Cost effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate and intramuscular interferon-β1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

CNS Drugs

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 71-81

  Zhang, Xinke ^a   Hay, Joel W ^a   Niu, Xiaoli ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BETA1A INTERFERON; FINGOLIMOD; FUMARIC ACID DIMETHYL ESTER; TERIFLUNOMIDE; BETA INTERFERON; FUMARIC ACID DERIVATIVE; IMMUNOLOGIC FACTOR; PROPANEDIOL DERIVATIVE; SPHINGOSINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS RATIO; INCREMENTAL NET MONETARY BENEFIT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SIMULATION; UNITED STATES; ADOLESCENT; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; COHORT ANALYSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISABILITY; ECONOMICS; INTRAMUSCULAR DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, RELAPSING-REMITTING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COHORT STUDIES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; FUMARATES; HUMANS; IMMUNOLOGIC FACTORS; INJECTIONS, INTRAMUSCULAR; INTERFERON-BETA; MALE; MARKOV CHAINS; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, RELAPSING-REMITTING; PROPYLENE GLYCOLS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SPHINGOSINE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84922082704     PISSN: 11727047     EISSN: 11791934     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-014-0207-x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Stavnitser A, Patel N, Miller, A, et al. Impact of new oral therapies on multiple sclerosis cost and utilization trends. http://www.ajmc.com. Accessed 05 Aug 2013.
2. Lee S, Baxter DC, Limone B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. J Med Econ. 2012;15:1088-96.
3. Cohen JA, Barkhof F, Comi G, et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:402-15.
4. O'Connor P, Wolinsky JS, Confavreux C, et al. Randomized trial of oral teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1293-303.
5. Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1098-107.
6. Hay JW. Evaluation and review of pharmacoeconomic models. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004;5:1867-80.
7. Scalfari A, Neuhaus A, Degenhardt A, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis, a geographically based study 10: relapses and long-term disability. Brain. 2010;133:1914-29.
8. Drummond MF, Schulper MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
9. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.
10. World Health Organization. Cost-effectiveness thresholds, http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER-thresholds/en/. Accessed 19 Aug 2014.
11. The World Bank. GDP per capita, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD. Accessed 01 June 2013.
12. Braithwaite SR, Meltzer D, King J, et al. What does the value of modern medicine say about the 50,000 per quality-adjusted life year decision rule? Med Care. 2008;46:349-56.
13. Villacorta R, Hay JW, Messali A. Cost effectiveness of moderate to severe psoriasis therapy with etanercept and ustekinumab in the United States. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31:823-39.
14. Mehta D, Hay JW. Cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to first line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:677-83.
15. Messali A, Hay JW, Villacorta R. The cost-effectiveness of temozolomide in the adjuvant treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the United States: a literature review and Markov Model. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15:1532-42.
16. Hay JW. Where's the value in health care? Value Health. 2006;9:11-4.
17. National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Treatments, http://www.nationalmssociety.org/about-multiple-sclerosis/what-we-know-about-ms/treatments/index.aspx. Accessed 10 May 2013.
18. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33:1444.
19. Kobelt G, Berg J, Atherley D, et al. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in the USA. Neurology. 2006;66:1696-702.
20. Goodin DS, Cohen BA, O'Connor P, et al. Assessment: the use of natalizumab (Tysabri) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (an evidence-based review): report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2008;71:766-73.
21. Castillo-Trivino T, Mowry EM, Gajofatto A, et al. Switching multiple sclerosis patients with breakthrough disease to second-line therapy. PLoS One. 2011;6:e16664.
22. Halpern R, Agarwal S, Borton L, et al. Adherence and persistence among multiple sclerosis patients after one immunomodulatory therapy failure: retrospective claims analysis. Adv Ther. 2011;28:761-75.
23. Prosperini L, Gianni C, Leonardi L, et al. Escalation to natalizumab or switching among immunomodulators in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2012;18:64-71.
24. Tremlett H, Zhao Y, Devonshire V. Natural history of secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2008;14:314-24.
25. Bell C, Graham J, Earnshaw S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on long-term clinical data. J Manag Care Pharm. 2007;13:245-61.
26. Earnshaw SR, Graham J, Oleen-Burkey M, et al. Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7:91-108.
27. Jankovic SM, Kostic M, Radosavljevic M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on data a Balkan country in socioeconomic transition. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2009;66:556-62.
28. Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. I: clinical course and disability. Brain. 1989;112:133-46.
29. Kremenchutzky M, Rice GP, Baskerville J, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study 9: observations on the progressive phase of the disease. Brain. 2006;129:584-94.
30. Scalfari A, Neuhaus A, Daumer M, et al. Early relapses, onset of progression, and late outcome in multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2013;70:214-22.
31. Guo S, Pelligra C, Thibault CSL, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses in multiple sclerosis: a review of modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:559-72.
32. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-7. Value Health. 2012;15:843-50.
33. Kappos L, Radue EW, O'Connor P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:387-401.
34. Polman CH, O'Connor PW, Havrdova E, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:899-910.
35. Beck JR, Kassirer JP, Pauker SG. A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the "DEALE"): I. Validation of the method. Am J Med. 1982;73:883-8.
36. Beck JR, Pauker SG, Gottlieb JE, et al. A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the "DEALE"): II. Use in medical decision-making. Am J Med. 1982;73:889-97.
37. Scalfari A, Neuhaus A, Daumer M, et al. Age and disability accumulation in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2011;77:1246-52.
38. Redelings MD, McCoy L, Sorvillo F. Multiple sclerosis mortality and patterns of comorbidity in the United States from 1990 to 2001. Neuroepidemiology. 2006;26:102-7.
39. Hoyert DL, Xu J. Deaths: preliminary data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012;61:1-65.
40. Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2003;9:311-9.
41. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D. Health utility estimation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002;2:99-108.
42. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1-30.
43. Crayton H. Improved quality of life after therapy change to fingolimod. In: 27th Annual Meeting of the CMSC and the 5th Cooperative Meeting of the CMSC-ACTRIMS. Orlando, USA, 29 May-01 June 2013, Hackensack: CMSC.
44. Montalban X, Comi G, O'Connor P, et al. Oral fingolimod (FTY720) in relapsing multiple sclerosis: impact on health-related quality of life in a phase II study. Mult Scler. 2011;17:1341-50.
45. Rudick RA, Miller D, Hutchinson M, et al. Health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: effects of natalizumab. Ann Neurol. 2007;62:335-46.
46. O'Connor P, Briggs A, Carita P, et al. Impact on health-related quality of life of teriflunomide treatment by estimating utilities in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: results from TEMSO post hoc analysis. J Neurol. 2012;259:S107.
47. Kita M, Fox RJ, Phillips JT, et al. Effects of BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) on health-related quality of life in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: findings from the CONFIRM study. Mult Scler. 2014;20:253-7.
48. Kappos L, Gold R, Arnold DL. Quality of life outcomes with BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: the DEFINE study. Mult Scler. 2014;20:243-52.
49. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: report of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 250.
50. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Drug pharmaceutical prices, http://www.pbm.va.gov/PharmaceuticalPrices.asp. Accessed 22 Aug 2013.
51. Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Lage MJ, et al. Burden of a multiple sclerosis relapse: the patient's perspective. Patient. 2012;5:57-69.
52. Briggs A. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: statistical representation of parameter uncertainty. Value Health. 2005;8:1-2.
53. Briggs A, Schulper MJ, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
54. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10:779-87.
55. O'Day K, Meyer K, Miller RM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2011;14:617-27.
56. Pittock SJ, Mayr WT, McClelland RL, et al. Disability profile of MS did not change over 10 years in a population-based prevalence cohort. Neurology. 2004;62:601-6.
57. Tremlett H, Paty D, Devonshire V. Disability progression in multiple sclerosis is slower than previously reported. Neurology. 2006;66:172-7.
58. Goldberg LD, Edwards NC, Fincher C, et al. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of disease modifying drugs for the first-line treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15:543-55.