1
|
Spelman T, Herring WL, Acosta C, Hyde R, Jokubaitis VG, Pucci E, Lugaresi A, Laureys G, Havrdova EK, Horakova D, Izquierdo G, Eichau S, Ozakbas S, Alroughani R, Kalincik T, Duquette P, Girard M, Petersen T, Patti F, Csepany T, Granella F, Grand'Maison F, Ferraro D, Karabudak R, Jose Sa M, Trojano M, van Pesch V, Van Wijmeersch B, Cartechini E, McCombe P, Gerlach O, Spitaleri D, Rozsa C, Hodgkinson S, Bergamaschi R, Gouider R, Soysal A, Castillo-Triviño, Prevost J, Garber J, de Gans K, Ampapa R, Simo M, Sanchez-Menoyo JL, Iuliano G, Sas A, van der Walt A, John N, Gray O, Hughes S, De Luca G, Onofrj M, Buzzard K, Skibina O, Terzi M, Slee M, Solaro C, Oreja-Guevara, Ramo-Tello C, Fragoso Y, Shaygannejad V, Moore F, Rajda C, Aguera Morales E, Butzkueven H. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom. J Med Econ 2024; 27:109-125. [PMID: 38085684 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2293379] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Accepted: 12/07/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
AIM To evaluate the real-world comparative effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness, from a UK National Health Service perspective, of natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RES-RRMS). METHODS Real-world data from the MSBase Registry were obtained for patients with RES-RRMS who were previously either naive to disease-modifying therapies or had been treated with interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide (collectively known as BRACETD). Matched cohorts were selected by 3-way multinomial propensity score matching, and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M) were compared between treatment groups. Comparative effectiveness results were used in a cost-effectiveness model comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, using an established Markov structure over a lifetime horizon with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Additional model data sources included the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available sources. RESULTS In the comparative effectiveness analysis, we found a significantly lower ARR for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (rate ratio [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.73) or BRACETD (RR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). Similarly, CDI6M was higher for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55) and BRACETD (HR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85). In patients starting fingolimod, we found a lower ARR (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80) compared with starting BRACETD, but no difference in CDI6M (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Differences in CDW6M were not found between the treatment groups. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, natalizumab dominated fingolimod (0.302 higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and £17,141 lower predicted lifetime costs). Similar cost-effectiveness results were observed across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS This MSBase Registry analysis suggests that natalizumab improves clinical outcomes when compared with fingolimod, which translates to higher QALYs and lower costs in UK patients with RES-RRMS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Spelman
- MSBase Foundation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - W L Herring
- Health Economics, RTI Health Solutions, NC, USA
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - C Acosta
- Value and Access, Biogen, Baar, Switzerland
| | - R Hyde
- Medical, Biogen, Baar, Switzerland
| | - V G Jokubaitis
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - E Pucci
- Neurology Unit, AST-Fermo, Fermo, Italy
| | - A Lugaresi
- Dipartamento di Scienze Biomediche e Neuromotorie, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - G Laureys
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - E K Havrdova
- Department of Neurology and Center of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - D Horakova
- Department of Neurology and Center of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - G Izquierdo
- Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain
| | - S Eichau
- Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain
| | - S Ozakbas
- Izmir University of Economics, Medical Point Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - R Alroughani
- Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Amiri Hospital, Sharq, Kuwait
| | - T Kalincik
- Neuroimmunology Centre, Department of Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
- CORe, Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - P Duquette
- CHUM and Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | - M Girard
- CHUM and Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | - T Petersen
- Aarhus University Hospital, Arhus C, Denmark
| | - F Patti
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies, GF Ingrassia, Catania, Italy
- UOS Sclerosi Multipla, AOU Policlinico "G Rodloico-San Marco", University of Catania, Italy
| | - T Csepany
- Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - F Granella
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
- Department of General Medicine, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy
| | | | - D Ferraro
- Department of Neuroscience, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria, Modena, Italy
| | | | - M Jose Sa
- Department of Neurology, Centro Hospitalar Universitario de Sao Joao, Porto, Portugal
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal
| | - M Trojano
- School of Medicine, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - V van Pesch
- Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium
- Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
| | - B Van Wijmeersch
- University MS Centre, Hasselt-Pelt and Noorderhart Rehabilitation & MS, Pelt and Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
| | | | - P McCombe
- University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia
| | - O Gerlach
- Academic MS Center Zuyd, Department of Neurology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands
- School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - D Spitaleri
- Azienda Ospedaliera di Rilievo Nazionale San Giuseppe Moscati Avellino, Avellino, Italy
| | - C Rozsa
- Jahn Ferenc Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary
| | - S Hodgkinson
- Immune Tolerance Laboratory Ingham Institute and Department of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - R Gouider
- Department of Neurology, LR18SP03 and Clinical Investigation Center Neurosciences and Mental Health, Razi University Hospital -, Mannouba, Tunis, Tunisia
- Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia
| | - A Soysal
- Bakirkoy Education and Research Hospital for Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Castillo-Triviño
- Hospital Universitario Donostia and IIS Biodonostia, San Sebastián, Spain
| | - J Prevost
- CSSS Saint-Jérôme, Saint-Jerome, Canada
| | - J Garber
- Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - K de Gans
- Groene Hart Ziekenhuis, Gouda, Netherlands
| | - R Ampapa
- Nemocnice Jihlava, Jihlava, Czech Republic
| | - M Simo
- Department of Neurology, Semmelweis University Budapest, Budapest, Hungary
| | - J L Sanchez-Menoyo
- Department of Neurology, Galdakao-Usansolo University Hospital, Osakidetza Basque Health Service, Galdakao, Spain
- Biocruces-Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Spain
| | - G Iuliano
- Ospedali Riuniti di Salerno, Salerno, Italy
| | - A Sas
- Department of Neurology and Stroke, BAZ County Hospital, Miskolc, Hungary
| | - A van der Walt
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Neurology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - N John
- Monash University, Clayton, Australia
- Department of Neurology, Monash Health, Clayton, Australia
| | - O Gray
- South Eastern HSC Trust, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - S Hughes
- Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - G De Luca
- MS Centre, Neurology Unit, "SS. Annunziata" University Hospital, University "G. d'Annunzio", Chieti, Italy
| | - M Onofrj
- Department of Neuroscience, Imaging, and Clinical Sciences, University G. d'Annunzio, Chieti, Italy
| | - K Buzzard
- Department of Neurosciences, Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
- Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- MS Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - O Skibina
- Department of Neurology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
- Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Neurology, Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - M Terzi
- Medical Faculty, 19 Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey
| | - M Slee
- Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - C Solaro
- Department of Neurology, ASL3 Genovese, Genova, Italy
- Department of Rehabilitation, ML Novarese Hospital Moncrivello
| | - Oreja-Guevara
- Department of Neurology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - C Ramo-Tello
- Department of Neuroscience, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain
| | - Y Fragoso
- Universidade Metropolitana de Santos, Santos, Brazil
| | | | - F Moore
- Department of Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - C Rajda
- Department of Neurology, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
| | - E Aguera Morales
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain
- Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute of Cordoba (IMIBIC)
| | - H Butzkueven
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Spelman T, Herring WL, Zhang Y, Tempest M, Pearson I, Freudensprung U, Acosta C, Dort T, Hyde R, Havrdova E, Horakova D, Trojano M, De Luca G, Lugaresi A, Izquierdo G, Grammond P, Duquette P, Alroughani R, Pucci E, Granella F, Lechner-Scott J, Sola P, Ferraro D, Grand'Maison F, Terzi M, Rozsa C, Boz C, Hupperts R, Van Pesch V, Oreja-Guevara C, van der Walt A, Jokubaitis VG, Kalincik T, Butzkueven H. Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Natalizumab and Fingolimod in Patients with Inadequate Response to Disease-Modifying Therapies in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the United Kingdom. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2022; 40:323-339. [PMID: 34921350 PMCID: PMC8866337 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01106-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis inadequately responding to first-line therapies (interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide, known collectively as "BRACETD") often switch to natalizumab or fingolimod. OBJECTIVE The aim was to estimate the comparative effectiveness of switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD using real-world data and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to natalizumab versus fingolimod using a United Kingdom (UK) third-party payer perspective. METHODS Real-world data were obtained from MSBase for patients relapsing on BRACETD in the year before switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD. Three-way-multinomial-propensity-score-matched