Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 91–108

Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

  • Stephanie R. Earnshaw
  • Jonathan Graham
  • MerriKay Oleen-Burkey
  • Jane Castelli-Haley
  • Kenneth Johnson
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Disease-modifying drugs are a significant expenditure for treating multiple sclerosis. Natalizumab (NZ) has been shown to be effective in reducing relapses and disease progression. However, assessment of the cost effectiveness of NZ compared with other disease-modifying drugs in the presence of long-term data has been limited.

Objective

To assess the lifetime cost effectiveness from the US healthcare and societal perspectives of glatiramer acetate (GA) and NZ (both given with symptom management) relative to symptom management alone in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) using evidence from long-term published studies.

Methods

A Markov model was developed with patients transitioning through health states based on Kurtzke’s expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Patients were ≥18 years of age with RRMS, EDSS <6.0 and receiving treatment. Treatment effects were obtained from clinical trials for years 1 and 2 of therapy and long-term clinical assessments thereafter. Transitions were adjusted for discontinuation and persistent NZ antibodies. Patients incurred drug, other medical and lost worker productivity costs. Patient quality of life was considered in the form of utilities, which were taken from assessments of patients with MS. Costs were valued in 2007 $US, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Various parameters and assumptions were tested in one-way sensitivity analyses, and scenario-based analyses were also performed.

Results

Remaining lifetime, direct medical costs for patients receiving GA or NZ versus symptom management were $US408 000, $US422208 and $US341 436, respectively. Patients receiving GA or NZ benefited from increased years in EDSS 0.0–5.5 (1.18 and 1.09, respectively), years relapse-free (1.30 and 1.18) and QALYs (0.1341 and 0.1332). The incremental cost per QALY for GA or NZ compared with symptom management was $US496 222 and $US606 228, respectively, excluding lost worker productivity costs. GA was associated with a cost saving compared with NZ. The incremental cost per QALY results were sensitive to changes in time horizon, disease progression and drug costs. Improved QALYs for NZ were sensitive to changes in the clinical effect of NZ on disease progression and discontinuation over time.

Conclusions

GA or NZ in RRMS patients is associated with increased benefits compared with symptom management, albeit at higher costs. Although year 1 and 2 disease progression and relapse rates were better for NZ than GA, long-term evidence may show GA to have similar, if not improved, clinical benefit.

