Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom.

AIM: To evaluate the real-world comparative effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness, from a UK National Health Service perspective, of natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RES-RRMS). METHODS: Real-world data from the MSBase Registry were obtained for patients with RES-RRMS who were previously either naive to disease-modifying therapies or had been treated with interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide (collectively known as BRACETD). Matched cohorts were selected by 3-way multinomial propensity score matching, and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M) were compared between treatment groups. Comparative effectiveness results were used in a cost-effectiveness model comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, using an established Markov structure over a lifetime horizon with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Additional model data sources included the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available sources. RESULTS: In the comparative effectiveness analysis, we found a significantly lower ARR for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (rate ratio [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.73) or BRACETD (RR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). Similarly, CDI6M was higher for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55) and BRACETD (HR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85). In patients starting fingolimod, we found a lower ARR (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80) compared with starting BRACETD, but no difference in CDI6M (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Differences in CDW6M were not found between the treatment groups. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, natalizumab dominated fingolimod (0.302 higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and £17,141 lower predicted lifetime costs). Similar cost-effectiveness results were observed across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This MSBase Registry analysis suggests that natalizumab improves clinical outcomes when compared with fingolimod, which translates to higher QALYs and lower costs in UK patients with RES-RRMS.

There are several medications used to treat people with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, such as interferon-based therapies (Betaferon/Betaseron (US), Rebif, Avonex, Extavia), glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), teriflunomide (Aubagio), and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), collectively named BRACETD. Other treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) have a narrower use, such as natalizumab (Tysabri) or fingolimod (Gilenya), among others.This study objective was to assess how well natalizumab and fingolimod helped treating MS (clinical effectiveness) and subsequently estimate what the cost of these treatments is in comparison to the benefit they bring to people with rapidly evolving severe MS that use them in the United Kingdom (UK) (cost-effectiveness).We used an international disease registry (MSBase), which collects clinical data from people with MS in various centers around the world to compare the effectiveness of natalizumab, fingolimod and BRACETD treatments. We used a technique called propensity score matching to obtain results from comparable patient groups. People treated with natalizumab had better disease control, namely with fewer relapses and higher improvement on their disability level, than patients on fingolimod or BRACETD. Conversely, there were no differences between each group of people on a measure called disability worsening.Based on these clinical results, we built an economic model that simulates the lifetime costs and consequences of treating people with MS with natalizumab in comparison with fingolimod. We found that using natalizumab was less costly and was more effective compared to using fingolimod in UK patients.

Why physicians need to look more closely at the use of complementary and alternative medicine by multiple sclerosis patients.

With the aim of contributing to the knowledge of attitudes, patterns and motivations for the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for multiple sclerosis (MS), 109 MS outpatients, or their close relative in cases of mental status impairment, were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. The main results are: (i). 35.7% used at least one CAM at least once; (ii). homeopathy and diets were the most common; (iii). 39.4% showed a positive attitude towards CAM; (iv). a perceived benefit was recorded in 61.5% of cases; (v). the referral source was a physician in only 12.8% of cases; (vi). caring neurologist was not consulted in 82% and generalist was not consulted in 67% of cases; (vii). of 61 CAM interventions, 21 were expected to be disease-modifying and 40 symptomatic; (viii). CAM negatively influenced compliance with conventional medical management in very few cases (2/39); (ix). a higher expanded disability status scale (EDSS) was observed in CAM users; and (x). in those who used CAM during last 3 years (21.1%), the approximate mean cost per year per person was 483 euro. In Italy, the use of CAM in MS is widespread but costly. This study has provided further baseline data on which to assess trends in CAM use and has highlighted issues for patients and conventional doctors about the use of CAM to deal with health problems. More research into the implications of concurrent use of CAM with conventional medicine on public health care is required.