Impacto económico de las nuevas terapias orales en esclerosis múltiple / Economic impact of the new oral treatments for multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCCIÓN: La esclerosis múltiple (EM) es una enfermedad crónica del sistema nervioso central que se caracteriza por la existencia de inflamación, desmielinización, gliosis y daño axonal. La introducción de dimetilfumarato y teriflunomida ha supuesto un aumento de las alternativas terapéuticas en la primera línea de tratamiento de la EM. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el impacto económico de la incorporación de estas nuevas terapias orales en la Unidad de Referencia (CSUR) del Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo en la población de pacientes diagnosticados de EM, en tratamiento con fármacos modificadores de la enfermedad durante el año 2015, y su seguimiento se prolongó hasta obtener un seguimiento medio superior a un año de tratamiento. Los datos se recogieron de la historia clínica electrónica y del programa de dispensación de medicamentos a pacientes externos y ambulantes del Servicio de Farmacia. RESULTADOS: Evaluando el coste del cambio del tratamiento en 125 pacientes desde otros fármacos a dimetilfumarato o teriflunomida y comparando con el coste que habría supuesto el mantenimiento de los tratamientos previos, el ahorro total durante el periodo de observación fue de 169.107,31 (Euro). CONCLUSIONES: Dimetilfumarato y teriflunomida, además de aportar nuevas alternativas terapéuticas, no solo no han supuesto un incremento sino, por el contrario, una disminución en los costes del tratamiento de la EM en nuestro hospital

INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease affecting the central nervous system and is characterised by inflammation, demyelination, gliosis, and axonal damage. The introduction of dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide has led to an increase in the number of alternative first-line therapies for MS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the incorporation of new oral therapies at the reference unit (CSUR) at Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study including patients diagnosed with MS, who underwent treatment with disease-modifying drugs in 2015 and were followed up for a minimum mean time of one year. Data were collected from patients' electronic clinical histories and the pharmacy service's programme for dispensing drugs to outpatients. RESULTS: Evaluating the cost of changing 125 patients' treatment from other drugs to dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide, and comparing this with the cost that would have resulted from maintaining their previous treatment, demonstrated a total saving of (Euro)169,107.31 over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to contributing new therapeutic alternatives, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide produced an economic saving in MS treatment at our hospital

The fiscal consequences of public health investments in disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis in Sweden.

Background and aims: The economic consequences of multiple sclerosis (MS) are broader than those observed within the health system. The progressive nature suggests that people will not be able to live a normal productive life and will gradually require public benefits to maintain living standards. This study investigates the public economic impact of MS and how investments in disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) influence the lifetime costs to government attributed to changes in lifetime tax revenue and disability benefits based on improved health status linked to delayed disease progression.Methods: Disease progression rates from previous MS Markov cohort models were applied to interferon beta-1a, peginterferon beta-1a, dimethyl fumarate, and natalizumab using a public economic framework. The established relationship between expanded disability status scale and work-force participation, annual earnings, and disability rates for each DMT were applied. Subsequently, we assessed the effect of DMTs on discounted governmental costs consisting of health service costs, social insurance and disability costs, and changes in lifetime tax revenues.Results: Fiscal benefits attributed to informal care and community services savings for interferon beta-1a, peginterferon beta-1a, dimethyl fumarate, and natalizumab were SEK340,387, SEK486,837, SEK257,330, and SEK958,852 compared to placebo, respectively. Tax revenue gains linked to changes in lifetime productivity for interferon beta-1a, peginterferon beta-1a, dimethyl fumarate, and natalizumab were estimated to be SEK27,474, SEK39,659, SEK21,661, and SEK75,809, with combined fiscal benefits of cost savings and tax revenue increases of SEK410,039, SEK596,592, SEK326,939, and SEK1,208,023, respectively.Conclusion: The analysis described here illustrates the broader public economic benefits for government attributed to changes in disease status. The lifetime social insurance transfer costs were highest in non-treated patients, and lower social insurance costs were demonstrated with DMTs. These findings suggest that focusing cost-effectiveness analysis only on health costs will likely underestimate the value of DMTs.