References

  1. 1.
    Prescott JD, Factor S, Pill M, et al. Descriptive analysis of the direct medical costs of multiple sclerosis in 2004 using administrative claims in a large nationwide database. J Manag Care Pharm 2007; 13(1): 44–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Multiple Sclerosis Society. National MS Society information sourcebook [online]. Available from URL: http://nationalmssociety.org/sourcebook.asp [Accessed 2007 Nov 1]
  3. 3.
    Mayr WT, Pittock SJ, McClelland RL, et al. Incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1985–2000. Neurology 2003; 61(10): 1373–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noonan CW, Kathman SJ, White MC. Prevalence estimates for MS in the United States and evidence of an increasing trend for women. Neurology 2002; 58(1): 136–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patwardhan MB, Matchar DB, Samsa GP, et al. Cost of multiple sclerosis by level of disability: a review of literature. Mult Scler 2005; 11(2): 232–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, et al. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2000; 6(2): 91–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Brien JA, Ward AJ, Patrick AR, et al. Cost of managing an episode of relapse in multiple sclerosis in the United States. BMC Health Serv Res 2003; 3(1): 17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P, Zaborski J, et al. A prospective study of the financial costs of multiple sclerosis at different stages of the disease. Eur J Neurol 2005; 12(1): 31–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kobelt G, Berg J, Atherly D, et al. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in the United States. Neurology 2006; 66(11): 1696–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lundy J, Craig BM. The use of disease-modifying agents among multiple sclerosis patients enrolled in medicare from 1995 to 2002 and the impact of Medicare Part D: analysis of claims data from the medicare current beneficiary survey. Clin Ther 2006; 28(1): 140–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whetten-Goldstein K, Sloan FA, Goldstein LB, et al. A comprehensive assessment of the cost of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Mult Scler 1998; 4(5): 419–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Fredrikson S. Cost-utility of interferon beta1b in the treatment of patients with active relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Eur J Health Econ 2003; 4(1): 50–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nuijten MJ, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health 2002; 5(1): 44–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iskedjian M, Walker JH, Gray T, et al. Economic evaluation of Avonex (interferon beta-Ia) in patients following a single demyelinating event. Mult Scler 2005; 11(5): 542–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bose U, Ladkani D, Burrell A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis: first estimates. J Med Econ 2001; 4: 207–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, et al. A cost-utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2(4): iii–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Value Health 2004; 7(5): 554–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bell C, Graham J, Earnshaw S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on long-term clinical data. J Manag Care Pharm 2007; 13(3): 245–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, et al., on behalf of the Cost Effectiveness of Multiple Sclerosis Therapies Study Group. Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Br Med J 2003; 326: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sweet BV. Natalizumab update. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007; 64(7): 705–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    RxList.com. Tysabri® (natalizumab) product description [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/tysabri.htm [Accessed 2007 Apr 2]
  22. 22.
    Polman CH, O’Conner PW, Havrdova E, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 899–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gani R, Giovannoni G, Bates D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of natalizumab (Tysabri) compared with other disease-modifying therapies for people with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(7): 617–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biogen Idec. Natalizumab (Tysabri®) for the treatment of adults with highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Biogen Idec single technology appraisal (STA) submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [online]. Available from URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=419040 [Accessed 2007 Apr 11]
  25. 25.
    Tappenden P, Chilcott J, O’Hagan T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of beta interferons and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Final report to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Centre for Bayesian Statistics in Health Economics. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2001 JulGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tappenden P, McCabe C, Simpson E, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of beta interferons and glatiramer acetate in the management of relapsing/remitting and secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis. Report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid on behalf of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2005 DecGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oleen-Burkey M, Kobelt G, Borgstrom F. Costs and quality of life of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis currently on immunomodulatory therapy in the United States [presentation]. International Committee on Databases in Multiple Sclerosis 2003 Conference; 2003 May 30; San Diego (CA)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study: I. Clinical course and disability. Brain 1989; 112(Pt 1): 133–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Runmarker B, Andersen O. Prognostic factors in a multiple sclerosis incidence cohort with twenty-five years of follow-up. Brain 1993; 116(Pt 1): 117–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study: II. Predictive value of the early clinical course. Brain 1989; 112(Pt 6): 1419–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weinshenker BG, Ebers GC. The natural history of multiple sclerosis. Can J Neurol Sci 1987; 14(3): 255–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goodkin DE, Hertsgaard D, Rudick RA. Exacerbation rates and adherence to disease type in a prospectively followed-up population with multiple sclerosis: implications for clinical trials. Arch Neurol 1989; 46(10): 1107–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yousry TA, Major EO, Ryschkewitsch C, et al. Evaluation of patients treated with natalizumab for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 924–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aksamit AJ. Treatment of non-AIDS progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy with cytosine arabinoside. J Neurovirol 2001; 7(4): 386–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, et al. Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis: results of a phase III multi-center, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. The Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology 1995; 45(7): 1268–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ford CC, Johnson KP, Lisak RP, et al. A prospective open-label study of glatiramer acetate: over a decade of continuous use in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler 2006; 12: 309–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lublin FD, Baier M, Cutter G. Effect of relapses on development of residual deficit in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2003; 61: 1528–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gold M, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, et al. Extended use of glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) is well tolerated and maintains its clinical effect on multiple sclerosis relapse rate and degree of disability. Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology 1998; 50(3): 701–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rudick RA, Stuart WH, Calabresi PA, et al. Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2006 Mar 2; 354(9): 911–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Langer-Gould A, Atlas SW, Green AJ, et al. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in a patient treated with natalizumab. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 375–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, Tyler KL. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy complicating treatment with natalizumab and interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 369–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Van Assche G, Van Ranst M, Sciot R, et al. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy after natalizumab therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 362–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price index: all urban consumers (current series) [online]. Available from URL: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu [Accessed 2007 Jun 13]
  45. 45.
    RxList.com. Copaxone (glatiramer acetate) product description [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/glatiramer.htm [Accessed 2007 Apr 2]
  46. 46.
    Red Book for Windows [computer program]. Windows Version 61129, Vol. 44. Montvale (NJ): Thomson PDR, 2007Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Tysabri® risk minimization action plan: summary of TOUCH [online]. Available from URL: http://www/fda/gov/cder/drug/infopage/natalizumab/RiskMAP.pdf [Accessed 2007 Apr 9]
  48. 48.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUPnet [online]. Available from URL: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov [Accessed 2007 May 31]
  49. 49.
    McCormmick M. Infusion billing update: 2006 opportunities to ensure proper reimbursement and program success [online]. Available from URL: http://www.aan.com/professionals/coding/pdfs/aan_infusion_billing_06.pdf [Accessed 2007 Apr 6]
  50. 50.
    Ingenix Inc. The 2007 essential RBRVS: a comprehensive listing of RBRVS values for CPT and HCPCS codes. Salt Lake City (UT): Ingenix, Inc, 2006Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lichtenberg FR. Availability of new drugs and Americans’ ability to work. J Occup Environ Med 2005; 47(4): 373–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lage MJ, Castelli-Haley J, Oleen-Burkey MA. Effect of immunomodulatory therapy and other factors on employment loss time in multiple sclerosis. Work 2006; 27(2): 143–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Employer costs for employee compensation, March 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/home.htm [Accessed 2007 Jun 21]
  54. 54.
    Hoyert DL, Heron MP, Murphy SL, et al. Deaths: final data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 54, no. 13. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2006Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Phadke JG. Survival pattern and cause of death in patients with multiple sclerosis: results from an epidemiological survey in northeast Scotland. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50(5): 523–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weinstein MC. From cost-effectiveness ratios to resource allocation: where to draw the line. In: Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care: costs, benefits, and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and other medical technologies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Eichler H, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004; 7(5): 518–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 332–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Phillips CJ. The cost of multiple sclerosis and the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying agents in its treatment. CNS Drugs 2004; 18(9): 561–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie R. Earnshaw
    • 1
  • Jonathan Graham
    • 1
  • MerriKay Oleen-Burkey
    • 2
  • Jane Castelli-Haley
    • 2
  • Kenneth Johnson
    • 3
  1. 1.RTI Health SolutionsResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Teva Neuroscience, Inc.Kansas CityUSA
  3. 3.Maryland Center for Multiple Sclerosis, School of MedicineUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations