The cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) causes significant disability and diminished quality-of-life. Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF) is a new oral treatment for relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) approved in the US, Australia, Canada, and Europe. Objectives: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare the health economic impact of DMF against other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) as first-line RRMS treatment from a Canadian Ministry of Health perspective. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed to simulate patients’ progression through health states based on the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) over a life-time horizon. Patients entered the model based on a distribution of baseline EDSS scores, from which they could progress to higher or regress to lower EDSS state, or remain in the same state. Relapses could occur at any EDSS score. Results from a mixed-treatment comparison were used to inform model inputs for disease progression and relapse rates per treatment. Costs included direct medical costs stratified by EDSS score. Utilities were accrued based on time spent in each EDSS state. Results: Compared with glatiramer acetate, DMF yielded 0.528 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $23 338 Canadian dollars (CAD), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD $44 118/QALY. The ICER for DMF compared with Rebif 44?mcg was CAD $10 672. Results were consistent across a wide range of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Based on traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds in Canada (CAD $50 000–60 000), DMF can be considered a cost-effective option compared to other first-line DMTs.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of peginterferon beta-1a compared with interferon beta-1a and glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States

Objective Peginterferon beta-1a 125?mcg, administered subcutaneously (SC) every 2 weeks, a new disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a vs interferon beta-1a (44?mcg SC 3 times per week) and glatiramer acetate (20?mg SC once-daily) in the treatment of RRMS from the perspective of a US payer over 10 years.

Methods A Markov cohort economic model was developed for this analysis. The model predicts disability progression, occurrence of relapses and other adverse events and translates them into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs. Natural history data were obtained from the placebo arm of the ADVANCE trial of peginterferon beta-1a, the London Ontario (Canada) database and a large population-based MS survey. Comparative efficacy of each DMT vs placebo was obtained from a network meta-analysis. Costs (in 2014?US dollars) were sourced from public databases and literature. Clinical and economic outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.

Results Over 10 years, peginterferon beta-1a was dominant (i.e., more effective and less costly), with cost-savings of $22,070 and additional 0.06 QALYs when compared with interferon beta-1a 44?mcg and with cost-savings of $19,163 and 0.07 QALYs gained when compared with glatiramer acetate 20?mg. Results were most sensitive to variations in the treatment effect of each DMT, treatment acquisition costs of each DMT and the time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that peginterferon beta-1a remains dominant in >90% of 5,000 replications compared with either DMTs.

Conclusion This analysis suggests that long-term treatment with peginterferon beta-1a improves clinical outcomes at reduced costs compared with interferon beta-1a 44?mcg and glatiramer acetate 20?mg and should be a valuable addition to managed care formularies for treating patients with RRMS.     

The cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Background: The safety and efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) has been established; however, it is not clear which provides optimal value, given benefit-risk profiles and costs.

Aims: To compare the cost-effectiveness of current DMTs for patients with RRMS in the US.

Materials and methods: A Markov model predicting RRMS course following initiation of a DMT was created comparing outcomes (e.g. relapses, disease progression) and costs of natalizumab (NTZ), dimethyl fumarate (DMF), and peginterferon beta-1a (PEG) with fingolimod (FIN), glatiramer acetate (GA, 20?mg daily), and subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (IFN, 44?mcg), respectively, over 10 years. RRMS and secondary-progressive MS (SPMS) EDSS state transitions were predicted in 3-month cycles in which patients were at risk of death, relapse, or discontinuation. Upon DMT discontinuation, natural history progression and relapse rates were applied. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for the cost per relapse avoided, relapse-free years gained, progression avoided, and progression-free years gained. The impact of model parameters on outcomes was evaluated via one-way sensitivity analyses.

Results: Costs ranged from $561,177 (NTZ) to $616,251 (GA). NTZ, DMF, and PEG were dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to FIN, GA, and IFN, respectively, for all ICERs. Variability in drug costs and parameters that affected drug cost accrual (e.g. discontinuation rates and the decision to drop out after SPMS conversion) had a considerable impact on ICERs.

Limitations: Several simplifying assumptions were made that may represent potential limitations of this analysis (e.g. a constant treatment effect over time was assumed).

