Real-world cost of treatment for multiple sclerosis patients initiating and receiving infused disease-modifying therapies per recommended label in the United States.

Aims: The study evaluated the real-world cost of treatment in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients initiating infused disease-modifying-therapies (DMT) in the United States.Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data included adult patients with MS initiating index infusion DMT (ocrelizumab (OCR), natalizumab (NTZ) or alemtuzumab (ATZ)) from April 2017-September 2018 with 6-months pre/12-months post-index continuous enrollment. The primary cohort included patients who had prescribed annual dosing visits indicated by the approved product label (PL): 3 OCR, 5 ATZ, and 12-13 NTZ infusion visits within the first year of initiation. Annual treatment cost was the sum of all costs on index DMT infusion visit dates. Costs were summarized for a primary and secondary cohort of patients receiving additional doses than prescribed in PL (>3 OCR, >5 ATZ, and >13 NTZ infusion visits); and an overall cohort of patients who met minimum required annual dose (≥3 OCR, ≥5 ATZ, and ≥12 NTZ), further stratified by insurance type.Results: For patients in the primary cohort (123 OCR, 18 ATZ, and 48 NTZ), mean (standard-deviation) annual cost of treatment with OCR, ATZ, and NTZ cohorts was $72,066 ($34,480), $121,053 ($51,097) and $93,777 ($38,815), respectively. Among patients initiating OCR and NTZ, 15 and 6% respectively, had additional infusion visits leading to greater costs. Mean annual costs of index infusion DMT treatment in the overall cohort (162 patients treated with OCR, 18 with ATZ, 56 with NTZ) were $80,582, $121,053, and $93,807, respectively. The mean costs for commercial enrollees were higher than those for MAPD enrollees.Limitations: Small sample size, limited population generalizability, and cost-reduction for ATZ beyond the second year need to be accounted for.Conclusions: Real-world infusion DMT treatment costs for commercially insured patients were higher than perceived expenditures based on wholesale acquisition cost and administration costs via a physician-fee schedule. Consideration of real-world costs in cost-effectiveness and treatment/coverage decisions is needed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alemtuzumab in the Treatment of Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab compared with fingolimod, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and generic glatiramer acetate 20 mg among patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Markov model with annual periods from payer perspective. METHODS: The modeled population represented pooled patients from the CARE-MS I and II trials. Therapies' comparative efficacy at reducing relapses and slowing disability worsening was obtained from network meta-analyses. Safety information was extracted from package inserts. Withdrawal rates, treatment waning, resource use, cost, and utility inputs were derived from published studies and clinical expert opinion. To project the natural history of disease worsening, data from the British Columbia cohort was used. RESULTS: Alemtuzumab dominated comparators by accumulating higher total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (8.977) and lower total costs ($421 996) compared with fingolimod (7.955; $1 085 814), natalizumab (8.456; $1 048 599), ocrelizumab (8.478; $908 365), and generic glatiramer acetate (7.845; $895 661) over a 20-year time horizon. Alemtuzumab's dominance was primarily driven by savings in treatment costs because alemtuzumab has long-term duration of response and is initially administered as 2 annual courses, with 36.1% of patients requiring retreatment over 5 years, whereas comparators are used chronically. In model scenarios where alemtuzumab's long-term duration of response was assumed not to hold and therapy had to be administered annually, probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that alemtuzumab remained cost-effective versus ocrelizumab at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY in 74% to 100% of model runs. CONCLUSIONS: Alemtuzumab was a cost-effective therapy. Model results should be used to optimize clinical and managed care decisions for effective RMS treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab and natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Iran: decision analysis based on an indirect comparison.