cohorts were identified, and comparisons between treatment groups were conducted for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M). Results were applied in a cost-effectiveness model over a lifetime horizon using a published Markov structure with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Other model parameters were obtained from the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available UK sources. RESULTS The MSBase analysis found a significant reduction in ARR (rate ratio [RR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.72; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67; 95% CI 1.30-2.15; p < 0.001) for switching to natalizumab compared with BRACETD. For switching to fingolimod, the reduction in ARR (RR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.81-1.03; p = 0.133) and increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.99-1.72; p = 0.058) compared with BRACETD were not significant. Switching to natalizumab was associated with a significant reduction in ARR (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.62-0.79; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.01-1.62; p = 0.040) compared to switching to fingolimod. No evidence of difference in CDW6M was found between treatment groups. Natalizumab dominated (higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and lower costs) fingolimod in the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis (0.453 higher QALYs and £20,843 lower costs per patient). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS This novel real-world analysis suggests a clinical benefit for therapy escalation to natalizumab versus fingolimod based on comparative effectiveness results, translating to higher QALYs and lower costs for UK patients inadequately responding to BRACETD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy Spelman
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Yuanhui Zhang
- RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | | | | | - Carlos Acosta
- Value and Market Access, Biogen International GmbH, Neuhofstrasse 30, 6340, Baar, Switzerland.
| | - Thibaut Dort
- Value and Market Access, Biogen International GmbH, Neuhofstrasse 30, 6340, Baar, Switzerland
| | | | - Eva Havrdova
- Department of Neurology and Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, General University Hospital and Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Dana Horakova
- Department of Neurology and Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, General University Hospital and Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Maria Trojano
- Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - Giovanna De Luca
- Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Neurology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, University "G. d'Annunzio", Chieti-Pescara, Italy
| | - Alessandra Lugaresi
- IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Neuromotorie, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Pierre Grammond
- Centre de Réadaptation Déficience Physique Chaudière-Appalache, Lévis, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Patrizia Sola
- Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico/OCB, Neurology Unit, Modena, Italy
| | - Diana Ferraro
- Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neurosciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | | | | | - Csilla Rozsa
- Jahn Ferenc Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Cavit Boz
- Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
| | | | | | | | - Anneke van der Walt
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Vilija G Jokubaitis
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Tomas Kalincik
- CORe, Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- MS Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Helmut Butzkueven
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wiyani A, Badgujar L, Khurana V, Adlard N. How have Economic Evaluations in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Evolved Over Time? A Systematic Literature Review. Neurol Ther 2021; 10:557-583. [PMID: 34279847 PMCID: PMC8571458 DOI: 10.1007/s40120-021-00264-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2021] [Accepted: 07/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) over the last two decades has prompted the economic assessments of these treatments by reimbursement authorities. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the modeling approach and data sources used in economic evaluations of DMTs for RMS, identify differences and similarities, and explore how economic evaluation models have evolved over time. METHODS MEDLINE®, Embase®, and EBM Reviews databases were searched using Ovid® Platform from database inception on 25 December 2019 and subsequently updated on 17 February 2021. In addition, health technology assessment agency websites, key conference proceedings, and gray literature from relevant websites were screened. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Drummond and Philips checklists. RESULTS A total 155 publications and 30 Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were included. Most of these were cost-utility analysis (73 studies and 25 HTA reports) and funded by medicines manufacturers (n = 65). The top three countries where studies were conducted were the USA (n = 29), the UK (n = 16), and Spain (n = 10). Studies predominantly used Markov cohort models (94 studies; 25 HTAs) structured based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) with 21 health states (20 studies; 12 HTA reports). The London Ontario and British Columbia data sets were commonly used sources for natural history data (n = 33; n = 13). Twelve studies and ten HTAs from the UK assumed a waning of DMT effect over the long term, while this was uncommon in studies from other countries. Nineteen studies adjusted for multiple sclerosis (MS)-specific mortality estimates, while 18 studies used data from the national life table without adjustment. Studies prominently referred to mortality data that were about two decades old. The data on treatment effect was generally obtained from randomized controlled trials (43 studies; 7 HTAs) or from published evidence synthesis (23 studies; 24 HTAs). Utility estimates were derived from either published studies and/or supplemented with data from RCTs. Most of the models used the lifetime horizon (n = 37) with a 1-year cycle length (n = 63). CONCLUSION As expected, similarities as well as differences were observed across the different economic models. Available evidence suggests models should continue using the Markov cohort model with 21 EDSS-based states, however, allowing the transition to a lower EDSS state and assuming a sustained treatment effect. With reference to the data sources, models should consider using a contemporary MS-specific mortality data, recent natural history data, and country-specific utility data if available. In case of data unavailability, a sensitivity analysis using multiple sources of data should be conducted. In addition, future models should incorporate other clinically relevant outcomes, such as the cognition, vision, and psychological aspects of RMS, to be able to present the comprehensive value of DMTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anggie Wiyani
- Novartis Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
| | | | - Vivek Khurana
- Novartis Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ngorsuraches S, Poudel N. Incorporating patients' preferences in the value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a narrative review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2021; 21:183-195. [PMID: 33472451 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2021.1880321] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the increasing role of patients in the US healthcare system, patients have yet been engaged in the value assessment of their treatments, including disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). The objectives of this review were therefore to summarize existing studies on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and patients' preferences of DMTs for MS, and to discuss how to incorporate patients' preferences into the value assessment of DMTs.Area covered: We reviewed previous systematic reviews and conducted further search until November 2020 for studies on CEA with QALYs and patients' preferences of DMTs for MS. We identified the outcomes that were assessed or valued in the CEA studies and the DMT attributes that were important to patients with MS.Expert opinion: Our literature review showed that the studies using CEA with QALYs failed to capture some important DMT attributes, e.g., route and frequency of administration, identified in the studies on the patients' preferences. Various approaches were available for incorporating the patients' preferences in the value assessment of DMTs for MS. We supported this incorporation, which subsequently would increase patient access to preferred DMTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Surachat Ngorsuraches
- Department of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Auburn University, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn, AL, USA
| | - Nabin Poudel
- Department of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Auburn University, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn, AL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cost of disease modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: Is front-loading the answer? J Neurol Sci 2019; 404:19-28. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2019.07.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2018] [Revised: 07/03/2019] [Accepted: 07/09/2019] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
|
6
|
Rezaee M, Izadi S, Keshavarz K, Borhanihaghighi A, Ravangard R. Fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in Iran. J Med Econ 2019; 22:297-305. [PMID: 30561242 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1560750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mehdi Rezaee
- a Department of Health Economics, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences , Shiraz University of Medical Sciences , Shiraz , Iran
- b Student Research Committee, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences , Shiraz University of Medical Sciences , Shiraz , Iran
| | - Sadegh Izadi
- c Clinical Neurology Research Center , Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences , Shiraz , Iran
| | - Khosro Keshavarz
- a Department of Health Economics, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences , Shiraz University of Medical Sciences , Shiraz , Iran
- d Health Human Resources Research Center, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences , Shiraz University of Medical Sciences , Shiraz , Iran
| | - Afshin Borhanihaghighi
- c Clinical Neurology Research Center , Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences , Shiraz , Iran
| | - Ramin Ravangard
- d Health Human Resources Research Center, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences , Shiraz University of Medical Sciences , Shiraz , Iran
