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 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-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.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF, also known as gastro-resistant DMF), an effective therapy for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), compared with glatiramer acetate and fingolimod, commonly used treatments in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed comparing delayed-release DMF to glatiramer acetate and fingolimod using a US payer perspective and 20-year time horizon. A cohort of patients, mean age 38 years, with relapsing-remitting MS and Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores between 0–6 entered the model. Efficacy and safety were estimated by mixed-treatment comparison of data from the DEFINE and CONFIRM trials and clinical trials of other disease-modifying therapies. Data from published studies were used to derive resource use, cost, and utility inputs. Key outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Alternative scenarios tested in a sensitivity analysis included drug efficacy, EDSS-related or relapse-related costs, alternative perspectives, drug acquisition costs, and utility.

Results:

Base-case results with a 20-year time horizon indicated that delayed-release DMF increased QALYs +0.450 or +0.359 compared with glatiramer acetate or fingolimod, respectively. Reductions in 20-year costs with delayed-release DMF were ?$70,644 compared with once-daily glatiramer acetate and ?$32,958 compared with fingolimod. In an analysis comparing delayed-release DMF to three-times-weekly glatiramer acetate and assuming similar efficacy and safety to the once-daily formulation, 20-year costs with delayed-release DMF were increased by $15,806 and cost per QALY gained was $35,142. The differences in costs were most sensitive to acquisition cost and inclusion of informal care costs and productivity losses. The differences in QALYs were most sensitive to the impact of delayed-release DMF on disease progression and the EDSS utility weights.

Conclusion:

Delayed-release DMF is likely to increase QALYs for patients with relapsing forms of MS and be cost-effective compared with fingolimod and glatiramer acetate.     

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.     

Using observational analysis of multiple sclerosis relapse to design outcomes-based contracts for disease-modifying drugs: a feasibility assessment

Abstract

Objective:

To assess predictors and costs of multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse, a potential outcome measure in payer-manufacturer risk-sharing agreements for disease-modifying drugs (DMDs).

Methods:

A retrospective cohort analysis of medical/pharmacy claims was used. Study patients had ≥1 DMD (interferon beta, glatiramer, natalizumab) claim, without DMD claims in a 6-month pre-period before DMD initiation; were aged 18–64 years and continuously enrolled from the pre-period through a 24-month post-period; and had ≥2 MS medical claims during the 30-month study period. Post-period relapse cohorts included: (1) severe (hospitalization with MS diagnosis); (2) moderate (outpatient services including intravenous methylprednisolone); and (3) none. Poisson regression modeled severe relapse frequency, logistic regression modeled ≥1 severe relapse, and generalized linear modeling predicted healthcare costs. Tested predictors included demographics, insurance type, index DMD, pre-period health status, and DMD medication possession ratio (MPR).

Results:

Severe relapse was experienced by 14.5% and moderate relapse by 13.8% of 2291 patients. In logistic regression, severe relapse was predicted by plan type; age (odds ratio [OR]?=?1.018, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.005–1.031); pre-period Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR?=?1.307, 95% CI?=?1.166–1.464); pre-period proxy measure indicating impaired activities of daily living (OR?=?1.470, 95% CI?=?1.134–1.905); pre-period MS hospitalization (OR?=?2.174, 95% CI?=?1.537–3.074); and DMD non-adherence (MPR OR?=?0.101, 95% CI?=?0.068–0.151). Poisson regression results were similar. Predicted mean [standard deviation] all-cause healthcare expenditures were tripled for patients with severe compared with moderate relapse ($48,173 [$8665] and $13,334 [$1929], respectively).

Limitations:

Commercially insured patients from a single payer; use may have been inconsistent with approved indications; proxy relapse measure may have misclassified patients.

Conclusions:

Severe MS relapses requiring hospitalization, although affecting less than 15% of patients initiating DMD treatment, are associated with high medical costs. The only actionable predictor of severe relapse identified in observational analysis was MPR, raising questions about the feasibility of using observational data to guide outcomes-based contracting.     

Cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate versus risperidone long-acting injectable and olanzapine pamoate for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To model the cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate (paliperidone long-acting injectable; PLAI), a new once-monthly long-acting antipsychotic therapy, compared with risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) and olanzapine pamoate (OLAI), in multi-episode patients (two or more relapses) with schizophrenia in Sweden.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to simulate the history of a cohort of multi-episode patients transitioning through different health states on a monthly basis over a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Therapeutic strategies consisted of starting treatment with RLAI (mean dose 37.5?mg every 2 weeks), PLAI (mean dose 75?mg equivalent (eq.) every month) or OLAI (150?mg every 2 weeks or 300?mg every 4 weeks). Probability of relapse, level of adherence, side-effects (extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, weight gain and diabetes) and treatment discontinuation (switch) were derived from long-term observational data when feasible. Incremental cost-effectiveness outcomes, discounted at 3% annually, included cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and cost per relapse avoided (expressed in 2009 Swedish Krona SEK).

Results:

Relative to RLAI and OLAI, PLAI is economically dominant: more effective (additional QALYs, less relapses) and less costly treatment option over a 5-year time horizon. The results were robust when tested in sensitivity analysis.

Limitations:

The impact of once-monthly treatment on adherence levels is not yet known, and not all variables that could impact on real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusion:

PLAI was cost saving from a Swedish payer perspective compared with RLAI and OLAI in the long-term treatment of multi-episode (two or more relapses) schizophrenia patients.     

Fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in Iran

Aims: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, autoimmune, and inflammatory disease. If the first-line medicines are not effective enough, specialists will prescribe second-line medicines, such as natalizumab and fingolimod. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of fingolimod with those of natalizumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Iran, Fars province in 2016.

Materials and methods: This study was a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in which a Markov model was used. The study used the census method to evaluate 81 patients with MS in Iran, Fars province who were being treated with fingolimod and natalizumab. In this study, costs were collected from the societal perspective, and the outcomes were the mean of relapse avoided rate and QALY. The cost data collection form, Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale, and EQ-5D-3L questionnaire were used to collect the required data.

Results: The results showed that, compared to natalizumab, patients who used fingolimod had decreased costs (58,087 vs 201,707), increased QALYs (8.09 vs 7.37), and a better relapse avoided rate (6.27 vs 5.83) per patient over the lifetime. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the study were robust. Also, the results of the scatter plots showed that fingolimod was more cost-effective based on the QALY and relapse avoided rate in 62% and 56%, respectively, of the simulations for the thresholds below $15,657 for the studied patients.

Conclusions: According to the results of this study, the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of fingolimod were higher than those of natalizumab. Therefore, it is recommended that treatment with fingolimod be the first priority of second-line treatment for MS patients, and policy-makers and health managers are encouraged to make efforts in order to increase insurance coverage and reduce the out-of-pocket payments of these patients.     

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.     

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.     

The cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab for formulary inclusion

Abstract

Background: Crohn's disease (CD) and multiple sclerosis (MS) are debilitating autoimmune diseases, which represent a substantial cost burden in the context of managed care. As a corollary, there is an unmet pharmacotherapeutic need in patient populations with relapsing forms of MS, in addition to populations with moderately to severely active CD with evidence of inflammation who have experienced an inadequate response to other mainstream therapies. The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and economic data associated with natalizumab (Tysabri) and to determine the potential impact of its formulary inclusion in a hypothetical health plan.

Findings: Regarding MS, the implemented cost-effectiveness and budget-impact models demonstrated an anticipated reduction in relapse rate of 67% over 2 years, and a total therapy cost of $72,120 over 2 years, equating to a cost per relapse avoided of $56,594. With respect to the model assumptions, the market share of natalizumab would experience an increase to 8.5%, resulting in a total per-member, per-month healthcare cost increase of $0.003 ($0.002 for pharmacy costs and $0.001 for medical costs).

Regarding CD, over a 2-year period outlined by the model, natalizumab produced the highest average time in remission, steroid-free remission, and remission or response in comparison to the other agents. The mean total costs associated with the initiation of natalizumab, infliximab, and adalimumab were $68,372, $62,090, and $61,796, respectively. Although natalizumab's costs were higher, the mean time spent in remission while on this medication was 4.5 months, as opposed to 2.4 months for infliximab and 2.9 months with adalimumab. This shift in market share was used to estimate the change in total costs (medical + pharmacy), and the per-member per-month change for the model's base case was calculated to be $0.035.

Limitations: The aforementioned cost-effectiveness results for natalizumab in the treatment for CD and MS were limited by the model's predetermined assumptions. These assumptions include anticipated reduction in relapse rate after 2 years of therapy and acquisition costs in the MS model, as well as assuming a certain percentage of patients were primary and secondary failures of TNFα inhibitor therapy in the CD model.

Conclusion: The evidence presented here demonstrates that natalizumab provides clinical practitioners with another tool in their fight against both MS and CD, albeit by way of a different mechanism of action. After a thorough review of the evidence, the authors find that natalizumab has been shown to be relatively cost effective in the treatment of both conditions from a payer perspective; the therapy adds a new option for those patients for whom conventional treatment was unsuccessful.     