BACKGROUND: Alemtuzumab and natalizumab are approved as second-line therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients in Iran who have shown an inadequate response to other disease-modifying therapy (DMT). In the absence of head-to-head trials, evaluations based on decision analytic modeling may be a suitable alternative to compare alemtuzumab and natalizumab in RRMS. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab compared with natalizumab in RRMS in Iran, based on an indirect comparison of clinical trial data. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a cohort-based Markov model to analyze cost-utility in a cohort of 1,000 RRMS patients treated with alemtuzumab or natalizumab who had failed at least one previous DMT. Costs were measured in 2018 US Dollars, and were estimated from both the societal and National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective over a 20-year time horizon in Iran. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were carried out to investigate the impact of individual variables on model results. RESULTS: Alemtuzumab dominated natalizumab in both NHS and societal perspective analyses. From the NHS perspective, the total discounted costs per patient were estimated at $147,417 and $150,579 for alemtuzumab and natalizumab, respectively, over 20 years. The discounted quality-adjusted life years were estimated to be 7.07 and 6.05, respectively. Results were similar for the societal perspective analysis. Results were most sensitive to acquisition costs and the time horizon, while no sensitivity was observed for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) health-states utility, relapse relative risk, adverse event or EDSS-related costs, and laboratory/monitoring costs. CONCLUSION: Alemtuzumab was dominant in the treatment of RRMS compared with natalizumab due to lower total cost, greater efficacy and slowing of disease progression, and lower rate of relapses over a 20-year time horizon in Iran. Comparative head-to-head trials and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm these results.

Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta, fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic progressive, demyelinating, inflammatory disease, affects 2.5 million people worldwide. Approximately 63% of cases are classified as relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this cost-utility analysis is to evaluate alemtuzumab vs interferon beta (intramuscular [IM] interferon beta-1a, subcutaneous [SC] interferon beta-1a, SC interferon beta-1b, and SC pegylated interferon beta-1a) in previously treated, and vs SC interferon beta-1a, fingolimod, and natalizumab in untreated RRMS patients to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among the treatment alternatives as prices, the route, and the frequency of administration of considered products vary significantly. METHODS: The primary outcome was the modeled incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; €/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Markov modeling with a 10-year time horizon was carried out. During each 3-month cycle, patients maintained the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score or experienced progression, developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS), or showed EDSS progression in SPMS; experienced relapses; suffered from an adverse event (AE); changed treatment; or died. A published network meta-analysis (NMA) was used for indirect comparison. The possibility of a therapy switch was considered. Clinical input data and resource utilization data were derived from the literature. Costs were extracted from price lists published in Austria and were calculated from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: In treatment naïve patients, alemtuzumab is associated with costs of €132,663 and 5.25 QALYs in a 10-year time horizon. Costs for SC interferon beta amount to €164,159 and generate 4.85 QALYs. Also, in the pre-treated patients, alemtuzumab dominated comparators by accumulating higher total QALYs (4.88) and lower total costs (€137.409) compared to interferon beta-1a (€200.133), fingolimod (€240.903), and natalizumab (€247.758). CONCLUSION: The analysis shows that alemtuzumab is a cost-saving alternative to treat RRMS in pre-treated and therapy naïve patients. From the patient perspective, alemtuzumab improves quality-of-life.

When does economic model type become a decisive factor in health technology appraisals? Learning from the expanding treatment options for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: Specific economic model types often become de facto standard for health technology appraisal over time. Markov and discrete event simulation (DES) models were compared to investigate the impact of innovative modeling on the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Fingolimod was compared to dimethyl fumarate (DMF; in highly active [HA] RRMS), alemtuzumab (in HA RRMS) and natalizumab (in rapidly evolving severe RRMS). Comparator DMTs were chosen to reflect different dosing regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Markov and DES models used have been published previously. Inputs were aligned in all relevant respects, with differences in the modeling of event-triggered attributes, such as relapse-related retreatment, which is inherently difficult with a memoryless Markov approach. Outcomes were compared, with and without different attributes. RESULTS: All results used list prices. For fingolimod and DMF, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were comparable (Markov: £4206/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained versus DES: £3910/QALY gained). Deviations were observed when long-term adverse events (AEs) were incorporated in the DES (Markov: £25,412 saved/QALY lost, versus DES: £34,209 saved/QALY lost, fingolimod versus natalizumab; higher ICERs indicate greater cost-effectiveness). For fingolimod versus alemtuzumab, when relapse-triggered retreatment was included in the DES, large cost differences were observed (difference between incremental cost is £35,410 and QALY is 0.10). LIMITATIONS: UK payer perspective, therefore societal approach was not considered. Resource utilization and utilities for both models were not derived from the subpopulations; as the focus is on model type, input limitations that apply to both models are less relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst no model can fully represent a disease, a DES allows an opportunity to include features excluded in a Markov structure. A DES may be more suitable for modeling in RRMS for health technology assessment purposes given the complexity of some DMTs. This analysis highlights the capabilities of different model structures to model event-triggered attributes.

Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets, alemtuzumab, and natalizumab in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in England.

AIMS: Cladribine tablets were the first oral short-course treatment approved for highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). The Association of British Neurologists guidelines currently recommend two infusion therapies, alemtuzumab and natalizumab, to treat high disease activity relapsing remitting MS (HDA-RRMS). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets in HDA-RRMS compared with alemtuzumab and natalizumab, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model with 11 health states (10 Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] plus death) was developed. Transition matrices from the British Columbia registry were used to model the natural history of EDSS. The treatment effect on EDSS was modelled using hazard ratios for 6-month confirmed disability progression from an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Relapses and drug-related adverse events were modeled via annualized relapse rates and event probabilities, with associated costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) losses. Utilities were derived from trials and the literature, and costs from NHS and literature sources. Uncertainty was assessed via probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Cladribine tablets were dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) vs alemtuzumab and natalizumab in pairwise comparisons, and the dominant strategy in fully incremental analyses. Incremental cost was driven largely by drug acquisition and administration costs, and incremental QALY gain largely by differences in delayed EDSS progression. Cladribine tablets had a 93% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained, and remained dominant across the scenario analyses tested. The greatest influence on results was the treatment effect on disability progression derived from the ITC. LIMITATIONS: Uncertainty over the efficacy of DMT beyond trial durations. In line with other comparative effectiveness analyses, the network meta-analysis informing this cost-effectiveness analysis was associated with a degree of uncertainty. No treatment switching analyses were undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective alternative to alemtuzumab and natalizumab in the treatment of HDA-RRMS from the perspective of the NHS in England.

Costs and effectiveness of fingolimod versus alemtuzumab in the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK: re-treatment, discount, and disutility.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with disease modifying therapies (DMTs) who continue to experience disease activity may be considered for escalation therapies such as fingolimod, or may be considered for alemtuzumab. Previous economic modeling used Markov models; applying one alternative technique, discrete event simulation (DES) modeling, allows re-treatment and long-term adverse events (AEs) to be included in the analysis. METHODS: A DES was adapted to model relapse-triggered re-treatment with alemtuzumab and the effect of including ongoing quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements for AEs that extend beyond previous 1-year Markov cycles. As the price to the NHS of fingolimod in the UK is unknown, due to a confidential patient access scheme (PAS), a variety of possible discounts were tested. The interaction of re-treatment assumptions for alemtuzumab with the possible discounts for fingolimod was tested to determine which DMT resulted in lower lifetime costs. The lifetime QALY results were derived from modeled treatment effect and short- and long-term AEs. RESULTS: Most permutations of fingolimod PAS discount and alemtuzumab re-treatment rate resulted in fingolimod being less costly than alemtuzumab. As the percentage of patients who are re-treated with alemtuzumab due to experiencing a relapse approaches 100% of those who relapse whilst on treatment, the discount required for fingolimod to be less costly drops below 5%. Consideration of treatment effect alone found alemtuzumab generated 0.2 more QALYs/patient; the inclusion of AEs up to a duration of 1 year reduced this advantage to only 0.14 QALYs/patient. Modeling AEs with a lifetime QALY decrement found that both DMTs generated very similar QALYs with the difference only 0.04 QALYs/patient. CONCLUSIONS: When the model captured alemtuzumab re-treatment and long-term AE decrements, it was found that fingolimod is cost-effective compared to alemtuzumab, assuming application of only a modest level of confidential PAS discount.