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hernandez L, O'Donnell M, Postma M. Modeling Approaches in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Economic Evaluations. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2018; 36:1223-1252. [PMID: 29971666 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0683-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) have been published in the last three decades. Literature reviews of the modeling methods and results from these CEAs have also been published. The last literature review that focused on modeling methods, without country or time horizon in the inclusion criteria, included studies published up to 2012. Since then, new DMTs have become available, and new models and data sources have been used to assess their cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to provide a detailed and comprehensive description of the relevant aspects of economic models used in CEAs of DMTs for RRMS, to understand how these models have progressed from recommendations provided in past reviews, what new approaches have been developed, what issues remain, and how they could be addressed. METHODS EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the National Health System (NHS) Economic Evaluations Database, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, and EconLit were searched for cost-effectiveness studies of DMTs for RRMS that used decision-analytic models, published in English between 1 January 2012 and 24 December 2017. The inclusion criteria were as follows: being a full economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was used, the target population concerned adult patients with RRMS, and being available in full-text format. Studies were not excluded based on the methodological quality. The background information of the included studies, as well as specific information on the components of the economic models related to the areas of recommendation from previous reviews were extracted. RESULTS Twenty-three studies from ten countries were included. The model structure of these studies has converged over time, characterizing the course of disease progression in terms of changes in disability and the occurrence of relapses over time. Variations were found in model approach; data sources for the natural course of the disease and comparative efficacy between DMTs; number of lines of treatment modeled; long-term efficacy waning and treatment discontinuation assumptions; type of withdrawal; and criteria for selecting adverse events. Main areas for improvement include using long-term time horizons and societal perspective; reporting relevant health outcomes; conducting scenario analyses using different sources of natural history and utility values; and reporting how the model was validated. CONCLUSION The structure of economic models used in CEAs of DMTs for RRMS has converged over time. However, variation remains in terms of model approach, inputs, and assumptions. Though some recommendations from previous reviews have been incorporated in later models, areas for improvement remain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Hernandez
- Evidera, 500 Totten Pond Road, Suite 500, Waltham, MA, USA.
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Maarten Postma
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, The Netherlands
- Unit of Pharmacotherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy (GRIP), Groningen, The Netherlands
- Department of Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Iannazzo S, Iliza AC, Perrault L. Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2018; 36:189-204. [PMID: 29032493 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0577-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. MS is considered incurable; however, disease treatment has advanced significantly over the past several decades with the introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The current study reviewed the cost-effectiveness analyses of DMTs in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients. METHODS A systematic literature search of bibliographic databases was conducted to identify economic evaluations published after 2007. The relevant population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) were considered. The outcomes of interest were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net monetary benefits, incremental benefits, and incremental costs. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the reporting quality of published studies. RESULTS A total of 1370 potentially relevant citations were identified, of which 33 published articles and four Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports prepared for the UK were included in the final analysis. Almost all studies were based on a health economic model and considered RRMS as the phase of disease at study entry. The studies were conducted in 10 different countries, with approximately 50% based in the US. Study outcomes were rarely comparable due to the different settings, input data, and assumptions. Even within the same country, the discrepancy between study criteria was considerable. The compliance with reporting standards of the CHEERS statement was generally high. CONCLUSIONS Internationally, a large number of health economic assessments of DMTs in RRMS were available, yielding difficult to compare, and at times conflicting, results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Iannazzo
- International Market Access Consulting (IMAC), Via Caboto, 45, 10129, Turin, Italy.
| | - Ange-Christelle Iliza
- International Market Access Consulting (IMAC), Montreal, QC, Canada
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
- Centre of Research, Hospital Centre of the University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Louise Perrault
- International Market Access Consulting (IMAC), Montreal, QC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Parnell GP, Booth DR. The Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Genetic Risk Factors Indicate both Acquired and Innate Immune Cell Subsets Contribute to MS Pathogenesis and Identify Novel Therapeutic Opportunities. Front Immunol 2017; 8:425. [PMID: 28458668 PMCID: PMC5394466 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00425] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2017] [Accepted: 03/27/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is known to be a partially heritable autoimmune disease. The risk of developing MS increases from typically 1 in 1,000 in the normal population to 1 in 4 or so for identical twins where one twin is affected. Much of this heritability is now explained and is due almost entirely to genes affecting the immune response. The largest and first identified genetic risk factor is an allele from the MHC class II HLA-DRB1 gene, HLA-DRB1*15:01, which increases risk about threefold. The HLA-DRB1 gene is expressed in antigen-presenting cells, and its protein functions in presenting particular types of antigen to CD4 T cells. This discovery supported the development of the first successful immunomodulatory therapies: glatiramer acetate, which mimics the antigen presentation process, and interferon beta, which targets CD4 T cell activation. Over 200 genetic risk variants, all single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), have now been described. The SNPs are located within, or close to, genes expressed predominantly in acquired and innate immune cell subsets, indicating that both contribute to MS pathogenesis. The risk alleles indicate variation in the regulation of gene expression, rather than protein variation, underpins genetic susceptibility. In this review, we discuss how the expression and function of the risk genes, as well as the effect on these of the risk SNPs, indicate specific acquired immune cell processes that are the target of current successful therapies, and also point to novel therapeutic approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grant P Parnell
- Centre for Immunology and Allergy Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - David R Booth
- Centre for Immunology and Allergy Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
White R. Building trust in real-world evidence and comparative effectiveness research: the need for transparency. J Comp Eff Res 2016; 6:5-7. [PMID: 27759422 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2016-0070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Richard White
- Oxford PharmaGenesis, Tubney Warren Barn, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Tsivgoulis G, Katsanos AH, Mavridis D, Grigoriadis N, Dardiotis E, Heliopoulos I, Papathanasopoulos P, Karapanayiotides T, Kilidireas C, Hadjigeorgiou GM, Voumvourakis K. The Efficacy of Natalizumab versus Fingolimod for Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review, Indirect Evidence from Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials and Meta-Analysis of Observational Head-to-Head Trials. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0163296. [PMID: 27684943 PMCID: PMC5042498 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2016] [Accepted: 09/05/2016] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Although Fingolimod (FGD) and Natalizumab (NTZ) appear to be effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), they have never been directly compared in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Methods and Findings We evaluated the comparative efficacy of FGD vs. NTZ using a meta-analytical approach. Data from placebo-controlled RCTs was used for indirect comparisons and observational data was utilized for head-to-head comparisons. We identified 3 RCTs (2498 patients) and 5 observational studies (2576 patients). NTZ was associated with a greater reduction in the 2-year annualized relapse rate (ARR; SMDindirect = -0.24;95% CI: from -0.44 to -0.04; p = 0.005) and with the probability of no disease activity at 2 years (ORindirect:1.82, 95% CI: from 1.05 to 3.15) compared to FGD, while no differences between the two therapies were found in the proportion of patients who remained relapse-free (ORindirect = 1.20;95% CI: from 0.84 to 1.71) and those with disability progression (ORindirect = 0.76;95% CI: from 0.48 to 1.21) at 2 years. In the analysis of observational data, we found no significant differences between NTZ and FGD in the 2-year ARR (SMD = -0.05; 95% CI: from -0.26 to 0.16), and 2-year disability progression (OR:1.08;95% CI: from 0.77 to 1.52). However, NTZ-treated patients were more likely to remain relapse-free at 2-years compared to FGD (OR: 2.19;95% CI: from 1.15 to 4.18; p = z0.020). Conclusions Indirect analyses of RCT data and head-to-head comparisons of observational findings indicate that NTZ may be more effective than FGD in terms of disease activity reduction in patients with RRMS. However, head-to-head RCTs are required to independently confirm this preliminary observation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georgios Tsivgoulis
- Second Department of Neurology, “Attikon” Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
- Department of Neurology, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America
- International Clinical Research Center, Department of Neurology, St. Anne’s University Hospital in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
- * E-mail:
| | - Aristeidis H. Katsanos
- Second Department of Neurology, “Attikon” Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
- Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
| | - Dimitris Mavridis
- Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
- Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
| | - Nikolaos Grigoriadis
- Second Department of Neurology, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotelion University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece
| | - Efthymios Dardiotis
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece
| | - Ioannis Heliopoulos
- Department of Neurology, Alexandroupolis University Hospital, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece
| | | | - Theodoros Karapanayiotides
- Second Department of Neurology, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotelion University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece
| | - Constantinos Kilidireas
- First Department of Neurology, “Eginition” Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | | | - Konstantinos Voumvourakis
- Second Department of Neurology, “Attikon” Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | | |
Collapse
|