Conclusions: The results from this analysis suggest that the NTZ, DMF, and PEG are cost-effective DMT choices compared to FIN, GA, and IFN, respectively. The actual impact on a particular plan will vary based on drug pricing and other factors affecting drug cost accrual.     

Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Background:

With the addition of new agents for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) (e.g., fingolimod), there is a need to evaluate the relative value of newer therapies in terms of cost and effectiveness, given healthcare resource constraints in the United States.

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod in patients with relapsing MS.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per relapse avoided of natalizumab and fingolimod from a US managed care payer perspective. Two-year costs of treating patients with MS included drug acquisition costs, administration and monitoring costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Effectiveness was measured in terms of MS relapses avoided (data from AFFIRM and FREEDOMS trials). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

Mean 2-year estimated treatment costs were $86,461 (natalizumab) and $98,748 (fingolimod). Patients receiving natalizumab had a mean of 0.74 relapses avoided per 2 years vs 0.59 for fingolimod. Natalizumab dominated fingolimod in the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, as it was less costly and more effective in reducing relapses. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results of the model were robust to changes in drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed natalizumab was cost-effective 95.1% of the time, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $0 per relapse avoided, increasing to 96.3% of the time at a WTP threshold of $50,000 per relapse avoided.

Limitations:

Absence of data from direct head-to-head studies comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, use of relapse rate reduction rather than sustained disability progression as primary model outcome, assumption of 100% adherence to MS treatment, and not capturing adverse event costs in the model.

Conclusions:

Natalizumab dominates fingolimod in terms of incremental cost per relapse avoided, as it is less costly and more effective.     

Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Fingolimod has been shown to be more efficacious than interferon (IFN) beta-1a, but at a higher drug acquisition cost. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod compared to IFN beta-1a in patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model comparing fingolimod to intramuscular IFN beta-1a using a US societal perspective and a 10-year time horizon was developed. A cohort of 37-year-old patients with RRMS and a Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0–2.5 were assumed. Data sources included the Trial Assessing Injectable Interferon vs FTY720 Oral in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (TRANSFORMS) and other published studies of MS. Outcomes included costs in 2011 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), number of relapses avoided, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results:

Compared to IFN beta-1a, fingolimod was associated with fewer relapses (0.41 vs 0.73 per patient per year) and more QALYs gained (6.7663 vs 5.9503), but at a higher cost ($565,598 vs $505,234). This resulted in an ICER of $73,975 per QALY. Results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs and the disutility of receiving IFN beta-1a. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated fingolimod was cost-effective in 35% and 70% of 10,000 iterations, assuming willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, respectively.

Limitations:

Event rates were primarily derived from a single randomized clinical trial with 1-year duration of follow-up and extrapolated to a 10-year time horizon. Comparison was made to only one disease-modifying drug—intramuscular IFN beta-1a.

Conclusion:

Fingolimod use is not likely to be cost-effective compared to IFN beta-1a unless fingolimod cost falls below $3476 per month or a higher than normal willingness-to-pay threshold is accepted by decision-makers.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ocrelizumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis

Aim: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare ocrelizumab vs subcutaneous (SC) interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS).

Methods: A Markov cohort model with a 20-year horizon was developed to compare ocrelizumab with SC interferon beta-1a from a US payer perspective. A cohort of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 0–6, who initiated treatment with ocrelizumab or SC interferon beta-1a, were entered into the model. The model considered 21 health states: EDSS 0–9 in RRMS, EDSS 0–9 in secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), and death. Patients with RRMS could transition across EDSS scores, progress to SPMS, experience relapses, or die. Transition probabilities within RRMS while patients received ocrelizumab or SC interferon beta-1a were based on data from the two SC interferon beta-1a-controlled Phase III OPERA I and OPERA II trials of ocrelizumab in RMS. Transitions within RRMS when off-treatment, RRMS-to-SPMS transitions, transitions within SPMS, and transitions to death were based on the literature. Utilities of health states, disutilities of relapses, costs of therapies, and medical costs associated with health states, relapse, and adverse events were from the literature and publicly available data sources. The model estimated per-patient total costs, incremental cost per life year (LY) gained, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model results.

