Cost-Effectiveness of Natalizumab Compared With Fingolimod for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Treatment in Colombia.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a degenerative neurological disorder. Treatment aims to avoid relapses and disability progression. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab compared with fingolimod for treating highly active relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients from the Colombian third-party payer perspective. METHODS: We used a Markov economic model from the perspective of the Colombian healthcare system to estimate the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab compared with fingolimod for RRMS with high disease activity or failure of interferons as first-line therapy. This model was centered on disability progression and relapses. We considered a 5-year time horizon with a 5% discount rate. We included only direct medical costs. Local experts were consulted to obtain resource utilization estimates, and local standardized costing methodologies and sources were used. Outcome was considered in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Utilities were extracted or calculated from the literature. Transition probabilities were calculated from available efficacy and safety information (1 USD = 3050.98 COP). RESULTS: Natalizumab showed lower total costs (USD 80 024 vs USD 98 137) and higher QALY yield (3.01 vs 2.94) than fingolimod, dominating it (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = -$1861). Univariate sensitivity analysis showcased the relevance of the measures of effect on disability progression for natalizumab on model results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis replicated base-case results in most simulations. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that natalizumab dominated fingolimod with lower costs and higher QALYs in patients with high-activity RRMS. These results are consistent with previous published international literature.

Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets versus fingolimod in patients with highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Portugal.

Aims: To assess the cost-utility of cladribine tablets versus fingolimod in patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Portugal.Methods: A 1-year cycle cohort-based Markov state transition model was developed to simulate disease progression, measured by Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), relapses, and conversion to secondary-progressive MS (SPMS). Patients were assumed to remain on treatment until progression to EDSS level 7, conversion to SPMS, or complete loss of efficacy due to waning effect. Natural history was based on British Columbia Multiple Sclerosis registry, London Ontario database, UK MS Trust, and cladribine tablets clinical trial (CLARITY). Portuguese all-cause mortality was adjusted for the MS associated increased mortality. Clinical inputs for active treatments (disability progression and relapse rate) were estimated on a network meta-analysis. Utility weights were derived from UK-MS Survey and published literature. Resource consumption by EDSS and due to relapses was based on published literature, National DRG microdata and expert opinion. Unit costs were obtained from official sources. The analysis was conducted from payers' perspective, time horizon of 50 years and discount rate of 5%, for both costs and benefits. Uncertainty was assessed via probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.Results: Compared to fingolimod, cladribine tablets were associated with a delay in progression, resulting in a gain of 0.85 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost decrease of 25,935 €. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted in a mean ICER of -31,781 € per QALY and was dominant in 98.7% of the simulations. Cladribine tablets were dominant across the scenario analyses tested.Conclusions: Treatment of highly active RRMS with cladribine tablets was less costly and more effective than treatment with fingolimod. Hence, it is a dominant strategy in the Portuguese setting. No conclusions can be drawn from the present study regarding other treatment options, in particular natalizumab and alemtuzumab.

Cost-effectiveness of Cladribine Tablets and fingolimod in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of Cladribine Tablets in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) with high disease activity compared with fingolimod, from the perspective of the National Health System (NHS) in Spain. METHODS: A Markov model was developed. The annual transition probabilities, were adjusted to patients with RMS with high disease activity. The effect of the treatments compared on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was modeled by hazard ratios for the confirmed progression of disability. The annual relapse rate and the probability of suffering adverse reactions were obtained from a meta-analysis and the literature. The derived costs were calculated from Spanish unit costs. The utilities were obtained from the CLARITY clinical trial and the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes were performed. RESULTS: Cladribine tablets was the dominant treatment: lower costs (-86,536 €) and more effective (+1.11 quality-adjusted life years - QALYs) compared to fingolimod. The probability that Cladribine Tablets was cost-effective compared to fingolimod ranged between 94.6% and 96.1% for willingness to pay from € 20,000 to € 30,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Cladribine Tablets is a cost-effective treatment, compared to fingolimod, for the treatment of RMS with high disease activity. EXPERT OPINION: According to the present study, compared to fingolimod, treatment with Cladribine Tablets of relapsing multiple sclerosis with high disease activity is an option that could generate savings for the Spanish National Health System, with a considerable gain in QALYs. Cladribine Tablets is considered cost-effective and dominant (less costs and more effectiveness) than fingolimod treatment option in this population.

Cost Assessment Modelling of Treatments for Highly Active Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Cost assessment modelling (CAM) of treatments in highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis was conducted. METHODS: The CAM was developed using the R programming language. The PICOSTEPS health technology assessment framework was applied in the CAM. Modelled patients were 280 adults with highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis eligible for disease-modifying treatment. Intervention was cladribine tablets, a new and reimbursed oral treatment for highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Finland. Comparators included fingolimod, the most used oral reimbursed treatment for the highly active disease, and natalizumab, the most used intravenous treatment, and a treatment mix (80% use fingolimod, 20% use natalizumab) in Finland. Outcomes presented expected annual and cumulative drug-associated costs in the overall population and per patient. Setting was modelled public specialist care in Finland. Time was set to 4 years, without discounting. Effects covered expected drug-associated costs (screening, acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events, travelling, productivity). Perspective was a limited societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses regarding all PICOSTEPS components were conducted. RESULTS: Cladribine tablets were projected to be cost saving in comparison to fingolimod, natalizumab and treatment mix. The respective modelled savings were €4,598,742, €16,249,701 and €6,928,934 in the overall population, and €16,424, €58,035 and €24,746 per patient, respectively, during the 4 years. The most important cost driver was drug costs, representing 96.3%, 96.0% and 83.4% of modelled costs associated with cladribine tablets, fingolimod and natalizumab, respectively. Cladribine tablets sustained their affordability in the sensitivity analyses. From the perspective of health care payer, cladribine tablets' savings were projected to be €4,514,509, €15,145,366 and €6,640,680 in the overall population, and €16,123, €54,091 and €23,717 per patient in comparison to fingolimod, natalizumab and treatment mix, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the CAM, cladribine tablets were projected to robustly save modelled drug-associated costs in comparison to fingolimod, natalizumab and their mix in Finland.

The Impact of Price Reductions After Loss of Exclusivity in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Fingolimod Versus Interferon Beta-1a for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses tend not to take into account the availability of lower-priced generics following loss of exclusivity (LOE) of branded products. By not considering these generics, which are typically adopted quickly, total costs are likely to be overestimated and may be unreflective of real-world payer conditions in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of including future price reductions following LOE on the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus intramuscularly administered interferon beta-1a (IM IFNß-1a) as treatments for multiple sclerosis. METHODS: This model was adopted from a previously published Markov model and was conducted from a U.S. payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis entered the model and received either fingolimod (an oral therapy) or IM IFNß-1a (an injectable). These treatments reflect the interventions studied in the TRANSFORMS randomized clinical trial. Clinical, cost, and utility inputs were based on a recent cost-effectiveness review of therapies for multiple sclerosis. To model LOE, price reductions and the proportion of patients switching to generic versions following LOE were based on published estimates. Price reductions varied to reflect the difference in product types (oral vs. large molecule injectable). Assumptions were also made around the proportion of patients switching to generic versions over time following LOE and the projected date of LOE. Outcomes included per-patient total direct costs (medication, administration and monitoring, and disease-related costs including relapses), quality-adjusted life-years, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: Assuming no price reductions following LOE, fingolimod was considered cost-effective versus IM IFNß-1a ($118,434 per quality-adjusted life-year), despite having higher total direct costs over 10 years ($475,740 vs. $446,792). When including future price reductions following LOE, total direct costs were reduced with fingolimod and were lower than those accrued with IM IFNß-1a over the model time horizon ($308,570 vs. $442,653). Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to changes in both clinical parameters and medication costs. Scenario analyses demonstrated that an earlier date of LOE was associated with lower total costs. CONCLUSIONS: Health economic models may predict higher total costs when the price reductions following LOE are not considered. Here, oral fingolimod was seen to be cost-saving versus IM IFNß-1a over the model time horizon when such price reductions were included. The cost implications of not accounting for future price changes may determine whether an intervention is considered cost-effective and as such may influence reimbursement decisions based on cost-effectiveness thresholds. Multiple product types (e.g., oral, injectable, and infused agents) have been approved for use as treatments for multiple sclerosis in the United States, and LOE is likely to have a different effect on each of these therapies. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Hua and Hersh report consulting fees from Novartis for work on this study. Hua also reports speaking, advisory board, and consulting fees from Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, EMD Serono, Genentech, TG Therapeutics, and Novartis for activities outside of this study. Hersh also reports speaking and consulting fees from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, Genentech, and EMD Serono for activities outside of this study, and research grants from PCORI and Biogen. At the time of this research, Morten and Kusel were paid employees of Costello Medical, which was contracted by Novartis to undertake some of this study's work. Lin, Cave, Herrera, and Ko were paid employees of Novartis at the time of this research. Cave, Herrera, and Ko also report owning stock in Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Varga provided services to Novartis at the time of this research and has nothing further to disclose. This research was presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2017; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alemtuzumab in the Treatment of Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab compared with fingolimod, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and generic glatiramer acetate 20 mg among patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Markov model with annual periods from payer perspective. METHODS: The modeled population represented pooled patients from the CARE-MS I and II trials. Therapies' comparative efficacy at reducing relapses and slowing disability worsening was obtained from network meta-analyses. Safety information was extracted from package inserts. Withdrawal rates, treatment waning, resource use, cost, and utility inputs were derived from published studies and clinical expert opinion. To project the natural history of disease worsening, data from the British Columbia cohort was used. RESULTS: Alemtuzumab dominated comparators by accumulating higher total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (8.977) and lower total costs ($421 996) compared with fingolimod (7.955; $1 085 814), natalizumab (8.456; $1 048 599), ocrelizumab (8.478; $908 365), and generic glatiramer acetate (7.845; $895 661) over a 20-year time horizon. Alemtuzumab's dominance was primarily driven by savings in treatment costs because alemtuzumab has long-term duration of response and is initially administered as 2 annual courses, with 36.1% of patients requiring retreatment over 5 years, whereas comparators are used chronically. In model scenarios where alemtuzumab's long-term duration of response was assumed not to hold and therapy had to be administered annually, probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that alemtuzumab remained cost-effective versus ocrelizumab at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY in 74% to 100% of model runs. CONCLUSIONS: Alemtuzumab was a cost-effective therapy. Model results should be used to optimize clinical and managed care decisions for effective RMS treatment.

Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta, fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic progressive, demyelinating, inflammatory disease, affects 2.5 million people worldwide. Approximately 63% of cases are classified as relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this cost-utility analysis is to evaluate alemtuzumab vs interferon beta (intramuscular [IM] interferon beta-1a, subcutaneous [SC] interferon beta-1a, SC interferon beta-1b, and SC pegylated interferon beta-1a) in previously treated, and vs SC interferon beta-1a, fingolimod, and natalizumab in untreated RRMS patients to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among the treatment alternatives as prices, the route, and the frequency of administration of considered products vary significantly. METHODS: The primary outcome was the modeled incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; €/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Markov modeling with a 10-year time horizon was carried out. During each 3-month cycle, patients maintained the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score or experienced progression, developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS), or showed EDSS progression in SPMS; experienced relapses; suffered from an adverse event (AE); changed treatment; or died. A published network meta-analysis (NMA) was used for indirect comparison. The possibility of a therapy switch was considered. Clinical input data and resource utilization data were derived from the literature. Costs were extracted from price lists published in Austria and were calculated from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: In treatment naïve patients, alemtuzumab is associated with costs of €132,663 and 5.25 QALYs in a 10-year time horizon. Costs for SC interferon beta amount to €164,159 and generate 4.85 QALYs. Also, in the pre-treated patients, alemtuzumab dominated comparators by accumulating higher total QALYs (4.88) and lower total costs (€137.409) compared to interferon beta-1a (€200.133), fingolimod (€240.903), and natalizumab (€247.758). CONCLUSION: The analysis shows that alemtuzumab is a cost-saving alternative to treat RRMS in pre-treated and therapy naïve patients. From the patient perspective, alemtuzumab improves quality-of-life.

Fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in Iran.

AIMS: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, autoimmune, and inflammatory disease. If the first-line medicines are not effective enough, specialists will prescribe second-line medicines, such as natalizumab and fingolimod. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of fingolimod with those of natalizumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Iran, Fars province in 2016. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in which a Markov model was used. The study used the census method to evaluate 81 patients with MS in Iran, Fars province who were being treated with fingolimod and natalizumab. In this study, costs were collected from the societal perspective, and the outcomes were the mean of relapse avoided rate and QALY. The cost data collection form, Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale, and EQ-5D-3L questionnaire were used to collect the required data. RESULTS: The results showed that, compared to natalizumab, patients who used fingolimod had decreased costs (58,087 vs 201,707), increased QALYs (8.09 vs 7.37), and a better relapse avoided rate (6.27 vs 5.83) per patient over the lifetime. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the study were robust. Also, the results of the scatter plots showed that fingolimod was more cost-effective based on the QALY and relapse avoided rate in 62% and 56%, respectively, of the simulations for the thresholds below $15,657 for the studied patients. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of fingolimod were higher than those of natalizumab. Therefore, it is recommended that treatment with fingolimod be the first priority of second-line treatment for MS patients, and policy-makers and health managers are encouraged to make efforts in order to increase insurance coverage and reduce the out-of-pocket payments of these patients.

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.

Cost-minimization analysis of alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab for the treatment of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands.

AIM: In active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients requiring second-line treatment, the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZiN) has not stated a preference for either alemtuzumab, fingolimod, or natalizumab. The aim was to give healthcare decision-makers insight into the differences in cost accumulation over time between alemtuzumab-with a unique, non-continuous treatment schedule-and fingolimod and natalizumab for second-line treatment of active RRMS patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: In line with ZiN's assessment, a cost-minimization analysis was performed from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Resource use was derived from hospital protocols and summaries of product characteristics, and validated by two MS specialists. Unit costs were based on national tariffs and guidelines. Robustness of the base case results was verified with multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to fingolimod and natalizumab from, respectively, 3.3 and 2.8 years since treatment initiation onwards. At 5 years, total discounted costs per patient of alemtuzumab were €79,717, followed by fingolimod with €110,044 and natalizumab with €122,238, resulting in cost savings of €30,327 and €42,522 for alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab, respectively. Key drivers of the model are drug acquisition costs and the proportions of patients that do not require further alemtuzumab treatment after either two, three, or four courses. LIMITATIONS: No treatment discontinuation and associated switching between treatments were incorporated. Consequences of JC virus seropositivity while continuing natalizumab treatment (e.g. additional monitoring) were omitted from the base case. CONCLUSION: The current cost-minimization analysis demonstrates that, from the Dutch healthcare perspective, treating active RRMS patients with alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to second-line alternatives fingolimod and natalizumab from ∼3 years since treatment initiation onwards. After 5 years, alemtuzumab's cost savings are estimated at €30k compared to fingolimod and €43k compared to natalizumab.

Health Care Cost for Multiple Sclerosis: The Case of a Health Insurer in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: There have been many studies on the cost of multiple sclerosis in countries with high prevalence, whereas in Latin America such analyses are few. Taking into consideration the burden of this disease and the high financial impact of treatment on the health care system, it is necessary to know the behavior of cost of illness. OBJECTIVES: To describe the direct costs associated with health care in patients with multiple sclerosis affiliated with a health insurer in Colombia. METHODS: An analysis of direct costs of disease was performed from the perspective of the third-party payer. A direct measurement from the technical costing "top-down" approach was used. Data were adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: The average annual cost per patient for the country was $29,339 (2010), $20,956 (2011), $23,892 (2012), $24,148 (2013), and $22,688 (2014). Drug therapy represented 86.1% of the total cost. Between 2010 and 2013, interferons accounted for the largest proportion of the costs of drug treatment (98.5% to 53%), whereas fingolimod showed an increase and accounted for 47% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Medications account for the largest proportion of disease costs, with few variations in the last 5 years; nevertheless, the increase in the use of new pharmaceuticals poses a challenge to maintain the financial balance of health insurance.

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.

Costs and effectiveness of fingolimod versus alemtuzumab in the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK: re-treatment, discount, and disutility.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with disease modifying therapies (DMTs) who continue to experience disease activity may be considered for escalation therapies such as fingolimod, or may be considered for alemtuzumab. Previous economic modeling used Markov models; applying one alternative technique, discrete event simulation (DES) modeling, allows re-treatment and long-term adverse events (AEs) to be included in the analysis. METHODS: A DES was adapted to model relapse-triggered re-treatment with alemtuzumab and the effect of including ongoing quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements for AEs that extend beyond previous 1-year Markov cycles. As the price to the NHS of fingolimod in the UK is unknown, due to a confidential patient access scheme (PAS), a variety of possible discounts were tested. The interaction of re-treatment assumptions for alemtuzumab with the possible discounts for fingolimod was tested to determine which DMT resulted in lower lifetime costs. The lifetime QALY results were derived from modeled treatment effect and short- and long-term AEs. RESULTS: Most permutations of fingolimod PAS discount and alemtuzumab re-treatment rate resulted in fingolimod being less costly than alemtuzumab. As the percentage of patients who are re-treated with alemtuzumab due to experiencing a relapse approaches 100% of those who relapse whilst on treatment, the discount required for fingolimod to be less costly drops below 5%. Consideration of treatment effect alone found alemtuzumab generated 0.2 more QALYs/patient; the inclusion of AEs up to a duration of 1 year reduced this advantage to only 0.14 QALYs/patient. Modeling AEs with a lifetime QALY decrement found that both DMTs generated very similar QALYs with the difference only 0.04 QALYs/patient. CONCLUSIONS: When the model captured alemtuzumab re-treatment and long-term AE decrements, it was found that fingolimod is cost-effective compared to alemtuzumab, assuming application of only a modest level of confidential PAS discount.

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.

A discrete event simulation to model the cost-utility of fingolimod and natalizumab in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Two disease-modifying therapies are licensed in the EU for use in rapidly-evolving severe (RES) relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), fingolimod and natalizumab. Here a discrete event simulation (DES) model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in the RES population, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, is reported. METHODS: A DES model was developed to track individual RES patients, based on Expanded Disability Status Scale scores. Individual patient characteristics were taken from the RES sub-groups of the pivotal trials for fingolimod. Utility data were in line with previous models. Published costs were inflated to NHS cost year 2015. Owing to the confidential patient access scheme (PAS) discount applied to fingolimod in the UK, a range of discount levels were applied to the fingolimod list price, to capture the likelihood of natalizumab being cost-effective in a real-world setting. RESULTS: At the lower National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), fingolimod only required a discount greater than 0.8% of list price to be cost-effective. At the upper threshold of £30,000/QALY employed by the NICE, fingolimod was cost-effective if the confidential discount is greater than 2.5%. Sensitivity analyses conducted using fingolimod list-price showed the model to be most sensitive to changes in the cost of each drug, particularly fingolimod. CONCLUSIONS: The DES model shows that only a modest discount to the UK fingolimod list-price is required to make fingolimod a more cost-effective option than natalizumab in RES RRMS.

Difference-in-Differences Method in Comparative Effectiveness Research: Utility with Unbalanced Groups.

BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) often includes observational studies utilizing administrative data. Multiple conditioning methods can be used for CER to adjust for group differences, including difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation. OBJECTIVE: This study presents DiD and demonstrates how to apply this conditioning method to estimate treatment outcomes in the CER setting by utilizing the MarketScan® Databases for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients receiving different therapies. METHODS: The sample included 6762 patients, with 363 in the Test Cohort [glatiramer acetate (GA) switched to fingolimod (FTY)] and 6399 in the Control Cohort (GA only, no switch) from a US administrative claims database. A trend analysis was conducted to rule out concerns regarding regression to the mean and to compare relapse rates among treatment cohorts. DiD analysis was used to enable comparisons among the Test and Control Cohorts. Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of relapse after switching from GA to FTY, and to compare group differences in the pre- and post-index periods. RESULTS: Crude DiD analysis showed that in the pre-index period more patients in the Test Cohort experienced an MS relapse and had a higher mean number of relapses than in the Control Cohort. During the pre-index period, numeric and relative data for MS relapses in patients in the Test Cohort were significantly higher than in the Control Cohort, while no significant between-group differences emerged during the post-index period. Generalized linear modeling with DiD regression estimation showed that the mean number of MS relapses decreased significantly in the post-index period among patients in the Test Cohort compared with patients in the Control Cohort. CONCLUSION: In this study, an MS population was utilized to demonstrate how DiD can be applied to estimate treatment effects in a heterogeneous population, where the Test and Control Cohorts varied greatly. The results show that DiD offers a robust method for comparing diverse cohorts when other risk-adjustment methods may not be adequate.

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.

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.

The PANGAEA study design - a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional, long-term study on fingolimod for the treatment of multiple sclerosis in daily practice.

BACKGROUND: Fingolimod (Gilenya) is an oral medication for patients with highly active relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS). Clinical trials and post-marketing experience on more than 114,000 patients have established a detailed safety profile. Total patient exposure now exceeds 195,000 patient-years as stated in the last financial report (Dec 2014) of the Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. However, less is known about the safety of long-term fingolimod use in daily practice. Here, we describe the study design of PANGAEA (Post-Authorization Non-interventional German sAfety of GilEnyA in RRMS patients), a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional, long-term study to collect safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomic data on RRMS patients treated with fingolimod (0.5 mg/daily) under real-world conditions in Germany. METHODS: PANGAEA is striving to assess a real-world safety and efficacy profile of fingolimod, based on data from 4,000 RRMS patients, obtained during a 60-month observational phase. A pharmacoeconomic sub-study of 800 RRMS patients further collects patient-reported outcome measures of disability, quality of life, compliance, treatment satisfaction, and usage of resources during a 24-month observational phase. Descriptive statistical analyses of the safety set as well as of stratified subgroups such as patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus and pretreated patients (e.g., natalizumab) will be conducted. DISCUSSION: PANGAEA seeks to confirm the current safety profile of fingolimod obtained in phase I-III clinical trials. The study design presented here will additionally provide guidance on the therapeutic use of fingolimod in clinical practice and possibly assists physicians in making evidence-based decisions.

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.