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.

The clinical and cost impact of switching to fingolimod versus other first line injectable disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness and healthcare costs of switching to fingolimod versus another first line injectable therapy (FLIT) in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) who have already been treated with FLIT. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to assess the annualized relapse rate (ARR), socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, persistence and adherence rates, healthcare resource utilization and cost among patients with RMS who either switch to fingolimod or another FLIT in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A multicenter, observational, retrospective chart review was conducted across eight clinics in Canada between 1 May 2011 and 30 June 2013. The data was collected from two cohorts: patients who switched to fingolimod and patients who switched to FLIT from a previous FLIT. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A total of 124 patients were included in the study: 82 and 42 switched to fingolimod and FLIT, respectively. There were no significant differences in the patient characteristics at the date of switch except for number of previous disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) which was higher in the fingolimod cohort (fingolimod: 1.52; FLIT: 1.10, p < .001). The ARR during the first year of switching was numerically higher in the FLIT cohort compared to the fingolimod cohort (FLIT: 0.9 [95% CI 0.3-1.6]; fingolimod: 0.3 [95% CI 0.1-0.5]). The negative binomial model adjusted for the number of previous DMTs confirmed a statistically significant difference in ARR between the fingolimod and FLIT cohorts at 12 months of follow-up (p = .012). In the fingolimod cohort, 20.7% of patients experienced at least one relapse compared to 38.1% in the FLIT cohort. In both groups, a high proportion of patients (>90%) showed good treatment adherence (≥80% of prescribed doses).