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.     

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.     

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.     

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 alemtuzumab and natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Iran: decision analysis based on an indirect comparison

Background: Alemtuzumab and natalizumab are approved as second-line therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients in Iran who have shown an inadequate response to other disease-modifying therapy (DMT). In the absence of head-to-head trials, evaluations based on decision analytic modeling may be a suitable alternative to compare alemtuzumab and natalizumab in RRMS.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab compared with natalizumab in RRMS in Iran, based on an indirect comparison of clinical trial data.

Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a cohort-based Markov model to analyze cost-utility in a cohort of 1,000 RRMS patients treated with alemtuzumab or natalizumab who had failed at least one previous DMT. Costs were measured in 2018?US Dollars, and were estimated from both the societal and National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective over a 20-year time horizon in Iran. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were carried out to investigate the impact of individual variables on model results.

Results: Alemtuzumab dominated natalizumab in both NHS and societal perspective analyses. From the NHS perspective, the total discounted costs per patient were estimated at $147,417 and $150,579 for alemtuzumab and natalizumab, respectively, over 20 years. The discounted quality-adjusted life years were estimated to be 7.07 and 6.05, respectively. Results were similar for the societal perspective analysis. Results were most sensitive to acquisition costs and the time horizon, while no sensitivity was observed for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) health-states utility, relapse relative risk, adverse event or EDSS-related costs, and laboratory/monitoring costs.

Conclusion: Alemtuzumab was dominant in the treatment of RRMS compared with natalizumab due to lower total cost, greater efficacy and slowing of disease progression, and lower rate of relapses over a 20-year time horizon in Iran. Comparative head-to-head trials and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm these results.     

Fingolimod reduces direct medical costs compared to natalizumab in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the costs of oral treatment with Gilenya® (fingolimod) compared to intravenous infusion of Tysabri® (natalizumab) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in The Netherlands.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis was used to compare both treatments. The following cost categories were distinguished: drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and monitoring costs. Costs were discounted at 4%, and incremental model results were presented over a 1, 2, 5, and 10 year time horizon. The robustness of the results was determined by means of a number of deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses. Additionally, a break-even analysis was carried out to determine at which natalizumab infusion costs a cost-neutral outcome would be obtained.

Results:

Comparing fingolimod to natalizumab, the model predicted discounted incremental costs of ?€2966 (95% CI: ?€4209; ?€1801), ?€6240 (95% CI: ?€8800; ?€3879), ?€15,328 (95% CI: ?€21,539; ?€9692), and ?€28,287 (95% CI: ?€39,661; ?€17,955) over a 1, 2, 5, and 10-year time horizon, respectively. These predictions were most sensitive to changes in the costs of natalizumab infusion. Changing these costs of €255 within a range from €165–364 per infusion resulted in cost savings varying from €4031 to €8923 after 2 years. The additional break-even analysis showed that infusion costs—including aseptic preparation of the natalizumab solution—needed to be as low as the respective costs of €94 and €80 to obtain a cost neutral result after 2 and 10 years.

Limitations:

Neither treatment discontinuation and subsequent re-initiation nor patient compliance were taken into account. As a consequence of the applied cost-minimization technique, only direct medical costs were included.

Conclusion:

The present analysis showed that treatment with fingolimod resulted in considerable cost savings compared to natalizumab: starting at €2966 in the first year, increasing to a total of €28,287 after 10 years per RRMS patient in the Netherlands.     

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-per-remission analysis of infliximab compared to adalimumab among adults with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Abstract

Objective:

To compare cost per remission (CPR) of infliximab (IFX) versus adalimumab (ADA) for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active UC.

Methods:

This is CPR model comparing IFX and ADA in the treatment of UC using clinical trial data. Clinical outcome measures include clinical remission and sustained clinical remission (SCR). Economic endpoints were modeled as medication costs. CPR ratios and number needed to treat (NNT) costs were computed at 8, 52, and 54 weeks.

