Cost-effectiveness of Sativex in multiple sclerosis spasticity: new data and application to Italy

Trends in prescription and cost of Sativex, a cannabinoid-based medicine, in treating patients with multiple sclerosis in England

Aim

Cannabis-based medication has recently been made available in the NHS for reducing pain and spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The currently available preparation of Sativex (nabiximols) contains a combination of botanical cannabis extracts with cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with almost equal amounts in addition to minor cannabinoids and terpenoids and is delivered via an oro-mucosal spray. The present study aims to examine the use and trends in prescribing cannabinoid-based Sativex to control pain in patients diagnosed with MS.

Methods

Primary care prescribing data for cannabinoid-based Sativex (2013-2022) from the Prescription Cost Analysis were extracted and analysed. Linear regression analyses were performed to examine prescription trends and prescription costs (average change per year).

Results

There was a general increasing trend in the number of prescriptions each year, from 4.42 items dispensed per 100,000 people in 2013 to 5.15 in 2022. Overall, prescription items for cannabinoid-based Sativex increased by 0.34% per year (95% CI:-3.98, 4.67, p = 0.860) on average between 2013 and 2022. On average, a 2.43% (95% CI: -5.78, 0.92, p = 0.133) increase per year was observed for the costs of cannabinoid-based Sativex from 2013 to 2022.

Conclusion

The results suggested that cannabinoid-based Sativex should be considered an option due to its effectiveness, acceptable tolerance, and safety profile in the prescribing of Sativex.

Cost-Effectiveness of Medicinal Cannabis for Management of Refractory Symptoms Associated With Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Although there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that cannabinoids may relieve symptoms of some illnesses, they are relatively high-cost therapies compared with illicit growth and supply. This article aimed to comprehensively review economic evaluations of medicinal cannabis for alleviating refractory symptoms associated with chronic conditions.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched for articles published up to September 6, 2020. The quality of reporting of economic evaluations was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to types of medical conditions, organized into tables, and reported narratively.

RESULTS

This review identified 12 cost-utility analyses conducted across a variety of diseases including multiple sclerosis (MS) (N = 8), pediatric drug-resistant epilepsies (N = 2), and chronic pain (N = 2). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied widely from cost saving to more than US$451 800 per quality-adjusted life-year depending on the setting, perspectives, types of medicinal cannabis, and indications. Nabiximols is a cost-effective intervention for MS spasticity in multiple European settings. Cannabidiol was found to be a cost-effective for Dravet syndrome in a Canadian setting whereas a cost-utility analysis conducted in a US setting deemed cannabidiol to be not cost-effective for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall study quality was good, with publications meeting 70% to 100% (median 83%) of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicinal cannabis-based products may be cost-effective treatment options for MS spasticity, Dravet syndrome, and neuropathic pain, although the literature is nascent. Well-designed clinical trials and health economic evaluations are needed to generate adequate clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence to assist in resource allocation.

Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty in model-based cost-utility analyses is commonly assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Model parameters are implemented as distributions and values are sampled from these distributions in a Monte Carlo simulation. Bootstrapping is an alternative method that requires fewer assumptions and incorporates correlations between model parameters.

METHODS

A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis comparing oromucosal spray containing delta-9-tetrahidrocannabinol + cannabidiol (Sativex®, nabiximols) plus standard care versus standard spasticity care alone in the management of multiple sclerosis spasticity was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the Belgian healthcare payer perspective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis was implemented using a bootstrap approach to ensure that the correlations present in the source clinical trial data were incorporated in the uncertainty estimates.

RESULTS

Adding Sativex® spray to standard care was found to dominate standard spasticity care alone, with cost savings of €6,068 and a quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.145 per patient over the 5-year analysis. The probability of dominance increased from 29% in the first year to 94% in the fifth year, with the probability of QALY gains in excess of 99% for all years considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care was found to dominate standard spasticity care alone in the Belgian healthcare setting. This study showed the use of bootstrapping techniques in a Markov model probabilistic sensitivity analysis instead of Monte Carlo simulations. Bootstrapping avoided the need to make distributional assumptions and allowed the incorporation of correlating structures present in the original clinical trial data in the uncertainty assessment.

Can Medical Cannabis Therapies be Cost-Effective in the Non-Surgical Management of Chronic Knee Pain?