Cost-Effectiveness of Peginterferon Beta-1a and Alemtuzumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system, affecting 2.5 million people globally and 400,000 people in the United States. While no cure exists for MS, the goal is to manage the disease using disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), which have been shown to slow disease progression and prevent relapses. Relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) is the most common form of MS at the time of diagnosis. Peginterferon beta-1a (PEG) and alemtuzumab (ALT) were recently approved and have demonstrated good clinical outcomes, including reduced relapse rates in clinical trials. High costs associated with these DMTs necessitates cost-effectiveness analyses to understand their overall value in RRMS management. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of (a) Model 1: PEG relative to intramuscular interferon beta-1a (IM IFN), subcutaneous interferon beta-1b (SC IFN), glatiramer acetate 20 mg per mL (GA), fingolimod (FIN), natalizumab (NAT), and dimethyl fumarate (DMF), and (b) Model 2: ALT relative to subcutaneous interferon beta-1a 44 µg (IFN beta-1a 44 µg). Both analyses were conducted from a U.S. third-party payer perspective. METHODS: Two static decision models were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of PEG and ALT over a 1-year and a 2-year time horizon, respectively. Model inputs were drug acquisition costs (wholesale acquisition cost from RED BOOK); drug administration and monitoring costs (package inserts and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2015 Physician Fee Schedule); relapse rates and relapse rate reduction (clinical trials); and cost of managing relapses (published literature). All costs were adjusted to 2015 U.S. dollars using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index. Outcomes measured were total cost of therapy per patient, cost per relapse avoided, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) calculated as cost per relapse avoided. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test model robustness given the uncertainty of model inputs and study assumptions. RESULTS: Model 1 results showed that PEG dominated IM IFN and GA, compared with SC IFN; PEG had an ICER of $1,978,000 per relapse avoided. Compared with FIN, NAT, and DMF, PEG was less expensive and less effective. Model 2 showed that ALT had an ICER of $25,276 per relapse avoided relative to IFN beta-1a 44 µg. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RRMS, PEG is a viable alternative when compared with the DMTs in our model. Deciding whether to choose PEG over other DMTs would depend on multiple factors. On the other hand, ALT had an ICER of $25,276 cost per relapse avoided relative to IFN beta-1a 44 µg. The study results will assist payers in evaluating different medication choices for effective therapy. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Kamal has received research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists and also serves as a consultant for the Lynx Group. Dashputre and Pawar report no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Dashputre, along with Kamal and Pawar. Dashputre took the lead in data collection, along with Kamal, and data analysis was performed by Dashputre, Kamal, and Pawar. The manuscript was written and revised primarily by Dashputre, along with Kamal and Pawar.

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for treatment relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different disease-modifying therapies' strategies for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for different strategies of using disease-modifying therapies from a US third-party payer perspective. All costs were converted to 2014 US$. RESULTS: Over 20 years, the total costs per patient were estimated at US$161,136.60 for Strategy 1 (symptom management [SM] alone), US$551,650.66 for Strategy 2 (SM and IFN-ß-1a), US$703,463.60 for Strategy 3 (SM and natalizumab) and US$670,985.24 for Strategy 4 (SM and alemtuzumab). The accumulated quality-adjusted life years were 10.49, 10.66, 10.69 and 10.71 for each of the four Strategies 1-4, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 2,297,141.53 comparing Strategy 2 to Strategy 1, and -1,623,918.00 comparing Strategy 4 to Strategy 3. CONCLUSION: Strategy 1 was the cost-effective strategy for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis when compared with other strategies.