Cost-effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and interferon beta-1a for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis,based on the CombiRx study

Background:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the Disease Modifying Treatments (DMT), Glatiramer Acetate (GA) and Interferon beta-1a (IFN) in monotherapy alone and in combination for the prevention of relapses among Spanish patients aged between 18–60 years old with established Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS).

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to represent the transition of a cohort of patients over a 10 year period using the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS). The model considered five different health states with 1-year cycles including without relapse, patients with suspect, non-protocol defined and protocol defined exacerbations, as well as a category information lost. Efficacy data was obtained from the 3-year CombiRx Study. Costs were reported in 2013 Euros and a 3% discount rate was applied for health and benefits. Deterministic results were presented as the annual treatment cost for the number of relapses. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model.

Results:

Deterministic results showed that the expected annual cost per patient was lower when treated with GA (€13,843) compared with IFN (€15,589) and the combined treatment with IFN?+?GA (€21,539). The annual number of relapses were lower in the GA cohort with 3.81 vs 4.18 in the IFN cohort and 4.08 in the cohort treated with IFN?+?GA. Results from probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that GA has a higher probability of being cost-effective than treatment with IFN or IFN?+?GA for threshold values from €28,000 onwards, independent of the maximum that the Spanish NHS is willing to pay for avoiding relapses.

Conclusion:

GA was shown to be a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of relapses in Spanish patients diagnosed with RRMS. When GA in monotherapy is compared with INF in monotherapy and IFN?+?GA combined, it may be concluded that the first is the dominant strategy.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

SUMMARY

We have developed an economic model around the patient level data from the pivotal clinical trial for Copaxone® (glatiramer acetate), combined with published cost and natural history data, to demonstrate cost-effectiveness in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Based upon analysis over 8 years, the cost per relapse avoided and cost per disability unit avoided was £11,000 and £8,862 respectively. To facilitate comparison with other therapies and across other disease areas we also calculated the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Dependent upon the assumed utility loss associated with duration of relapse, the cost per QALY ranged between £22,586 and £64,636 over 8 years analysis. Given the nature of the disease and compared to accepted standards of cost-effectiveness in the UK, this analysis shows that glatiramer acetate is demonstrably cost-effective versus best supportive care alone.

Copaxone is a registered trademark of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Israel     

The effect of age and sex on cost of inpatient facility encounters among patients with multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Objective:

To explore the effect of age and sex on cost of all-cause and multiple sclerosis (MS)-related inpatient facility encounters.     

An economic evaluation attached to a single-centre,parallel group,unmasked, randomized controlled trial of a 3-day intensive social cognitive treatment (can do treatment) in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis and low disability

Abstract

Aims: This trial-based economic evaluation (EE) assesses from a societal perspective the cost-effectiveness of an intensive 3-day cognitive theory-based intervention (CDT), compared to care-as-usual, in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and low disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDDS] score < 4.0).

Materials and methods: The trial of the EE was registered in the Dutch Trial Register: Trial NL5158 (NTR5298). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed in cost on the Control sub-scale of the Multiple Sclerosis Self-Efficacy Scale (MSSES) and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) in the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Bootstrap, sensitivity, and sub-group analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the findings.

Results: The two groups of 79 patients were similar in baseline characteristics. The base case ICER is situated in the northeast quadrant (€72 (40.74/€2,948)) due to a higher MSSES Control score and higher societal costs in the CDT group. The ICUR is situated in the northwest (inferior) quadrant due to losses in QALY and higher societal costs for the CDT group (?0.02/€2,948). Overall, bootstrap, sensitivity, and sub-group analyses confirm the base case findings. However, when the SF-6D is used as a study outcome, there is a high probability that the ICUR is situated in the northeast quadrant.

Limitations: The relative short follow-up time (6?months) and the unexpected increase in MSSES Control in the control group.

Conclusions: When using the EQ-5D-5L to calculate a QALY, CDT is not a cost-effective alternative in comparison to care as usual. However, when using self-efficacy or SF-6D as outcomes, there is a probability that CDT is cost-effective. Based on the current results, CDT for patients with RRMS clearly show its potential. However, an extended follow-up for the economic evaluation is warranted before a final decision on implementation can be made.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients not well controlled by oral anti-diabetic (OAD) agents.