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

Multiple sclerosis: economic burden, therapeutic advances, and future forecasts in the Middle East and North Africa region

INTRODUCTION

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a persistent condition characterized by immune-mediated processes in the central nervous system, affecting around 2.8 million individuals globally. While historically less prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, recent trends mirror the global rise in MS.

AREA COVERED

The impact of MS is substantial, particularly in the MENA region, with costs per patient surpassing nominal GDP per capita in certain countries. Disease-modifying therapies aim to alleviate MS effects, but challenges persist, especially in managing progressive MS as it shifts from inflammatory to neurodegenerative phases. Limited resources in the MENA region hinder care delivery, though awareness initiatives and multidisciplinary centers are emerging. Contrary to global projections of a decline in the MS market, the MENA region is poised for growth due to increased prevalence, healthcare expenditures, and infrastructure investments.

EXPERT OPINION

This review underscores the urgent necessity for effective treatments, robust disease management, and early diagnosis in tackling MS's repercussions in the MENA region. Bolstering resources tailored to MS patients and elevating the quality of care stand as pivotal strategies for enhancing health outcomes in this context. Taking decisive action holds the key to enhancing the overall well-being of individuals grappling with MS.

Real-World Healthcare Cost Savings and Reduced Relapse Rate with Off-Label Rituximab versus Disease-Modifying Treatments Approved for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Nationwide Cost-Effectiveness Study

OBJECTIVE

Although off-label use of rituximab is a common alternative to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved for multiple sclerosis (MS) in several countries, the impact of this on treatment cost-effectiveness is not well known.

METHODS

We evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of rituximab and MS-approved DMTs in a register-based cohort study of Swedish residents with relapsing-remitting MS, aged 18-65 years, starting treatment with rituximab, natalizumab, fingolimod, or dimethyl fumarate between January 2010 and July 2016, and followed through July 2021 (n = 5,924). By linking the population-based Swedish MS register to several Swedish health care and demographic registers, we estimated health care costs in relation to number of relapses, over 5 years from treatment start. Differences between treatments were estimated in inverse probability of treatment-weighted regression models, adjusting for a broad range of potential confounders covering demographics, medical history, and MS-related clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Off-label rituximab was associated with both lower total health care costs (mean cost savings ranged $35,000-$66,000 vs. each approved DMT), and fewer relapses (mean number of prevented relapses ranged 0.12-0.22), per started therapy over 5 years. Results were robust to variations in discounting and pricing of health care visits, with the main driver of cost-savings being the price of the index drug itself.

INTERPRETATION

The cost-effectiveness of rituximab dominated the MS-approved alternatives. Off-label, low-dose rituximab should be considered for persons with MS and could reduce barriers to treatment, especially in resource-limited settings. ANN NEUROL 2024;95:1099-1111.

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.

Clinical and economic evaluations of natalizumab, rituximab, and ocrelizumab for the management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

The advent of new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), resulted in significant changes in the treatment guidelines for Multiple sclerosis (MS) and improvement in the clinical outcomes. However, mAbs, such as rituximab, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab, are expensive with variable effectiveness rates. Thus, the present study aimed to compare the direct medical cost and consequences (e.g., clinical relapse, disability progression, and new MRI lesions) between rituximab and natalizumab in managing relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Saudi Arabia. Also, the study aimed to explore the cost and consequence of ocrelizumab in managing RRMS as a second-choice treatment.

METHODS

The electronic medical records (EMRs) of patients with RRMS were retrospectively reviewed to retrieve the patients' baseline characteristics and disease progression from two tertiary care centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Biologic-naïve patients treated with rituximab or natalizumab or those switched to ocrelizumab and treated for at least six months were included in the study. The effectiveness rate was defined as no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) (i.e., absence of new T2 or T1 gadolinium (Gd) lesions as demonstrated by the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), disability progression, and clinical relapses), while the direct medical costs were estimated based on the utilization of healthcare resources. In addition, bootstrapping with 10,000 replications and inverse probability weighting based on propensity score were conducted.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (natalizumab (n = 50), rituximab (n = 26), ocrelizumab (n = 17)). Most of the patients were otherwise healthy (81.72%), under 35 years of age (76.34%), females (61.29%), and on the same mAb for more than one year (83.87%). The mean effectiveness rates for natalizumab, rituximab, and ocrelizumab were 72.00%, 76.92%, and 58.83%, respectively. Natalizumab mean incremental cost compared to rituximab was $35,383 (95% CI: $25,401.09- $49,717.92), and its mean effectiveness rate was 4.92% lower than rituximab (95% CI: -30-27.5) with 59.41% confidence level that rituximab will be dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

Rituximab seems to be more effective and is less costly than natalizumab in the management of RRMS. Ocrelizumab does not seem to slow the rates of disease progression among patients previously treated with natalizumab.