Cost-consequence analysis of ofatumumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada.

Aim: The costs and consequences of initial and delayed ofatumumab treatment were evaluated in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with active disease in Canada. Materials & methods: A Markov cohort model was used (10-year horizon, annual cycle length, 1.5% discounting). Scenario analyses examined ofatumumab as first-line treatment versus 3 and 5 years following switch from commonly used first-line therapies. Results: Ofatumumab resulted in improvements in clinical outcomes (relapses and disease progression) and productivity (employment and full-time work), and reduction of economic burden (administration, monitoring and non-drug costs) that were comparable to other high-efficacy therapies (ocrelizumab, cladribine and natalizumab). Switching to ofatumumab earlier in the disease course may improve these outcomes. Conclusion: Results highlight the value of a high-efficacy therapy such as ofatumumab as initial treatment (i.e., first-line) in newly diagnosed relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients with active disease.

Evaluating the impact of early vs delayed ofatumumab initiation and estimating the long-term outcomes of ofatumumab vs teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of early (at first-line) vs delayed (3-year delay) ofatumumab initiation and long-term clinical, societal, and economic outcomes of ofatumumab vs teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) patients from a Spanish societal perspective. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis was conducted using an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)-based Markov model. Inputs were sourced from ASCLEPIOS I and II trials and published literature. RESULTS: At the end of 10 years, compared with first-line teriflunomide treatment, early first-line ofatumumab initiation was projected to result in 35.6% fewer patients progressing to EDSS ≥ 7 and 27.8% fewer relapses. The ofatumumab cohort required 7.3% reduced informal care time and had 19% fewer disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) than the teriflunomide cohort. A 3-year delay in ofatumumab treatment (3-year teriflunomide + 7-year ofatumumab) was projected to result in 32.2% more patients progressing to EDSS ≥ 7, 20.2% more relapses, 5.4% increased informal care time, and 16.6% more DALYs compared with early ofatumumab initiation. Early ofatumumab initiation was associated with total annual cost savings (excluding disease-modifying-therapies' acquisition costs) of €35,328 ($34,549; conversion factor 1€= $1.02255) and €24,373 ($23,836) per patient vs teriflunomide and 3-year delayed ofatumumab initiation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the benefits of early initiation of high-efficacy therapy such as ofatumumab vs its delayed initiation for improving the outcomes in RMS patients (having characteristics similar to those of patients included in the ASCLEPIOS trials). Ofatumumab treatment was projected to provide improved long-term clinical, societal, and economic outcomes vs teriflunomide treatment in RMS patients from a Spanish societal perspective.

The therapeutic benefits of ofatumumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) patients have been reported in the ASCLEPIOS I and II trials. Using an Expanded Disability Status Scale-based Markov model, this study aimed to assess the impact of early (i.e. at first-line, as the first treatment after diagnosis) vs delayed (i.e. 3-year delay) ofatumumab initiation in RMS patients from a Spanish societal perspective. In addition, the long-term clinical, societal, and economic outcomes of ofatumumab vs teriflunomide treatment were assessed. Evidence from this study suggests that early initiation of a high-efficacy therapy such as ofatumumab, compared with its delayed initiation, is an effective and cost-saving strategy for improving outcomes in RMS patients. Furthermore, patients receiving ofatumumab for 10 years are projected to experience comparatively better outcomes (clinical, societal, and economic) than those receiving teriflunomide.

Comparing the long-term clinical and economic impact of ofatumumab versus dimethyl fumarate and glatiramer acetate in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: A cost-consequence analysis from a societal perspective in Germany.

