RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to describe the real-word treatment and associated healthcare resource use (HCRU) of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, as stratified by different MS subtypes. METHODS: All patients with MS continuously insured by two German statutory healthcare insurance funds from 2011 to 2015 were enrolled. These patients were categorized into four subgroups according to their MS type as follows: clinically isolated syndrome (CIS); relapsing remittent MS (RRMS); primary progressive MS (PPMS); and secondary progressive MS (SPMS). Sociodemographic characteristics, treatments, and HCRU for 2015 were analyzed. Treatment cascades for treatment-naïve patients were also determined. RESULTS: A total of 13,333 patients with MS were identified. The largest proportion of patients had RRMS (41.9%), followed by PPMS (17.1%). Mean age of the enrolled patients was 50.2 years, and 70.7% were female. Among all patients, 38.3% of those with CIS, 22.4% with PPMS, 69.6% with RRMS, and 33.9% with SPMS received a prescription of a disease-modifying immunomodulatory agent, with interferon beta-1a being the most frequently prescribed agent. Likewise, 14.5, 18.5, 19.9, and 21.5% of patients with CIS, PPMS, RRMS, and SPMS, respectively, received a flare-up treatment with glucocorticoids. MS-associated overall costs, including indirect costs for MS-associated days absent from work, were 16,433, with costs related to MS medication ( 8770; 53.4%) being the main driver of costs in all subgroups. MS-associated costs according to MS subtypes were 12,427 for CIS patients, 14,459 for PPMS patients, 20,583 for RRMS patients, and 17,554 for SPMS patients. CONCLUSION: Among the four MS subtypes, RRMS patients most often received a disease-modifying immunomodulatory treatment. Consequently, healthcare costs were highest for patients with this MS subtype. Contrary to the treatment guideline, a substantial percentage of patients with CIS, RRMS, and SPMS did not receive any disease-modifying immunomodulatory treatment.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The present health economic analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness-ratios of either (1) rituximab or (2) an alternative TNF-alpha-inhibiting agent as second line biological treatment in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to etanercept therapy. METHODS: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by rituximab treatment of RA is compared to TNF-inhibitor change (standard sequence) in a Markov-model (perspective: health care payer, full life-time approach). Direct cost components taken into account were treatment costs (medication-, administration- and monitoring costs) and resource utilisation (outpatient costs, inpatient costs). Indirect costs were estimated separately by the assessment of impaired work capacity due to RA (2008 Euro currency, discount rate 3.5%). Utility measures for the different treatment options were obtained from the ACR-response rates of published pivotal clinical trials. RESULTS: Direct costs amount to euro 178,373 (standard sequence) and euro 192,295 (rituximab sequence), respectively, rendering incremental direct costs of euro 13,922. Incremental utilities yield 0.57 QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness-ratio (ICER) of rituximab compared to the standard sequence amounts to euro 24,517. Inclusion of indirect costs leads to less incremental costs and a lower ICER of euro 15,565/QALY. Thus, ICERs stay beneath the accepted threshold of euro 50,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Rituximab appears to be a cost-effective treatment alternative compared to the switch between TNF-inhibitors as second line biological treatment in patients with active RA having failed etanercept.
