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.     

The Policy World-Jurisprudence as a Policy Science

The Yale tradition of policy sciences offers a comprehensive taxonomy of human behavior, especially that which is associated with purposive institutional actions. Like newer schools of thought such as Public Choice, it has a theoretical base; like the Public Policy tradition, it focuses on historical explanations and analyses. Its categories of analysis range from Lasswell's famous eight value arenas to the seven policy functions that ate often used in identifying stages or phases of public action. Its professional breadth incorporates methods from economics, psychology, moral philosophy, and sociology, all in the context of policy behavior. The two volumes under review recapitulate theoretical and behavioral research dating back to the 1920s and still continuing at Yale and other policy centers. There is a strong moral commitment in these pages to human dignity, defined as the preferred outcomes among all competing and complementary basic values. The jurisprudence espoused in these volumes is a process through which people seek to clarify and secure their common interest; it is a tool of discovery rather than a mere syntactical philosophy of law. It is more a “political” than a “legal” science.     

Cost effectiveness of adding clostridial collagenase ointment to selective debridement in individuals with stage IV pressure ulcers

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness (from a payer’s perspective) of adding clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) to selective debridement compared with selective debridement alone (non-CCO) in the treatment of stage IV pressure ulcers among patients identified from the US Wound Registry.

Methods: A 3-state Markov model was developed to determine costs and outcomes between the CCO and non-CCO groups over a 2-year time horizon. Outcome data were derived from a retrospective clinical study and included the proportion of pressure ulcers that were closed (epithelialized) over 2 years and the time to wound closure. Transition probabilities for the Markov states were estimated from the clinical study. In the Markov model, the clinical outcome is presented as ulcer-free weeks, which represents the time the wound is in the epithelialized state. Costs for each 4-week cycle were based on frequencies of clinic visits, debridement, and CCO application rates from the clinical study. The final model outputs were cumulative costs (in US dollars), clinical outcome (ulcer-free weeks), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 2 years.

Results: Compared with the non-CCO group, the CCO group incurred lower costs ($11,151 vs $17,596) and greater benefits (33.9 vs 16.8 ulcer-free weeks), resulting in an economically dominant ICER of ?$375 per ulcer. Thus, for each additional ulcer-free week that can be gained, there is a concurrent cost savings of $375 if CCO treatment is selected. Over a 2-year period, an additional 17.2 ulcer-free weeks can be gained with concurrent cost savings of $6,445 for each patient.

Conclusions: In this Markov model based on real-world data from the US Wound Registry, the addition of CCO to selective debridement in the treatment of pressure ulcers was economically dominant over selective debridement alone, resulting in greater benefit to the patient at lower cost.