS, and to discuss how to incorporate patients' preferences into the value assessment of DMTs.Area covered: We reviewed previous systematic reviews and conducted further search until November 2020 for studies on CEA with QALYs and patients' preferences of DMTs for MS. We identified the outcomes that were assessed or valued in the CEA studies and the DMT attributes that were important to patients with MS.Expert opinion: Our literature review showed that the studies using CEA with QALYs failed to capture some important DMT attributes, e.g., route and frequency of administration, identified in the studies on the patients' preferences. Various approaches were available for incorporating the patients' preferences in the value assessment of DMTs for MS. We supported this incorporation, which subsequently would increase patient access to preferred DMTs.