Advertisement

CNS Drugs

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 1145–1157 | Cite as

Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing–Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Utility Analysis

  • Marita Zimmermann
  • Elizabeth Brouwer
  • Jeffrey A. Tice
  • Matt Seidner
  • Anne M. Loos
  • Shanshan Liu
  • Richard H. Chapman
  • Varun Kumar
  • Josh J. Carlson
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Several disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) treat relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Few comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses exist in this area, particularly from a payer perspective, despite rapidly increasing prices of DMTs.

Objective

We aimed to systematically compare cost effectiveness of all relevant DMTs for first-line treatment of RRMS, second-line treatment of RRMS, and first-line treatment of PPMS.

Methods

We used a Markov model with health states based on Expanded Disability Status Score categories. Upon discontinuing first-line treatment, RRMS patients continued to second-line therapy then to supportive care, and PPMS patients moved directly to supportive care. Data was sourced from clinical trials and commercially and publicly available sources. The target population was treatment-naïve adults with RRMS or PPMS. We used a lifetime horizon from a US payer perspective, and compared DMTs for RRMS (first-line: dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, interferon β-1a, interferon β-1b, peginterferon β-1a, teriflunomide, natalizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab; second-line: alemtuzumab, natalizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab), ocrelizumab for PPMS, and supportive care. Outcome measures included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results

For RRMS first-line therapy, ocrelizumab dominated the other DMTs with an ICER of US$166,338/QALY compared with supportive care. For RRMS second-line therapy, alemtuzumab dominated the other three DMTs, providing more QALYs for lower costs. For PPMS, ocrelizumab had an ICER of US$648,799/QALY compared with supportive care. Wide variability in results was observed in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results were sensitive to the relative risk of progression and cost of DMTs.

Conclusions

Ocrelizumab would likely be cost effective as a first-line treatment for RRMS with a discounted price but was not cost effective for PPMS. Alemtuzumab dominated other options for second-line treatment of RRMS. Other DMTs were generally similar in terms of costs and health outcomes, providing health benefits compared to supportive care but with significant added costs. If drug prices were lowered, more DMTs could be cost effective.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, Boston, MA, USA.

Conflicts of interest

Marita Zimmermann served as a consultant to Genentech, and Josh Carlson has been a consultant for Genentech, Bayer, Pfizer, and Sandoz Inc., all of whom manufacture products included in this manuscript. These consultancies were on products unrelated to multiple sclerosis or any of the topics covered in this study. All methods, results, and opinions expressed in this manuscript were not influenced by these consultancies. Elizabeth Brouwer, Jeffrey A. Tice, Matt Seidner, Anne M. Loos, Shanshan Liu, Richard H. Chapman, and Varun Kumar have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