Results: Ocrelizumab was associated with a cost savings of $63,822 and longer LYs (Δ?=?0.046) and QALYs (Δ?=?0.556) over a 20-year time horizon. The results of the model were robust in the DSA and PSA.

Limitations: The model did not consider subsequent treatments and their impact on disease progression.

Conclusions: The results suggest that ocrelizumab is more cost-effective than SC interferon beta-1a for the treatment of RMS.     

Incremental net monetary benefit of ocrelizumab relative to subcutaneous interferon β-1a

Aim: Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) impact the natural history of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RRMS) by reducing annual relapse rates and slowing disability progression. The effect of DMTs on indirect costs has not been consistently explored in cost-effectiveness studies thus far. The value to patients of an emerging DMT, ocrelizumab, was quantified in comparison to subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (IFNβSC) for the prevalent RRMS population with mild-to-moderate disability in the US, based on two Phase 3 trials, OPERA I and OPERA II, of ocrelizumab vs IFNβSC in RRMS.

Materials and methods: A Markov model was developed to compare disability progression as measured by Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and relapse outcomes over a 30-year horizon for ocrelizumab vs IFNβSC. Direct, indirect, and informal costs (2016?US dollars) and utilities for EDSS health states were obtained from the literature. Hazard ratios for disability progression and relapse rates were estimated from clinical trials. Value was assessed by calculating the net monetary benefit (NMB), defined as the monetary value of discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) minus total costs, where the value of a QALY was $150,000. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: Ocrelizumab was associated with an incremental gain of 0.84 QALYs and cost savings of $287,713 relative to IFNβSC, resulting in an incremental NMB (INMB) of $413,611 per person over 30 years. The INMB increased by $151,763 for those initiating ocrelizumab at EDSS level 1 vs level 4. Influential parameters were QALY value, treatment costs, and disability progression; however, all sensitivity analyses indicated that the INMB for ocrelizumab relative to IFNβSC was ≥$300,000 per person.

Conclusions: Ocrelizumab provides greater value to RRMS patients compared with IFNβSC. Initiating ocrelizumab at lower EDSS levels leads to a greater cumulative value due to slower disability progression, which extends years with higher quality-of-life.     

Implications of Real-world Adherence on Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Multiple Sclerosis

Abstract

Objectives:

Adherence to medication is essential for optimal outcomes, especially for chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS). Studies in MS indicate that lower adherence is associated with an increased risk of relapse, hospitalization or emergency room (ER) visits, and higher medical costs. A previous investigation assessed the cost per relapse avoided for patients with MS receiving first-line disease modifying therapies (DMTs); however, the model assumed 100% adherence.

Methods:

Because real-world utilization patterns influence the actual effectiveness of medications, this analysis assessed the impact of real-world adherence from a US commercial payer perspective, using updated costs.

Results:

As was seen in the original study, in this revised model, fingolimod was associated with the lowest cost per relapse avoided ($90,566), followed by SC IFN β-1b (Extavia: $127,024), SC IFN β-1b (Betaseron: $137,492), SC IFN β-1a ($144,016), glatiramer acetate ($160,314), and IM IFN β-1a ($312,629). The model inputs that had the greatest impact on the results were adherence-adjusted relative relapse rate reduction (RRR) of fingolimod, the wholesale acquisition costs of fingolimod, and the average number of relapses in untreated patients with MS.

Limitations:

The estimates of DMT adherence are from a single claims database study of a large national pharmacy benefit manager that only measured adherence, not actual relapses, and the model does not incorporate manufacturer discounts and rebates, which are not publicly available.

Conclusion:

These results suggest that economic analyses of MS therapies should incorporate real-world adherence rates where available, rather than relying exclusively on trial-based efficacy estimates when considering the economic value of treatment alternatives, and that highly efficacious therapies with low adherence may yield real-world efficacy that is substantially lower than that observed in closely monitored clinical trials.     

Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta,fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic progressive, demyelinating, inflammatory disease, affects 2.5 million people worldwide. Approximately 63% of cases are classified as relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this cost-utility analysis is to evaluate alemtuzumab vs interferon beta (intramuscular [IM] interferon beta-1a, subcutaneous [SC] interferon beta-1a, SC interferon beta-1b, and SC pegylated interferon beta-1a) in previously treated, and vs SC interferon beta-1a, fingolimod, and natalizumab in untreated RRMS patients to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among the treatment alternatives as prices, the route, and the frequency of administration of considered products vary significantly.

Methods: The primary outcome was the modeled incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; €/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Markov modeling with a 10-year time horizon was carried out. During each 3-month cycle, patients maintained the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score or experienced progression, developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS), or showed EDSS progression in SPMS; experienced relapses; suffered from an adverse event (AE); changed treatment; or died. A published network meta-analysis (NMA) was used for indirect comparison. The possibility of a therapy switch was considered. Clinical input data and resource utilization data were derived from the literature. Costs were extracted from price lists published in Austria and were calculated from the payer’s perspective.

Results: In treatment naïve patients, alemtuzumab is associated with costs of €132,663 and 5.25 QALYs in a 10-year time horizon. Costs for SC interferon beta amount to €164,159 and generate 4.85 QALYs. Also, in the pre-treated patients, alemtuzumab dominated comparators by accumulating higher total QALYs (4.88) and lower total costs (€137.409) compared to interferon beta-1a (€200.133), fingolimod (€240.903), and natalizumab (€247.758).

Conclusion: The analysis shows that alemtuzumab is a cost-saving alternative to treat RRMS in pre-treated and therapy naïve patients. From the patient perspective, alemtuzumab improves quality-of-life.     

Glatiramer acetate and interferon beta-1a for intramuscular administration: a study of outcomes among multiple sclerosis intent-to-treat and persistent-use cohorts

Abstract

Objective:

To study outcomes of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients treated with either glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) or interferon beta-1a for once-weekly, intramuscular administration (Avonex).

Methods:

An ‘intent-to-treat’ (ITT) cohort (n?=?1282) was established, consisting of patients diagnosed with MS who began therapy on either glatiramer acetate (GA) or intramuscular interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a-IM) and had continuous insurance coverage from 6 months before to 24 months after the date when they began taking the medication. A ‘persistent use’ (PU) cohort (n?=?639) was also constructed, consisting of individuals who, in addition to the criteria listed above, had a claim for GA or IFN beta-1a-IM within 28 days of the end of the 2-year post-period. Data were obtained from the i3 InVision Data Mart Database from July 2001 to June 2006. Multivariate regressions were used to examine both the 2-year total direct medical costs and the likelihood of relapse associated with the use of each of these alternative MS medications. A relapse was defined as either being hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of MS or having an outpatient visit with a MS diagnosis followed within 7 days by a claim for a corticosteroid. All regressions controlled a wide range of factors that may potentially affect outcomes.

Results:

In the ITT cohort, patients who started therapy on GA had a significantly lower 2-year risk of relapse (10.01 vs. 5.18%; p?=?0.0034) as well as significantly lower 2-year total medical costs ($44,201 vs. $41,121; p?=?0.0294). In the PU cohort, patients who used GA also had a significantly lower 2-year risk of relapse (7.25 vs. 2.16%; p?=?0.0048) as well as significantly lower total medical costs ($67,744 vs. 63,714; p?=?0.0445).

Limitations:

The analyses relies on an administrative claims database of an insured population and hence, may not be generalizeable to other populations. In addition, such a database precludes measurement of lost work time, unemployment, caregiver burden or other costs associated with MS.

Conclusions:

Results from this study indicate that the use of GA is associated with significantly lower probability of relapse as well as significantly lower 2-year total direct medical costs than IFN beta-1a-IM.     

Cost-minimization analysis of alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab for the treatment of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands

Aim: In active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients requiring second-line treatment, the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZiN) has not stated a preference for either alemtuzumab, fingolimod, or natalizumab. The aim was to give healthcare decision-makers insight into the differences in cost accumulation over time between alemtuzumab—with a unique, non-continuous treatment schedule—and fingolimod and natalizumab for second-line treatment of active RRMS patients in the Netherlands.

Methods: In line with ZiN’s assessment, a cost-minimization analysis was performed from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Resource use was derived from hospital protocols and summaries of product characteristics, and validated by two MS specialists. Unit costs were based on national tariffs and guidelines. Robustness of the base case results was verified with multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Results: Alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to fingolimod and natalizumab from, respectively, 3.3 and 2.8 years since treatment initiation onwards. At 5 years, total discounted costs per patient of alemtuzumab were €79,717, followed by fingolimod with €110,044 and natalizumab with €122,238, resulting in cost savings of €30,327 and €42,522 for alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab, respectively. Key drivers of the model are drug acquisition costs and the proportions of patients that do not require further alemtuzumab treatment after either two, three, or four courses.

Limitations: No treatment discontinuation and associated switching between treatments were incorporated. Consequences of JC virus seropositivity while continuing natalizumab treatment (e.g. additional monitoring) were omitted from the base case.

Conclusion: The current cost-minimization analysis demonstrates that, from the Dutch healthcare perspective, treating active RRMS patients with alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to second-line alternatives fingolimod and natalizumab from ～3 years since treatment initiation onwards. After 5 years, alemtuzumab’s cost savings are estimated at €30k compared to fingolimod and €43k compared to natalizumab.     

Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: analyses in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod over 2 years in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients and patients with rapidly evolving severe disease in Sweden.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per relapse avoided of natalizumab and fingolimod from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Modeled 2-year costs in Swedish kronor of treating RRMS patients included drug acquisition costs, administration and monitoring costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Effectiveness was measured in terms of MS relapses avoided using data from the AFFIRM and FREEDOMS trials for all patients with RRMS and from post-hoc sub-group analyses for patients with rapidly evolving severe disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

The analysis showed that, in all patients with MS, treatment with fingolimod costs less (440,463 Kr vs 444,324 Kr), but treatment with natalizumab results in more relapses avoided (0.74 vs 0.59), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 25,448 Kr per relapse avoided. In patients with rapidly evolving severe disease, natalizumab dominated fingolimod. Results of the sensitivity analysis demonstrate the robustness of the model results. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 500,000 Kr per relapse avoided, natalizumab is cost-effective in >80% of simulations in both patient populations.

Limitations:

Limitations include absence of data from direct head-to-head studies comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, use of relapse rate reduction rather than sustained disability progression as the primary model outcome, assumption of 100% adherence to MS treatment, and exclusion of adverse event costs in the model.

Conclusions:

Natalizumab remains a cost-effective treatment option for patients with MS in Sweden. In the RRMS patient population, the incremental cost per relapse avoided is well below a 500,000 Kr WTP threshold per relapse avoided. In the rapidly evolving severe disease patient population, natalizumab dominates fingolimod.     

Cost-minimization analysis of fingolimod compared with natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Sweden

Abstract

Background:

Fingolimod and natalizumab have the same European Union licence for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis, and are considered by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) to have broadly similar efficacy.

Objective:

A cost-minimization analysis was performed to compare differences in treatment costs between fingolimod and natalizumab from a societal perspective in Sweden.

Methods:

This analysis included costs associated with initiating and following treatment (physician visits and monitoring), continuing therapy (drugs and administration), and lost patient productivity and leisure time. Unit costs (in Swedish krona [SEK]) were based on regional data (median prices for physician visits and monitoring sessions). Natalizumab infusion costs were obtained from the national cost-per-patient database. Drug costs for both therapies were 15,651 SEK/28 days.

Results:

After 3 years, fingolimod use was associated with savings of 124,823?SEK/patient compared with natalizumab (total cost/patient: 566,718 SEK vs 691,542 SEK). Cost savings with fingolimod were 40,402 SEK/patient after 1 year and 301,730 SEK/patient after 10 years. Treatment with natalizumab was 18% more expensive than fingolimod therapy after 1 year and 23% more expensive after 10 years.

Limitations:

Based on the CHMP assessment, it was assumed that fingolimod and natalizumab have similar efficacy. The analysis was conducted for Sweden, and caution is needed in extrapolating the results to other countries.

Conclusion:

Fingolimod is cost-saving compared with natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Sweden.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib’s efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016?US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness.

Results: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used.

Conclusions: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.     

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat diabetic macular edema from a US perspective: analysis of 2-year Protocol T data

Abstract

Aims: Protocol T (NCT01627249) was a head-to-head study conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network that compared intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanying the 1-year data of Protocol T revealed that aflibercept was not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for all patients, but could have been cost-effective in certain patient sub-groups if the 1-year results were extrapolated out to 10?years. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (ranibizumab, aflibercept) for treatment of DME using the 2-year data from Protocol T.

Methods: Costs of aflibercept 2.0?mg or ranibizumab 0.3?mg, visual acuity (VA)-related medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for eight VA health states. Treatment, adverse event management, and VA-related healthcare resource costs (2016 US dollars) were based on Medicare reimbursement and published literature. VA-related health utilities were determined using a published algorithm. Patients were stratified by baseline VA: 20/40 or better; 20/50 or worse.

Results: Total 2-year costs were higher, and QALYs similar, for aflibercept vs ranibizumab in the full cohort ($44,423 vs $34,529; 1.476 vs 1.466), 20/40 or better VA sub-group ($40,854 vs $31,897; 1.517 vs 1.519), and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group ($48,214 vs $37,246; 1.433 vs 1.412), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the full cohort and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group were $986,159/QALY and $523,377/QALY, respectively. These decreased to $711,301 and $246,978 when analyses were extrapolated to 10?years.

Limitations: Key potential limitations include the fact that VA was the only QALY parameter analyzed and the uncertainty surrounding the role of better- and worse-seeing eye VA in overall functional impairment.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that aflibercept is not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for patients with DME, regardless of baseline vision.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intra-articular injections of a high molecular weight bioengineered hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of bioengineered hyaluronic acid (BioHA, 1% sodium hyaluronate) intra-articular injections in treating osteoarthritis knee pain in poor responders to conventional care (CC) including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics.

Methods:

Two decision analytic models compared BioHA treatment with either continuation of patient’s baseline CC with no assumption of disease progression (Model 1), or CC including escalating care costs due to disease progression (NSAIDs and analgesics, corticosteroid injections, and surgery; Model 2). Analyses were based on patients who received two courses of 3-weekly intra-articular BioHA (26-week FLEXX Trial?+?26-week Extension Study). BioHA group costs included fees for physician assessment and injection regimen, plus half of CC costs. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as averages and incremental costs per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses used the 95% confidence interval (CI) of QALYs gained in BioHA-treated patients, and ±20% of BioHA treatment and CC costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for Model 2.

Results:

For 214 BioHA patients, the average utility gain was 0.163 QALYs (95% CI?=??0.162 to 0.488) over 52 weeks. Model 1 treatment costs were $3469 and $4562 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively; sensitivity analyses showed BioHA to be the dominant treatment strategy, except when at the lower end of the 95% CI. Model 2 annual treatment costs per QALY gained were $1446 and $516 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively. Using CC as baseline strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BioHA was $38,741/QALY gained, and was sensitive to response rates in either the BioHA or CC groups.

Conclusion:

BioHA is less costly and more effective than CC with NSAIDs and analgesics, and is the dominant treatment strategy. Compared with escalating CC, the $38,741/QALY ICER of BioHA remains within the $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold to adopt a new technology.     

Randomized,open-label study to evaluate patient-reported outcomes with fingolimod after changing from prior disease-modifying therapy for relapsing multiple sclerosis: EPOC study rationale and design

Abstract

Objective:

The study to Evaluate Patient OutComes, Safety, and Tolerability of Fingolimod (EPOC; NCT01216072) aimed to test the hypothesis that therapy change to oral Gilenya (Novartis AG, Stein, Switzerland) (fingolimod) improves patient-reported outcomes compared with standard-of-care disease-modifying therapy (DMT) in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis; safety and tolerability were also assessed. This communication describes the study rationale and design.

Methods:

EPOC is a phase 4, open-label, multi-center study conducted in the US and Canada of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis who are candidates for therapy change. Therapy change eligibility was determined by the treating physician (US patients) or required an inadequate response to or poor tolerance for at least 1 MS therapy (Canadian patients). Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to 6 months of treatment with once-daily oral fingolimod 0.5?mg or standard-of-care DMTs. The primary study end-point was the change from baseline in treatment satisfaction as determined by the global satisfaction sub-scale of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication. Secondary end-points included changes from baseline in perceived effectiveness and side-effects, and measures of activities of daily living, fatigue, depression, and quality-of-life. A 3-month open-label fingolimod extension was available for patients randomly assigned to the DMT group who successfully completed all study visits.

Results:

Enrollment has been completed with 1053 patients; the patient population is generally older and has a longer duration of disease compared with populations from phase 3 studies of fingolimod.

Limitations:

Inclusion criteria selected for patients with a sub-optimal experience with a previous DMT, limiting the collection of data on therapy change in patients who were satisfied with their previous DMT.

Conclusions:

Results of the EPOC study are anticipated in early 2013 and will inform treatment selection by providing patient-centered data on therapy switch to fingolimod or standard-of-care DMTs.

Trial Registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01216072.     

Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets,alemtuzumab, and natalizumab in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in England

Aims: Cladribine tablets were the first oral short-course treatment approved for highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). The Association of British Neurologists guidelines currently recommend two infusion therapies, alemtuzumab and natalizumab, to treat high disease activity relapsing remitting MS (HDA-RRMS). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets in HDA-RRMS compared with alemtuzumab and natalizumab, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England.

Materials and methods: A cohort-based Markov model with 11 health states (10 Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] plus death) was developed. Transition matrices from the British Columbia registry were used to model the natural history of EDSS. The treatment effect on EDSS was modelled using hazard ratios for 6-month confirmed disability progression from an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Relapses and drug-related adverse events were modeled via annualized relapse rates and event probabilities, with associated costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) losses. Utilities were derived from trials and the literature, and costs from NHS and literature sources. Uncertainty was assessed via probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Cladribine tablets were dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) vs alemtuzumab and natalizumab in pairwise comparisons, and the dominant strategy in fully incremental analyses. Incremental cost was driven largely by drug acquisition and administration costs, and incremental QALY gain largely by differences in delayed EDSS progression. Cladribine tablets had a 93% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained, and remained dominant across the scenario analyses tested. The greatest influence on results was the treatment effect on disability progression derived from the ITC.

Limitations: Uncertainty over the efficacy of DMT beyond trial durations. In line with other comparative effectiveness analyses, the network meta-analysis informing this cost-effectiveness analysis was associated with a degree of uncertainty. No treatment switching analyses were undertaken.

Conclusions: Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective alternative to alemtuzumab and natalizumab in the treatment of HDA-RRMS from the perspective of the NHS in England.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oxycodone with naloxone versus oxycodone alone for the management of moderate-to-severe pain in patients with opioid-induced constipation in Canada

Background:

Approximately 20–30% of Canadians suffer from chronic pain. Guidelines for the management of chronic pain support the use of controlled-release (CR) opioids to treat chronic pain. Although effective in managing chronic pain, oxycodone is associated with high rates of opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The cost-effectiveness of a combination of oxycodone for the management of pain and naloxone for the relief of OIC has not previously been evaluated for Canada.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-utility of combination oxycodone/naloxone compared to oxycodone alone in four populations. Drug costs for managing pain and healthcare costs related to managing OIC were included in the analysis and the primary measure of effectiveness was quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from OIC rates observed in clinical trials. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective, used a 1-year time horizon, and results were expressed in 2015 Canadian dollars.

Results:

In all four patient populations, there was a trade-off between slightly higher total expected costs for Targin treated patients compared to oxycodone treated patients, but also improved clinical benefits in terms of reduced OIC, which resulted in higher QALYs for patients. Although analgesic costs were found to be slightly higher for Targin treated patients, Targin also resulted in cost offsets to the healthcare system in terms of less rescue laxative drug use and other resources required for the management of OIC. The resulting 1-year cost-utility of Targin compared to oxycodone ranged from $2178–$7732 per QALY gained in the base case analysis, and it was found that these cost-utility results remained robust and at low values throughout a series of one-way deterministic analyses of uncertainty.

Conclusion:

The clinical effectiveness of oxycodone/naloxone in managing pain and OIC compared to CR oxycodone alone resulted in low cost-utility estimates.