When does economic model type become a decisive factor in health technology appraisals? Learning from the expanding treatment options for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: Specific economic model types often become de facto standard for health technology appraisal over time. Markov and discrete event simulation (DES) models were compared to investigate the impact of innovative modeling on the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Fingolimod was compared to dimethyl fumarate (DMF; in highly active [HA] RRMS), alemtuzumab (in HA RRMS) and natalizumab (in rapidly evolving severe RRMS). Comparator DMTs were chosen to reflect different dosing regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Markov and DES models used have been published previously. Inputs were aligned in all relevant respects, with differences in the modeling of event-triggered attributes, such as relapse-related retreatment, which is inherently difficult with a memoryless Markov approach. Outcomes were compared, with and without different attributes. RESULTS: All results used list prices. For fingolimod and DMF, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were comparable (Markov: £4206/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained versus DES: £3910/QALY gained). Deviations were observed when long-term adverse events (AEs) were incorporated in the DES (Markov: £25,412 saved/QALY lost, versus DES: £34,209 saved/QALY lost, fingolimod versus natalizumab; higher ICERs indicate greater cost-effectiveness). For fingolimod versus alemtuzumab, when relapse-triggered retreatment was included in the DES, large cost differences were observed (difference between incremental cost is £35,410 and QALY is 0.10). LIMITATIONS: UK payer perspective, therefore societal approach was not considered. Resource utilization and utilities for both models were not derived from the subpopulations; as the focus is on model type, input limitations that apply to both models are less relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst no model can fully represent a disease, a DES allows an opportunity to include features excluded in a Markov structure. A DES may be more suitable for modeling in RRMS for health technology assessment purposes given the complexity of some DMTs. This analysis highlights the capabilities of different model structures to model event-triggered attributes.

Dimethyl fumarate for psoriasis.

Dimethyl fumarate (Skilarence - Almirall) was licensed by the European Medicines Agency in June 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults in need of systemic therapy.1 An unlicensed formulation of dimethyl fumarate has been used in the UK for the management of psoriasis for several years. Here, we consider the evidence for the new product and how it fits with current strategies for the management of adults with psoriasis.

Cost-effectiveness of oral agents in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis compared to interferon-based therapy in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Promising clinical and humanistic outcomes are associated with the use of new oral agents in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). This is the first cost-effectiveness study comparing these medications in Saudi Arabia. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, and interferon (IFN)-b1a products (Avonex and Rebif) as first-line therapies in the treatment of patients with RRMS from a Saudi payer perspective. DESIGN: Cohort Simulation Model (Markov Model). SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. METHODS: A hypothetical cohort of 1000 RRMS Saudi patients was assumed to enter a Markov model model with a time horizon of 20 years and an annual cycle length. The model was developed based on an expanded disability status scale (EDSS) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the five disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) from a healthcare system perspective. Data on EDSS progression and relapse rates were obtained from the literature; cost data were obtained from King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Results were expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefits (NMB) in Saudi Riyals and converted to equivalent $US. The base-case willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was assumed to be $100000 (SAR375000). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to test the robustness of the model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ICERs and NMB. RESULTS: The base-case analysis results showed Rebif as the optimal therapy at a WTP threshold of $100000. Avonex had the lowest ICER value of $337282/QALY when compared to Rebif. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were sensitive to utility weights of health state three and four and the cost of Rebif. CONCLUSION: None of the DMDs were found to be cost-effective in the treatment of RRMS at a WTP threshold of $100000 in this analysis. The DMDs would only be cost-effective at a WTP above $300000. LIMITATIONS: The current analysis did not reflect the Saudi population preference in valuation of health states and did not consider the societal perspective in terms of cost.

Cost-Effectiveness of Peginterferon Beta-1a and Alemtuzumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the central nervous system, affecting 2.5 million people globally and 400,000 people in the United States. While no cure exists for MS, the goal is to manage the disease using disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), which have been shown to slow disease progression and prevent relapses. Relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) is the most common form of MS at the time of diagnosis. Peginterferon beta-1a (PEG) and alemtuzumab (ALT) were recently approved and have demonstrated good clinical outcomes, including reduced relapse rates in clinical trials. High costs associated with these DMTs necessitates cost-effectiveness analyses to understand their overall value in RRMS management. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of (a) Model 1: PEG relative to intramuscular interferon beta-1a (IM IFN), subcutaneous interferon beta-1b (SC IFN), glatiramer acetate 20 mg per mL (GA), fingolimod (FIN), natalizumab (NAT), and dimethyl fumarate (DMF), and (b) Model 2: ALT relative to subcutaneous interferon beta-1a 44 µg (IFN beta-1a 44 µg). Both analyses were conducted from a U.S. third-party payer perspective. METHODS: Two static decision models were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of PEG and ALT over a 1-year and a 2-year time horizon, respectively. Model inputs were drug acquisition costs (wholesale acquisition cost from RED BOOK); drug administration and monitoring costs (package inserts and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2015 Physician Fee Schedule); relapse rates and relapse rate reduction (clinical trials); and cost of managing relapses (published literature). All costs were adjusted to 2015 U.S. dollars using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index. Outcomes measured were total cost of therapy per patient, cost per relapse avoided, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) calculated as cost per relapse avoided. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test model robustness given the uncertainty of model inputs and study assumptions. RESULTS: Model 1 results showed that PEG dominated IM IFN and GA, compared with SC IFN; PEG had an ICER of $1,978,000 per relapse avoided. Compared with FIN, NAT, and DMF, PEG was less expensive and less effective. Model 2 showed that ALT had an ICER of $25,276 per relapse avoided relative to IFN beta-1a 44 µg. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RRMS, PEG is a viable alternative when compared with the DMTs in our model. Deciding whether to choose PEG over other DMTs would depend on multiple factors. On the other hand, ALT had an ICER of $25,276 cost per relapse avoided relative to IFN beta-1a 44 µg. The study results will assist payers in evaluating different medication choices for effective therapy. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Kamal has received research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists and also serves as a consultant for the Lynx Group. Dashputre and Pawar report no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Dashputre, along with Kamal and Pawar. Dashputre took the lead in data collection, along with Kamal, and data analysis was performed by Dashputre, Kamal, and Pawar. The manuscript was written and revised primarily by Dashputre, along with Kamal and Pawar.

The cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) causes significant disability and diminished quality-of-life. Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF) is a new oral treatment for relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) approved in the US, Australia, Canada, and Europe. OBJECTIVES: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare the health economic impact of DMF against other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) as first-line RRMS treatment from a Canadian Ministry of Health perspective. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to simulate patients' progression through health states based on the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) over a life-time horizon. Patients entered the model based on a distribution of baseline EDSS scores, from which they could progress to higher or regress to lower EDSS state, or remain in the same state. Relapses could occur at any EDSS score. Results from a mixed-treatment comparison were used to inform model inputs for disease progression and relapse rates per treatment. Costs included direct medical costs stratified by EDSS score. Utilities were accrued based on time spent in each EDSS state. RESULTS: Compared with glatiramer acetate, DMF yielded 0.528 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $23 338 Canadian dollars (CAD), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD $44 118/QALY. The ICER for DMF compared with Rebif 44 mcg was CAD $10 672. Results were consistent across a wide range of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds in Canada (CAD $50 000-60 000), DMF can be considered a cost-effective option compared to other first-line DMTs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A French Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The paper aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at the public published price for delayed-release dimethyl fumarate versus relevant Multiple Sclerosis disease-modifying therapies available in France in June 2015. METHODS: The economic model was adapted to the French setting in accordance with the Haute Autorité de Santé guidelines using a model previously developed for NICE. A cohort of Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis patients was simulated over a 30-year time horizon. Twenty one health states were taken into account: Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 0-9 for Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis patients, EDSS 0-9 for Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis patients, and death. Estimates of relative treatment efficacy were determined using a mixed-treatment comparison. Probabilities of events were derived from the dimethyl fumarate pivotal clinical trials and the London Ontario Dataset. Costs and utilities were extracted from the published literature from both the payer and societal perspectives. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: From both perspectives, dimethyl fumarate and interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) 44 mcg were the two optimal treatments, as the other treatments (IFN beta-1a 30 mcg, IFN beta-1b 250 mcg, teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate, fingolimod) were dominated on the efficiency frontier. From the societal perspective, dimethyl fumarate versus IFN beta-1a 44 mcg incurred an incremental cost of €3,684 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.281, corresponding to an ICER of €13,110/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Despite no reference threshold for France, dimethyl fumarate can be considered as a cost-effective option as it is on the efficiency frontier.

Cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF, also known as gastro-resistant DMF), an effective therapy for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), compared with glatiramer acetate and fingolimod, commonly used treatments in the US. METHODS: A Markov model was developed comparing delayed-release DMF to glatiramer acetate and fingolimod using a US payer perspective and 20-year time horizon. A cohort of patients, mean age 38 years, with relapsing-remitting MS and Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores between 0-6 entered the model. Efficacy and safety were estimated by mixed-treatment comparison of data from the DEFINE and CONFIRM trials and clinical trials of other disease-modifying therapies. Data from published studies were used to derive resource use, cost, and utility inputs. Key outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Alternative scenarios tested in a sensitivity analysis included drug efficacy, EDSS-related or relapse-related costs, alternative perspectives, drug acquisition costs, and utility. RESULTS: Base-case results with a 20-year time horizon indicated that delayed-release DMF increased QALYs +0.450 or +0.359 compared with glatiramer acetate or fingolimod, respectively. Reductions in 20-year costs with delayed-release DMF were -$70,644 compared with once-daily glatiramer acetate and -$32,958 compared with fingolimod. In an analysis comparing delayed-release DMF to three-times-weekly glatiramer acetate and assuming similar efficacy and safety to the once-daily formulation, 20-year costs with delayed-release DMF were increased by $15,806 and cost per QALY gained was $35,142. The differences in costs were most sensitive to acquisition cost and inclusion of informal care costs and productivity losses. The differences in QALYs were most sensitive to the impact of delayed-release DMF on disease progression and the EDSS utility weights. CONCLUSION: Delayed-release DMF is likely to increase QALYs for patients with relapsing forms of MS and be cost-effective compared with fingolimod and glatiramer acetate.

The budget impact of introducing delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for treatment of relapse-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple sclerosis (MS) causes significant disability globally and is especially prevalent in Canada. Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF) is an orally administered disease-modifying treatment (DMT) for patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) that is currently on the market in the US, Australia, Canada, and Europe. A budget impact model (BIM) was developed to assess the financial consequences of introducing DMF for treatment of RRMS in Canada. METHODS: A BIM calculated the financial consequences of introducing DMF in Canada over 3 years based on RRMS prevalence, treatment market share, and clinical effects. RRMS prevalence in Canada was derived from published literature and natural relapse rates, and disease state distribution from clinical trial data. It was conservatively assumed that 100% of RRMS patients were treated with a DMT. DMF was assumed to absorb market share proportionally from the following current treatments: interferon beta-1a-IM, interferon beta-1a-SC, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate. Treatment efficacy, in terms of relapse rate reductions and treatment discontinuation rates, was determined from mixed treatment comparison. Treatment costs (including costs of acquisition, monitoring, and administration) and cost of relapse were considered. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the most sensitive input parameters. RESULTS: Over 3 years, the introduction of DMF resulted in an average annual increase of CAD417 per treated patient per year, with reductions in costs associated with relapses (CAD192/patient/year) partially offsetting increased drug acquisition costs (CAD602/patient/year). On a population level, the average annual cost increase was CAD24,654,237, a CAD 0.68 increase per population covered by the Canadian healthcare system. The main drivers of budget impact were drop-out rates, proportion of RRMS patients treated, and market share assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition costs of DMF for treatment of RRMS are predicted to be partially offset by reduced costs of relapses in the Canadian healthcare system.

Cost-utility of fingolimod compared with dimethyl fumarate in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in England.

OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of new oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been modeled in highly active (HA) relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) requiring escalation therapy. This study sought to model the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod compared to dimethyl fumarate (DMF), for which relevant HA RRMS sub-group data were available, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: A cohort Markov model based on Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, similar to previous model designs, was constructed. Published post hoc clinical data in the HA RRMS sub-groups were taken from the pivotal trials for fingolimod and DMF vs placebo. Utility data for each health state and for relapses were used in line with previous similar models. Published costs were inflated to NHS cost year 2013-2014 and UK list prices used for both drugs. Possible Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount scenarios were investigated. RESULTS: In the base case, using list prices for each DMT, the average probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for fingolimod vs DMF was found to be £ 14,076, with a 73% chance of fingolimod being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 30,000. Scenario and sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty in disability progression efficacy was a key model driver. The model was robust to other changes and the majority of PAS permutations do not contradict the base case finding of cost-effectiveness of fingolimod. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, fingolimod remains cost-effective in HA RRMS following the introduction of DMF to the UK market, and this paper supports the evidence that has led fingolimod to be the only oral DMT reimbursed for HA RRMS in England. This model supports the restriction imposed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on DMF in HA RRMS and highlights the importance of considering different sub-groups of multiple sclerosis when performing health economic analyses.

New FDA-Approved Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis.

PURPOSE: Interferon injectables and glatiramer acetate have served as the primary disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) since their introduction in the 1990s and are first-line treatments for relapsing-remitting forms of MS (RRMS). Many new drug therapies were launched since early 2010, expanding the drug treatment options considerably in a disease state that once had a limited treatment portfolio. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the safety profile and efficacy data of disease-modifying agents for MS approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2010 to the present and provide cost and available pharmacoeconomic data about each new treatment. METHODS: Peer-reviewed clinical trials, pharmacoeconomic studies, and relevant pharmacokinetic/pharmacologic studies were identified from MEDLINE (January 2000-December 2014) by using the search terms multiple sclerosis, fingolimod, teriflunomide, alemtuzumab, dimethyl fumarate, pegylated interferon, peginterferon beta-1a, glatiramer 3 times weekly, and pharmacoeconomics. Citations from available articles were also reviewed for additional references. The databases publically available at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.fda.gov were searched for unpublished studies or studies currently in progress. FINDINGS: A total of 5 new agents and 1 new dosage formulation were approved by the FDA for the treatment of RRMS since 2010. Peginterferon beta-1a and high-dose glatiramer acetate represent 2 new effective injectable options for MS that reduce burden of administration seen with traditional interferon and low-dose glatiramer acetate. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate represent new oral agents available for MS, and their efficacy in reducing annualized relapse rates is 48% to 55%, 22% to 36.3%, and 44% to 53%, respectively, compared with placebo. Alemtuzumab is a biologic given over a 2-year span that reduced annualized relapse rates by 55% in treatment-naive patients and by 49% in patients relapsing on prior disease-modifying agents. Treatment emergent adverse effects were common with all new drug treatments. The cost of treating MS remains high, because MS therapies accounted for the highest spending growth of any specialty drug class in 2013. Most therapies cost, on average, US $6000/mo based on wholesale acquisition cost, and few cost-benefit studies are available for new treatments. IMPLICATIONS: With expansion of new treatments, patients and providers now have multiple options and improved flexibility in managing MS. The relative place in therapy of new treatments is unknown, and treatment decisions are largely based on patient preference, efficacy, and risk potential. The cost of treating MS continues to be high, even with more treatment options available.