Introduction:

Chronic knee pain is a common musculoskeletal condition, which usually leads to decreased quality of life and a substantial financial burden. Various non-surgical treatments have been developed to relieve pain, restore function and delay surgical intervention. Research on the benefits of medical cannabis (MC) is emerging supporting its use for chronic pain conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MC compared to current non-surgical therapies for chronic knee pain conditions.

Methods:

We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian, single payer perspective and compared various MC therapies (oils, soft gels and dried flowers at different daily doses) to bracing, glucosamine, pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. We estimated the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with each treatment over 1 year and calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) using both the mean and median estimates for costs and utilities gained across the range of reported values. The final ICURs were compared to willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $66 714, $133 428 and $200 141 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY gained.

Results:

Regardless of the estimates used (mean or median), both MC oils and soft gels at both the minimal and maximal recommended daily doses were cost-effective compared to all current knee pain therapies at the lowest WTP threshold. Dried flowers were only cost-effective up to a certain dosage (0.75 and 1 g/day based on mean and median estimates, respectively), but all dosages were cost-effective when the WTP was increased to $133 428/QALY gained.

Conclusion:

Our study showed that MC may be a cost-effective strategy in the management of chronic knee pain; however, the evidence on the medical use of cannabis is limited and predominantly low-quality. Additional trials on MC are definitely needed, specifically in patients with chronic knee pain.

A Cost-Effectiveness Model for Adjunctive Smoked Cannabis in the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Background: A recent meta-analysis affirmed the benefit of medicinal cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain, a disabling and difficult-to-treat condition. As medicinal cannabis use is becoming increasingly prevalent among Americans, an exploration of its economic feasibility is warranted. We present this cost-effectiveness analysis of adjunctive cannabis pharmacotherapy for chronic peripheral neuropathy.

Materials and Methods: A published Markov model comparing conventional therapies for painful diabetic neuropathy was modified to include arms for augmenting first-line, second-line (if first-line failed), or third-line (if first- and second-line failed) therapies with smoked cannabis. Microsimulation of 1,000,000 patients compared the cost (2017 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of usual care with and without adjunctive cannabis using a composite of third-party and out-of-pocket costs. Model efficacy inputs for cannabis were adapted from clinical trial data. Adverse event rates were derived from a prospective study of cannabis for chronic noncancer pain and applied to probability inputs for conventional therapies. Cannabis cost was derived from retail market pricing. Parameter uncertainty was addressed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results: Adding cannabis to first-line therapy was incrementally less effective and costlier than adding cannabis to second-line and third-line therapies. Third-line adjunctive cannabis was subject to extended dominance, that is, the second-line strategy was more effective with a more favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $48,594 per QALY gained, and therefore, third-line adjunctive cannabis was not as cost-effective. At a modest willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained, second-line adjunctive cannabis was the strategy most likely to be cost-effective.

Conclusion: As recently proposed willingness-to-pay thresholds for the United States health marketplace range from $110,000 to $300,000 per QALY, cannabis appears cost-effective when augmenting second-line treatment for painful neuropathy. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term benefit of smoked cannabis and standardization of its dosing for chronic neuropathic pain.

Systematic Review of the Costs and Benefits of Prescribed Cannabis-Based Medicines for the Management of Chronic Illness: Lessons from Multiple Sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) may offer relief from symptoms of disease; however, their additional cost needs to be considered alongside their effectiveness. We sought to review the economic costs and benefits of prescribed CBMs in any chronic illness, and the frameworks used for their economic evaluation.

METHODS

A systematic review of eight medical and economic databases, from inception to mid-December 2016, was undertaken. MeSH headings and text words relating to economic costs and benefits, and CBMs were combined. Study quality was assessed using relevant checklists and results were synthesised in narrative form.

RESULTS

Of 2514 identified records, ten studies met the eligibility criteria, all for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). Six contained economic evaluations, four studies reported utility-based quality of life, and one was a willingness-to-pay study. Four of five industry-sponsored cost-utility analyses for MS spasticity reported nabiximols as being cost-effective from a European health system perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for these five studies were £49,257 (UK); £10,891 (Wales); €11,214 (Germany); €4968 (Italy); and dominant (Spain). Nabiximols for the management of MS spasticity was not associated with statistically significant improvements in EQ-5D scores compared with standard care. Study quality was moderate overall, with limited inclusion of both relevant societal costs and discussions of potential bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribed CBMs are a potentially cost-effective add-on treatment for MS spasticity; however, this evidence is uncertain. Further investment in randomised trials with in-built economic evaluations is warranted for a wider range of clinical indications.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42014006370.