40263_2018_566_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (315 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 314 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ma VY, Chan L, Carruthers KJ. Incidence, prevalence, costs, and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the United States: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pa. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:986–995.e1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piccinni C, Ronconi G, Calabria S, Dondi L, Forcesi E, Rossi E, et al. Healthcare resources utilisation in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Neurol. Sci. 2018;39:1169–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodin DS. The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: insights to disease pathogenesis. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;122:231–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bakalar N. Multiple sclerosis drug doesn’t prevent onset of disability, study finds [Internet]. New York Times. 2012 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/health/research/multiple-sclerosis-drug-doesnt-stop-disability-study-finds.html. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
  5. 5.
    National Multiple Sclerosis Society. FDA approves Ocrevus™ (ocrelizumab) for people with primary progressive MS or relapsing MS—first disease-modifying therapy for primary progressive MS [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. http://www.nationalmssociety.org/About-the-Society/News/FDA-Approves-Ocrevus. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
  6. 6.
    Office of the Attourey General Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Examination of health care cost trends and cost drivers pursuant to G.L. c. 12C, § 17 [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/10/ts/cc-market-101316.pdf. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
  7. 7.
    National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Make MS medications accessible [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jul 18]. https://www.nationalmssociety.org/Treating-MS/Medications/Make-MS-Medications-Accessible. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
  8. 8.
    Agashivala N, Kim E. Cost-effectiveness of early initiation of fingolimod versus delayed initiation after 1 year of intramuscular interferon beta-1a in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2012;34:1583–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chevalier J, Chamoux C, Hammès F, Chicoye A. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a French societal perspective. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0150703.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furneri G, Santoni L, Marchesi C, Iannazzo S, Cortesi P, Piacentini P, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of delayed-release dimethyl-fumarate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. Value Health. 2015;18:A697.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hernandez L, Guo S, Kinter E, Fay M. 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. J Med Econ. 2016;19:684–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maruszczak MJ, Montgomery SM, Griffiths MJS, Bergvall N, Adlard N. Cost-utility of fingolimod compared with dimethyl fumarate in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in England. J Med Econ. 2015;6998:1–24.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mauskopf J, Fay M, Iyer R, Sarda S, Livingston T. Cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. J Med Econ. 2016;6998:1–11.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olsen J, Wiren A. Cost-effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis from a danish perspective. Value Health. 2015;18:A758.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raikou M, Kalogeropoulou M, Rombopoulos G. A cost-effectiveness analysis of fingolimod versus dimethyl fumarate as a second-line disease modifying treatment in patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2015;18:A758.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamamoto D, Campbell JD. Cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: a systematic review of the literature. Autoimmune Dis. 2012;2012:784364.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang X, Hay JW, Niu X. Cost effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate and intramuscular interferon-β1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2015;29:71–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    OmedaRx. Medication Policy Manual, Policy No: dru479, Topic: Ocrevus™, ocrelizumab [Internet]. September. [cited 2018 Jul 18]. http://blue.regence.com/trgmedpol/drugs/dru479.pdf. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
  19. 19.
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Prior authorization and step therapy coverage criteria [Internet]. 2018. https://www.bcbsm.com/content/dam/public/Consumer/Documents/help/documents-forms/pharmacy/prior-authorization-and-step-therapy-guidelines.pdf. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
  20. 20.
    Khan O, Rieckmann P, Boyko A, Selmaj K, Zivadinov R, GALA Study Group. Three times weekly glatiramer acetate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2013;73:705–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hauser SL, Waubant E, Arnold DL, Vollmer T, Antel J, Fox RJ, et al. B-cell depletion with rituximab in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:676–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Palace J, Bregenzer T, Tremlett H, Oger J, Zhu F, Boggild M, et al. UK multiple sclerosis risk-sharing scheme: a new natural history dataset and an improved Markov model. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004073.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koch M, Kingwell E, Rieckmann P, Tremlett H. The natural history of primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2009;73:1996–2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33:1444–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sormani MP, Bonzano L, Roccatagliata L, Mancardi GL, Uccelli A, Bruzzi P. Surrogate endpoints for EDSS worsening in multiple sclerosis. A meta-analytic approach. Neurology. 2010;75:302–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, O’Hagan A, Cooper NJ, Abrams K, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Br Med J. 2003;326:522–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dimethyl fumarate for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA320/documents/multiple-sclerosis-relapsingremitting-dimethylfumarate-evaluation-report2. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
  28. 28.
    Gani R, Giovannoni G, Bates D, Kemball B, Hughes S, Kerrigan J. 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;26:617–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Su W, Kansal A, Vicente C, Deniz B, Sarda S. The cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada. J Med Econ. 2016;3:1–10.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tappenden P, McCabe C, Chilcott J, Simpson E, Nixon R, Madan J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the medicare population. Value Heal. 2009;12:657–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fox RJ, Miller DH, Phillips JT, Hutchinson M, Havrdova E, Kita M, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1087–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Genentech. Data on File.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Giovannoni G, Selmaj K, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1098–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sanofi Genzyme. Data on File.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanofi Genzyme. Teriflunomide US adaptation for AMCP dossiers.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Montalban X, Hauser SL, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, et al. Ocrelizumab versus placebo in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:209–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nickerson M, Cofield SS, Tyry T, Salter AR, Cutter GR, Marrie RA. Impact of multiple sclerosis relapse: the NARCOMS participant perspective. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4:234–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    CDC/NCHS National Vital Statistics System. Life table for the total population: United States, 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_03.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2016.
  39. 39.
    Pokorski RJ. Long-term survival experience of patients with multiple sclerosis. J Insur Med. 1997;29:101–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Patzold U, Pocklington PR. Course of multiple sclerosis. First results of a prospective study carried out of 102 MS patients from 1976–1980. Acta Neurol Scand. 1982;65:248–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Lage MJ, Johnson KP. Burden of a multiple sclerosis relapse. Patient Patient Center Outcomes Res. 2012;5:57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting and Primary-Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Effectiveness and Value [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CTAF_MS_Final_Report_030617.pdf. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.
  43. 43.
    SSR Health. US Brand Rx Net Prices (access restricted document). 2016. https://www.ssrhealth.com/. Accessed 15 Dec 2018.
  44. 44.
    Havrdova E, Arnold DL, Cohen JA, Hartung H-P, Fox EJ, Giovannoni G, et al. Alemtuzumab CARE-MS I 5-year follow-up: durable efficacy in the absence of continuous MS therapy. Neurology. 2017;89:1107–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kobelt G, Berg J, Atherly D, Hadjimichael O. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in the United States. Neurology. 2006;66:1696–702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gajofatto A, Benedetti MD. Treatment strategies for multiple sclerosis: when to start, when to change, when to stop? WJCC. 2015;3:545–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Putzki N, Yaldizli O, Maurer M, Cursiefen S, Kuckert S, Klawe C, et al. Efficacy of natalizumab in second line therapy of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results from a multi-center study in German speaking countries. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17:31–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Overview of the ICER value framework [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ICER-VAF-Update-Proposals-020117.pdf. Accessed 18 Jul 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.University of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical and Economic ReviewBostonUSA
  4. 4.Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  5. 5.Boston Children’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations