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.     

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.     

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-utility of fingolimod compared with dimethyl fumarate in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in England

Abstract

Objective:

The cost-effectiveness of new oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been modeled in highly active (HA) relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) requiring escalation therapy. This study sought to model the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod compared to dimethyl fumarate (DMF), for which relevant HA RRMS sub-group data were available, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A discrete event simulation to model the cost-utility of fingolimod and natalizumab in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK

Objective: Two disease-modifying therapies are licensed in the EU for use in rapidly-evolving severe (RES) relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), fingolimod and natalizumab. Here a discrete event simulation (DES) model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in the RES population, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, is reported.

Methods: A DES model was developed to track individual RES patients, based on Expanded Disability Status Scale scores. Individual patient characteristics were taken from the RES sub-groups of the pivotal trials for fingolimod. Utility data were in line with previous models. Published costs were inflated to NHS cost year 2015. Owing to the confidential patient access scheme (PAS) discount applied to fingolimod in the UK, a range of discount levels were applied to the fingolimod list price, to capture the likelihood of natalizumab being cost-effective in a real-world setting.

Results: At the lower National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), fingolimod only required a discount greater than 0.8% of list price to be cost-effective. At the upper threshold of £30,000/QALY employed by the NICE, fingolimod was cost-effective if the confidential discount is greater than 2.5%. Sensitivity analyses conducted using fingolimod list-price showed the model to be most sensitive to changes in the cost of each drug, particularly fingolimod.

Conclusions: The DES model shows that only a modest discount to the UK fingolimod list-price is required to make fingolimod a more cost-effective option than natalizumab in RES RRMS.     

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 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.     

Costs and effectiveness of fingolimod versus alemtuzumab in the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK: re-treatment,discount, and disutility

Objective: Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with disease modifying therapies (DMTs) who continue to experience disease activity may be considered for escalation therapies such as fingolimod, or may be considered for alemtuzumab. Previous economic modeling used Markov models; applying one alternative technique, discrete event simulation (DES) modeling, allows re-treatment and long-term adverse events (AEs) to be included in the analysis.

Methods: A DES was adapted to model relapse-triggered re-treatment with alemtuzumab and the effect of including ongoing quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements for AEs that extend beyond previous 1-year Markov cycles. As the price to the NHS of fingolimod in the UK is unknown, due to a confidential patient access scheme (PAS), a variety of possible discounts were tested. The interaction of re-treatment assumptions for alemtuzumab with the possible discounts for fingolimod was tested to determine which DMT resulted in lower lifetime costs. The lifetime QALY results were derived from modeled treatment effect and short- and long-term AEs.

Results: Most permutations of fingolimod PAS discount and alemtuzumab re-treatment rate resulted in fingolimod being less costly than alemtuzumab. As the percentage of patients who are re-treated with alemtuzumab due to experiencing a relapse approaches 100% of those who relapse whilst on treatment, the discount required for fingolimod to be less costly drops below 5%. Consideration of treatment effect alone found alemtuzumab generated 0.2 more QALYs/patient; the inclusion of AEs up to a duration of 1 year reduced this advantage to only 0.14 QALYs/patient. Modeling AEs with a lifetime QALY decrement found that both DMTs generated very similar QALYs with the difference only 0.04 QALYs/patient.

Conclusions: When the model captured alemtuzumab re-treatment and long-term AE decrements, it was found that fingolimod is cost-effective compared to alemtuzumab, assuming application of only a modest level of confidential PAS discount.     

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 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.     

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 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 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 zoledronic acid vs clodronic acid for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma from the United Kingdom healthcare system perspective

Abstract

Objective:

In the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study (MMIX), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4?mg 3–4/week reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs), increased progression free survival (PFS), and prolonged overall survival (OS), compared with clodronic acid (CLO) 1600?mg daily, in 1970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

Methods:

An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs and adverse events and expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly-diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to receive ZOL or CLO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of ZOL vs CLO was calculated as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs were based on results of MMIX and published sources.

Results:

Compared with CLO, treatment with ZOL increases QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of £1653, yielding an ICER of £5443 per QALY gained. If the threshold ICER is £20,000 per QALY, the estimated probability that ZOL is cost-effective is 90%.

Limitations:

The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on the effects of zoledronic acid on survival beyond the end of follow-up in the MMIX trial. However, cost-effectiveness was favourable even under the highly conservative scenario in which the timeframe of the model was limited to 5 years.

Conclusions:

Compared with clodronic acid, zoledronic acid represents a cost-effective treatment alternative in patients with multiple myeloma.