What's new in multiple sclerosis spasticity research? Poster session highlights

Each year at the Multiple Sclerosis Experts Summit, relevant research in the field of multiple sclerosis spasticity is featured in poster sessions. The main studies presented at this year's meeting are summarized herein.

Sativex in resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity: Discontinuation study in a large population of Italian patients (SA.FE. study)

BACKGROUND

The approval of Sativex for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity opened a new opportunity to many patients. In Italy, the healthcare payer can be fully reimbursed by the involved pharma company with the cost of treatment for patients not responding after a 4 week (28 days) trial period (Payment by Results, PbR), and 50% reimbursed with the cost of 6 weeks (42 days) treatment for other patients discontinuing (Cost Sharing, CS). The aim of our study was to describe the Sativex discontinuation profile from a large population of spasticity treated Italian MS patients.

METHODS

We collected data of patients from 30 MS centres across the country starting Sativex between January 2014 and February 2015. Data were collected from the mandatory Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) web-registry. Predictors of treatment discontinuation were assessed using a multivariate Cox proportional regression analysis.

RESULTS

During the observation period 631 out of 1597 (39.5%) patients discontinued Sativex. The Kaplan-Meier estimates curve showed that 333 patients (20.8%) discontinued treatment at 4 weeks while 422 patients (26.4%) discontinued at 6 weeks. We found after adjusted modeling that a higher NRS score at T1 (adjHR 2.23, 95% 2.07-2.41, p<0.001) and a lower baseline NRS score (adjHR 0.51 95% CI 0.46-0.56, p<0.001) were predictive of treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

These data show that the first 6 weeks are useful in identifying those patients in which Sativex could be effective, thus avoiding the cost of longer term evaluation.

Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol/Cannabidiol Oromucosal Spray (Sativex®): A Review in Multiple Sclerosis-Related Spasticity

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)/cannabidiol (CBD) oromucosal spray (THC/CBD, Sativex^®, nabiximols) is available in numerous countries worldwide for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related moderate to severe spasticity in patients who have not responded adequately to other anti-spasticity medication and who demonstrate clinically significant improvement in spasticity-related symptoms during an initial trial of therapy. Twelve weeks' therapy with THC/CBD improved MS-related spasticity in patients with an inadequate response to other anti-spasticity agents who had undergone a successful initial trial of THC/CBD therapy, according to the results of a pivotal phase 3 trial. Improvements in spasticity were maintained in the longer term with THC/CBD with no evidence of dose tolerance, and results of real-world studies confirm the effectiveness of THC/CBD in everyday clinical practice. Improvements in health-related quality of life and activities of daily living were also seen with THC/CBD. THC/CBD is generally well tolerated; adverse effects such as dizziness may occur whilst the THC/CBD dosage is being optimized. THC/CBD has low abuse potential and a low risk of psychoactive effects. In conclusion, THC/CBD oromucosal spray is a useful option for the treatment of MS-related spasticity not completely relieved with current anti-spasticity medication.

Evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of THC-CBD oromucosal spray in symptom management of patients with spasticity due to multiple sclerosis

Spasticity, one of the main symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), can affect more than 80% of MS patients during the course of their disease and is often not treated adequately. δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol-cannabidiol (THC-CBD) oromucosal spray is a plant-derived, standardized cannabinoid-based oromucosal spray medicine for add-on treatment of moderate to severe, resistant multiple sclerosis-induced spasticity. This article reviews the current evidence for the efficacy and safety, with dizziness and fatigue as the most common treatment-related adverse events, being mostly mild to moderate in severity. Results from both randomized controlled phase III studies involving about,1600 MS patients or 1500 patient-years and recently published studies on everyday clinical practice involving more than 1000 patients or more than,1000 patient-years are presented.

What is new in MS spasticity research? Poster session highlights

Each year at the Experts Summit, recent relevant research in the field of multiple sclerosis spasticity is featured in the poster sessions. Highlights of the 2015 poster session are presented.