Inflammatory bowel disease: healthcare costs for patients who are adherent or non-adherent with infliximab therapy

Objective:

Healthcare costs of inflammatory bowel disease are substantial. This study examined the effect of adherence versus non-adherence on healthcare costs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Methods:

Adults who started infliximab treatment between 2006 and 2009 and had a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease were identified from MarketScan Databases. Medication adherence was defined as an infliximab medication possession ratio of 80% or greater in the first year. Mean treatment effects (adherence versus non-adherence) on costs in adherent patients were estimated with propensity-weighted generalized linear models.

Results:

A total of 1646 patients were identified. Significant variables in the model used to develop propensity weights were age, year of infliximab initiation, having Medicare coverage, presence of supplementary diagnoses, office as the place of service for infliximab initiation, prior aminosalicylate use, prior outpatient costs, number of prior outpatient visits, and number of prior colonoscopies. Mean total costs in adherent (n?=?674) and propensity-weighted non-adherent (n?=?972) patients were $41,713 versus $47,411 overall (p?p?p?p?p?p?=?0.460).

Limitations:

Costs associated with infliximab administration (infusions, adverse events) were captured in healthcare costs (inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room), not in infliximab costs. The influence of adherence on indirect costs (e.g., time lost from work) could not be determined. Reasons for non-adherence were not available in the database.

Conclusions:

In patients who were adherent to infliximab treatment (a medication possession ratio of 80% or greater in the first year), adherence versus non-adherence was associated with lower total healthcare costs, supporting the overall value of infliximab adherence in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.     

Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month,double-blind,comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release

Abstract

Purpose:

To model the economic impact of annual relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone or quetiapine extended-release (XR).

Methods:

A probabilistic model estimating per-patient-per-year (PPPY) direct mental healthcare (MH) cost differences due to relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations was developed using relapse and relapse-related hospitalization rates from a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group, global comparison study of lurasidone vs quetiapine XR (all patients previously treated with lurasidone or quetiapine XR for 6 weeks). Analyses were conducted for both all subjects and clinical responders. Direct costs associated with inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare-related services were obtained from a large, prospective, observational study of schizophrenia treatment in usual-care settings for relapsing and non-relapsing patients, including psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency services, medication management, and outpatient individual therapy. Model robustness was tested using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Model-estimated PPPY MH cost savings associated with relapse-related hospitalization rates in all subjects were $3276 for lurasidone vs quetiapine XR. Lurasidone resulted in PPPY MH cost savings of $2702 vs quetiapine XR in all subjects, using relapse rates. Sensitivity analyses indicated lurasidone had lower 1-year MH costs than quetiapine XR in 100% and 99.7% of simulations, using relapse-related hospitalization rates and relapse rates, respectively, in all subjects. Similar results were seen in clinical responders.

Limitations:

The model represents a simplification of treatment patterns and response to treatment. Cost of treatment with lurasidone and quetiapine XR was not included in the model. Estimates of cost savings are likely conservative, as the model did not assess the impact of long-term cardiometabolic consequences. Indirect costs associated with relapses and non-mental health-related costs were also excluded from the model.

Conclusion:

Adults treated for schizophrenia with lurasidone are predicted to have lower 12-month MH costs compared to those treated with quetiapine XR due to fewer relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations.     

Medical chart validation of an algorithm for identifying multiple sclerosis relapse in healthcare claims

Abstract

Objective:

Relapse is a common measure of disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). The objective of this study was to test the content validity of an operational algorithm for detecting relapse in claims data.

Methods:

A claims-based relapse detection algorithm was tested by comparing its detection rate over a 1-year period with relapses identified based on medical chart review. According to the algorithm, MS patients in a US healthcare claims database who had either (1) a primary claim for MS during hospitalization or (2) a corticosteroid claim following a MS-related outpatient visit were designated as having a relapse. Patient charts were examined for explicit indication of relapse or care suggestive of relapse. Positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

Results:

Medical charts were reviewed for 300 MS patients, half of whom had a relapse according to the algorithm. The claims-based criteria correctly classified 67.3% of patients with relapses (positive predictive value) and 70.0% of patients without relapses (negative predictive value; kappa 0.373: p?<?0.001). Alternative algorithms did not improve on the predictive value of the operational algorithm. Limitations of the algorithm include lack of differentiation between relapsing-remitting MS and other types, and that it does not incorporate measures of function and disability.

Conclusions:

The claims-based algorithm appeared to successfully detect moderate-to-severe MS relapse. This validated definition can be applied to future claims-based MS studies.