Results:

CPR for bio-naïve patients for IFX and ADA at weeks 8, 52, and 54 was $42,086 vs. $79,558: $147,379 vs. $320,097; $147,379 vs. $330,767, respectively. CPR for all patients for IFX and ADA at weeks 8, 52, and 54 was $42,086 vs. $113,812; $147,379 vs. $349,197; $147,379 vs. $360,836, respectively. Cost per SCR for bio-naïve patients and all patients for IFX and ADA was $203,205 vs. $682,873 and $203,205 vs. $698,393, respectively. NNT and NNT costs for clinical remission for bio-naïve patients at weeks 8, 52, and 54 were lower for IFX (4 vs.10, $40,235 vs. $81,945; 5 vs.10, $134,115 vs. $307,293; 5 vs. 10, $134,115 vs. $317,536, respectively) than for ADA. NNT and NNT costs for clinical remission for all patients at weeks 8, 52, and 54 were lower for IFX (4 vs.14, $40,235 vs. $114,723; 5 vs.11, $134,115 vs. $338,022; 5 vs. 11, $134,115 vs. $349,290, respectively) than for ADA. NNT and NNT costs for SCR for bio-naïve and all patients were lower for IFX (8 vs. 22, $214,584 vs. $676,045; 8 vs.23, $214,584 vs. $706,774) than for ADA. Study limitations include lack of head-to-head trial data, different primary endpoints between the two clinical trials, and indirect costs were not included.

Conclusion:

IFX had lower CPR and cost per SCR than ADA in the treatment of moderately to severely active UC.     

Real-world cost of treatment for multiple sclerosis patients initiating and receiving infused disease-modifying therapies per recommended label in the United States

Abstract

Aims: The study evaluated the real-world cost of treatment in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients initiating infused disease-modifying-therapies (DMT) in the United States.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data included adult patients with MS initiating index infusion DMT (ocrelizumab (OCR), natalizumab (NTZ) or alemtuzumab (ATZ)) from April 2017–September 2018 with 6-months pre/12-months post-index continuous enrollment. The primary cohort included patients who had prescribed annual dosing visits indicated by the approved product label (PL): 3 OCR, 5 ATZ, and 12–13 NTZ infusion visits within the first year of initiation. Annual treatment cost was the sum of all costs on index DMT infusion visit dates. Costs were summarized for a primary and secondary cohort of patients receiving additional doses than prescribed in PL (>3 OCR, >5 ATZ, and >13 NTZ infusion visits); and an overall cohort of patients who met minimum required annual dose (≥3 OCR, ≥5 ATZ, and ≥12 NTZ), further stratified by insurance type.

Results: For patients in the primary cohort (123 OCR, 18 ATZ, and 48 NTZ), mean (standard-deviation) annual cost of treatment with OCR, ATZ, and NTZ cohorts was $72,066 ($34,480), $121,053 ($51,097) and $93,777 ($38,815), respectively. Among patients initiating OCR and NTZ, 15 and 6% respectively, had additional infusion visits leading to greater costs. Mean annual costs of index infusion DMT treatment in the overall cohort (162 patients treated with OCR, 18 with ATZ, 56 with NTZ) were $80,582, $121,053, and $93,807, respectively. The mean costs for commercial enrollees were higher than those for MAPD enrollees.

Limitations: Small sample size, limited population generalizability, and cost-reduction for ATZ beyond the second year need to be accounted for.

Conclusions: Real-world infusion DMT treatment costs for commercially insured patients were higher than perceived expenditures based on wholesale acquisition cost and administration costs via a physician-fee schedule. Consideration of real-world costs in cost-effectiveness and treatment/coverage decisions is needed.     

The threshold rate of oral atypical anti-psychotic adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving

Abstract

Objective:

To identify, estimate, and compare ‘real world’ costs and outcomes associated with paliperidone palmitate compared with branded oral atypical anti-psychotics, and to estimate the threshold rate of oral atypical adherence at which paliperidone palmitate is cost saving.

Methods:

Decision analytic modeling techniques developed by Glazer and Ereshefsky have previously been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of depot haloperidol, LAI risperidone, and, more recently, LAI olanzapine. This study used those same techniques, along with updated comparative published clinical data, to evaluate paliperidone palmitate. Adherence rates were based on strict Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) criteria. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of US healthcare payers.

Results:

Paliperidone palmitate patients had fewer mean annual days of relapse (8.7 days; 6.0 requiring hospitalization, 2.7 not requiring hospitalization vs 17.8 days; 12.4 requiring hospitalization, 5.4 not requiring hospitalization), and lower annual total cost ($20,995) compared to oral atypicals (mean $22,481). Because paliperidone palmitate was both more effective and less costly, it is considered economically dominant. Paliperidone palmitate saved costs when the rate of adherence of oral atypical anti-psychotics was below 44.9% using strict MEMS criteria. Sensitivity analyses showed results were robust to changes in parameter values. For patients receiving 156?mg paliperidone palmitate, the annual incremental cost was $1216 per patient (ICER?=?$191 per day of relapse averted). Inclusion of generic risperidone (market share 18.6%) also resulted in net incremental cost for paliperidone palmitate ($120; ICER?=?$13). Limitations of this evaluation include use of simplifying assumptions, data from multiple sources, and generalizability of results.

Conclusions:

Although uptake of LAIs in the US has not been as rapid as elsewhere, many thought leaders emphasize their importance in optimizing outcomes in patients with adherence problems. The findings of this analysis support the cost-effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate in these patients.     

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.     

Healthcare costs for Crohn’s disease patients treated with infliximab: a propensity weighted comparison of the effects of treatment adherence

Objective:

The objective for the research was to evaluate the direct healthcare costs for Crohn’s disease (CD) patients categorized by adherence status.

Methods:

Adult patients with ≥1 claim for infliximab and ≥2 claims for CD who were continuously insured for 12 months before and after their first infliximab infusion (index date) were identified in a 2006–2009 US managed care database. Patients were excluded if they had rheumatoid arthritis claims, received infliximab billed as a pharmacy benefit, or received another biologic drug. Patients were categorized as being either adherent or intermittently adherent to infliximab using a pre-defined algorithm. Total and component direct costs, CD-related costs, rates of surgery, and days of hospitalization were estimated for the 360-day post-index period. Propensity weighted generalized linear models were used to adjust the cost estimates for potential confounding variables.

Results:

The total propensity weighted cost for infliximab adherent patients was $40,425 (95% CI?=?[$38,686, $42,242]), compared to $41,082 (95% CI?=?[$38,163, $44,223]) for the intermittently adherent (p?=?0.71). However, adherent patients had lower total direct medical costs, exclusive of infliximab, that were $13,097 (95% CI?=?[$12,141, $14,127]) compared with $20,068 (95% CI?=?[$17,676, $22,784]) for intermittently adherent patients as a result of substantially lower hospital and outpatient costs (p?Conclusions:

Greater drug-related costs for infliximab adherent patients were offset by lower costs from hospitalization and outpatient visits. These findings indicate that adherent patients have improved clinical outcomes, at a similar aggregate cost, than patients who are only intermittently adherent to therapy.     

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.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia

Abstract

Aim: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with high disease burden. This analysis estimated HRU and costs among newly diagnosed AML patients in a US commercially insured population.

Materials and methods: This was a retrospective observational study using the IMS Health PharMetrics Plus and Hospital Charge Detail Master databases. Patients included adults who were newly diagnosed with AML between January 2007 and June 2016 (“study period”). Patients with <12 months of continuous enrollment prior to the index date were excluded, as were those whose first diagnosis was AML in remission/relapse, those diagnosed with acute promyelocytic leukemia, those on Medicare supplemental insurance, or those with a diagnosis of AML in remission/relapse without evidence of treatment during the study period. Patients were stratified by receipt of AML treatment (chemotherapy/hematopoietic cell transplantation [HCT]), and their follow-up was partitioned into initial, remission, and relapsed health states. Mean HRU and costs were tallied by treatment and, for treated patients, by health state and time since entry into health state (≤6 vs >6 months).

Results: A total of 9,455 patients met study criteria, including 6,415 (68%) treated and 3,040 (32%) untreated patients, with mean follow-up of 18.3 and 16.4 months, respectively. Mean age was 55 years in treated patients and 60 years in untreated patients. Mean total costs per patient were $386,077 in treated patients and $79,382 in untreated patients. For treated patients, 60% of total costs ($231,867 per patient) were incurred during the initial health state, representing time without remission/relapse. Mean monthly total healthcare costs were $21,055 and $4,854 among treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Limitations and conclusions: HRU and costs of managing AML patients are substantial. In treated patients, the majority of costs were incurred during the initial treatment period, without claims indicating remission/relapse.     

Healthcare costs,treatment patterns,and resource utilization among pancreatic cancer patients in a managed care population

Abstract

Background:

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has few effective treatment options and poor survival. The objective of this study was to characterize treatment patterns and estimate the costs and resource use associated with its treatment in a commercially-insured US population.

Methods:

In this retrospective claims-based analysis, individuals ≥18 years old with evidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010 were selected from a managed care database. Treatment phase (either initial non-metastatic or metastatic) was determined using a claims-based algorithm. Patients in the pancreatic cancer population were matched 1:3 to a control population. Resource use (events/person-years), treatment patterns, and healthcare costs (per-patient per-month, PPPM) were determined during a variable length follow-up period (from first pancreatic cancer diagnosis to earliest of death, disenrollment, or study end).

Results:

In this study, 5262 pancreatic cancer patients were matched to 15,786 controls. Rates of office visits, inpatient visits, ER visits, and inpatient stays, and mean total all-cause healthcare costs PPPM ($15,480 vs $1001) were significantly higher among cancer patients than controls (all p?<?0.001). Mean inpatient costs were the single largest cost driver ($9917 PPPM). Also, mean total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher during the metastatic treatment phase vs the initial treatment phase of non-metastatic disease ($21,637 vs $10,358, p?<?0.001).

Conclusions:

These results indicate that pancreatic cancer imposes a substantial burden on the US healthcare system, and that treatment of more advanced disease is significantly more costly than initial treatment of non-metastatic disease.

Limitations:

Additional research is needed to validate the accuracy of the claims-based algorithms used to identify the treatment phase.     

Patterns of relapse and associated cost burden in schizophrenia patients receiving atypical antipsychotics

Abstract

Objective:

To identify relapse in schizophrenia and the main cost drivers of relapse using a cost-based algorithm.

Methods:

Multi-state Medicaid data (1997–2010) were used to identify adults with schizophrenia receiving atypical antipsychotics (AP). The first schizophrenia diagnosis following AP initiation was defined as the index date. Relapse episodes were identified based on (1) weeks during the ≥2 years post-index associated with high cost increase from baseline (12 months before the index date) and (2) high absolute weekly cost. A compound score was then calculated based on these two metrics, where the 54% of patients associated with higher cost increase from baseline and higher absolute weekly cost were considered relapsers. Resource use and costs of relapsers during baseline and relapse episodes were compared using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and bootstrap methods.

Results:

In total, 9793 relapsers were identified with a mean of nine relapse episodes per patient. Duration of relapse episodes decreased over time (mean [median]; first episode: 34 [4] weeks; remaining episodes: 8 [1] weeks). Compared with baseline, resource utilization during relapse episodes was significantly greater in pharmacy, outpatient, and institutional visits (hospitalizations, emergency department visits), with IRRs ranging from 1.9–2.4 (all p?<?0.0001). Correspondingly, relapse was associated with a mean (95% CI) incremental cost increase of $2459 ($2384–$2539) per week, with institutional visits representing 53% of the increase.

Limitations:

Relapsers and relapse episodes were identified using a cost-based algorithm, as opposed to a more clinical definition of relapse. In addition, their identification was based on the assumption from literature that ～54% of schizophrenia patients will experience at least one relapse episode over a 2-year period.

Conclusions:

Significant cost increases were observed with relapse in schizophrenia, driven mainly by institutional visits.     

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 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.