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.

Individualized quality of life of severely affected multiple sclerosis patients: practicability and value in comparison with standard inventories.

PURPOSE: Individualized quality of life (QoL) measures differ from traditional inventories in that QoL domains/weights are not predetermined, but identified by the individual. We assessed practicability of the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual QoL-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) interview in severely affected multiple sclerosis (MS) patients; the key QoL dimensions identified; and the correlation of the SEIQoL-DW index score with standard patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: Participants were people with severe MS who performed the baseline visit of the PeNSAMI trial (ISRCTN73082124). The SEIQoL-DW was administered at the patient's home by a trained examiner. Patients then received the following PROMs: the Core-Palliative care Outcome Scale (Core-POS), the Palliative care Outcome Scale-Symptoms-MS (POS-S-MS), the European Quality of Life Five Dimensions-3L (EQ-5D-3L), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Of 59 enrolled patients, 11 (19 %) did not receive the SEIQoL-DW (and the other PROMs) because of severe cognitive compromise or inability to communicate. SEIQoL-DW administration was completed and deemed valid in all 48 cases (mean age 60 years, 58 % women, median Expanded Disability Status Scale score 8.5). Mean SEIQoL-DW index score was 59.1 (SD 25.5). The most commonly nominated SEIQoL-DW areas were family (94 % of the patients), relationships, and leisure activities (both 65 %). Core-POS and POS-S-MS contained 70 % of the SEIQoL-DW-nominated areas. Nevertheless, correlations between SEIQoL-DW index, Core-POS, and POS-S-MS (and the other PROMs) were negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized QoL can be assessed in severely affected MS patients, providing information that is not tracked by the standard inventories Core-POS, POS-S-MS, EQ-5D-3L, and HADS.

Cardiovascular and biochemical assessment in migraine patients submitted to tilt test.

Ten migraine patients underwent a tilt test both during migraine attack and headache-free interval, and the following parameters were assessed: plasma levels of norepinephrine (NE), and serum dopamine beta hydroxylase (D beta H), systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate (SBP, DBP, HR). SBP during the tilt test showed a fall greater than 30 mmHg in 2 cases in the headache-free interval and in 4 cases during migraine attack. In migraine patients in headache-free interval, tilt test increased NE and D beta H as it did in the control group, while in migraine attack tilt test increased NE and D beta H less than in the control group. This impairment of the sympathetic nervous system during the migraine attack is discussed.