Background: Evidence suggests that early highly efficacious therapy in relapsing multiple sclerosis is superior to escalation strategies. Objective: A cost-consequence analysis simulated different treatment scenarios with ofatumumab (OMB), dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and glatiramer acetate (GA): immediate OMB initiation as first treatment, early switch to OMB after 1 year on DMF/GA, late switch after 5 years or no switch. Methods: An EDSS-based Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was applied. Cycle transitions included EDSS progression, improvement or stabilization, treatment discontinuation, relapse or death. Input data were extracted from OMB trials, a network meta-analysis, published literature, and publicly available sources. Results: The late switch compared to the immediate OMB scenario resulted in a lower proportion of patients with EDSS 0-3 (Δ - 7.5% DMF; Δ - 10.3% GA), more relapses (Δ + 0.72 DMF; Δ + 1.23 GA) and lower employment rates (Δ - 4.0% DMF; Δ - 5.6% GA). The same applies to late versus early switches. No switch scenarios resulted in worse outcomes. Higher drug acquisition costs in the immediate OMB and early switch scenarios were almost compensated by lower costs for patient care and productivity loss. Conclusion: Immediate OMB treatment and an early switch improves clinical and productivity outcomes while remaining almost cost neutral compared to late or no switches.

Cost Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Siponimod Compared to Interferon Beta-1a in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis with Active Disease in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to evaluate the cost effectiveness and budget impact of siponimod compared to interferon beta-1a for adult patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) with active disease, from a Swiss health insurance perspective. METHODS: We conducted an analysis using a Markov cohort model with a cycle length of 1 year, life-long time horizon, and discount rate of 3% for cost and health outcomes. We used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison to estimate clinical outcomes using data from the EXPAND randomised controlled trial of siponimod vs placebo and the Nordic SPMS randomised controlled trial of interferon beta-1a vs placebo as the basis for estimates of disability progression and relapse outcomes. We used 6-month confirmed disability progression results to estimate disability progression in the base-case analysis. We calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on an external study that administered the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire to European patients with multiple sclerosis. We included costs (Swiss Franc (CHF), year 2020) of drug acquisition/administration, adverse events and disease management. We also performed a budget impact analysis to estimate the cost over the first 3 years of introducing siponimod. RESULTS: For the base case, siponimod resulted in mean incremental costs of CHF 84,901 (siponimod: CHF 567,838, interferon beta-1a: CHF 482,937) and mean incremental QALYs of 1.591 (siponimod: 7.495, interferon beta-1a: 5.905), leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 53,364 per QALY gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of the cost effectiveness of siponimod assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY gained was 90%. Siponimod was projected to result in drug administration costs for siponimod of CHF 23,817,856 in the first 3 years after introduction, accompanied by large cost offsets in drug acquisition of other multiple sclerosis drugs. Considering drug administration, monitoring and adverse event management costs, it was estimated to result in additional healthcare costs in Switzerland of CHF 2,177,021. CONCLUSIONS: In the base-case analysis, we found that siponimod may be cost effective for treating Swiss adult patients with SPMS with active disease. The results of the cost-effectiveness analyses are valid under the assumption that the efficacy of siponimod and the comparators on disability progression for the overall SPMS population would be the same in the active SPMS population. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT01665144. This economic evaluation was based on the EXPAND trial.

Cost-Effectiveness of Erenumab for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine in Patients with Prior Treatment Failures in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological disease that disproportionately affects females and has a peak incidence during productive years, resulting in significant burden. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the cost effectiveness of erenumab for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: A hybrid decision-tree plus Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of erenumab as a migraine treatment compared with best supportive care only for patients experiencing at least 4 monthly migraine days for whom at least two prior preventive treatments had failed. Clinical efficacy data were based on results from four randomized controlled trials of erenumab against placebo. The primary outcomes were costs, migraine days, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated as the cost per QALY gained. The cost per migraine day avoided was also estimated, as were disaggregated direct and indirect costs. The analysis was conducted from Swedish societal and healthcare system perspectives based on total migraine, chronic migraine and episodic migraine populations, using a discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and health benefits and using year 2019 values. RESULTS: In the base-case deterministic analyses, erenumab treatment resulted in ICERs of Swedish krona (SEK) 34,696 (€3310) and SEK301,565 (€28,769) per QALY gained in the total migraine and episodic migraine populations, respectively. Erenumab was dominant in the chronic migraine population. In the total migraine population, the use of erenumab resulted in a net benefit to society of SEK81,739 (€7773) per patient, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK300,000 (€28,528) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that erenumab is a cost-effective treatment for migraine with a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK300,000 per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon-ß1a for the treatment of pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis in Canada.

AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon (IFN)-ß1a at a dose of 30 µg per week for the treatment of relapsing pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) in Canada. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A discrete-time Markov model was developed to compare fingolimod with IFN ß-1a over a time horizon of two years representing patients followed up to mean age of 18 years from a Canadian health care system perspective. Twenty-one health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) were considered: EDSS 0‒9 for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), EDSS 0‒9 for secondary progressive MS, and "Death." Relative treatment efficacy for fingolimod versus IFN-ß1a was estimated from the PARADIGMS study. Costs and resource use were obtained from published literature and Canadian sources. Utilities were estimated by mapping the Pediatric Quality of Life inventory data onto the Child Health Utility Index-9 Dimension using a published mapping algorithm. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 1.5% per annum. RESULTS: Compared with IFN ß-1a, fingolimod led to an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.125) with incremental costs (Canadian dollars [CAD] 2,977) and to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 23,886/QALY over a time horizon of two years representing patients followed up to mean age of 18 years. The monetary benefits of fingolimod treatment versus IFN ß-1a at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50,000 per QALY gained were higher than the costs. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) both confirmed the robustness of the results. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of this analysis primarily stem from the limited data availability in POMS. CONCLUSIONS: Fingolimod is cost effective compared with IFN ß-1a for the treatment of POMS over a time horizon of two years representing patients followed up to a mean age of 18 years in Canada.

Economic evaluations in migraine: systematic literature review and a novel approach.

Background: For novel migraine therapies, economic evaluations will be required to understand the trade-offs between additional health benefit and additional cost. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify previous economic evaluations in migraine from the United Kingdom or Irish perspective to critically appraise these evaluations and to propose, if necessary, a novel modelling approach that can be used for future economic evaluations of migraine therapies.Methods: An SLR was conducted to identify previous economic evaluations of preventive migraine treatments. Key opinion leaders were consulted to determine the criteria for a robust migraine economic evaluation. Economic evaluations identified in the SLR were appraised against these criteria, and a novel cost-effectiveness model structure was then proposed.Results: Eight records reporting on published economic evaluations were identified and critically appraised for general quality. Expert consultation provided 6 recommendations on the ideal model structure for migraine that is both clinically and economically meaningful. A decision-tree plus Markov structure was then developed as a cost-effectiveness model for migraine therapies where each health state is associated with a patient distribution across monthly migraine day (MMD) frequencies.Conclusions: Future migraine economic evaluations should allow for assessments across the full spectrum of migraine, a response-based stopping rule, and the estimation of benefits and resource costs based on MMD frequency. The approach proposed in this paper captures all of the desired elements for an economic evaluation of migraine therapy and is suitable to assess new migraine therapies.

Cost Effectiveness of Midostaurin in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed FLT3-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of midostaurin + cytarabine + daunorubicin (midostaurin arm) versus placebo + cytarabine + daunorubicin (placebo arm) in the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are eligible for standard cytarabine + daunorubicin chemotherapy, from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A lifetime partitioned survival model with four health states (active disease, complete remission [CR], relapse, and death) was constructed. Efficacy inputs (time to CR or death, time to relapse or death, and overall survival) were estimated using data from the RATIFY trial (NCT00651261). Costs (inflated to 2016 US dollars) included treatment, drug monitoring, stem cell transplantation (SCT), adverse events costs, and medical costs associated with health states. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY) gained were estimated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (and PSA) were performed to assess model robustness. RESULTS: In the base case, patients in the midostaurin arm incurred higher total direct costs over a lifetime compared with the placebo arm ($4,043,470 vs. $3,959,741), resulting in an incremental cost of $83,729; however, the midostaurin arm had better effectiveness, with 1.59 more LYs and 1.37 more QALYs. These led to a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,596 per LY, or $61,167 per QALY. Results were robust in the DSA. In the PSA, the probability of the midostaurin arm being cost-effective compared with the placebo arm was 65.9%, at a willingness to pay of $150,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that midostaurin is a cost-effective treatment for adult patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML, from a US third-party payer perspective.