Xinke Zhang1, Joel W Hay, Xiaoli Niu. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, VPD 214-L, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-3333, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the cost effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, and intramuscular (IM) interferon (IFN)-β(1a) as first-line therapies in the treatment of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) from a US societal perspective. The time horizon in the base case was 5 years. The primary outcome was incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and the secondary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The base case INMB willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was assumed to be US$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and the costs were in 2012 US dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to test the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Dimethyl fumarate dominated all other therapies over the range of WTPs, from US$0 to US$180,000. Compared with IM IFN-β(1a), at a WTP of US$150,000, INMBs were estimated at US$36,567, US$49,780, and US$80,611 for fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, respectively. The ICER of fingolimod versus teriflunomide was US$3,201,672. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were sensitive to the acquisition costs of DMDs and the time horizon, but in most scenarios, cost-effectiveness rankings remained stable. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for more than 90% of the simulations, dimethyl fumarate was the optimal therapy across all WTP values. CONCLUSION: The three oral therapies were favored in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Of the four DMDs, dimethyl fumarate was a dominant therapy to manage RRMS. Apart from dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide was the most cost-effective therapy compared with IM IFN-β(1a), with an ICER of US$7,115.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the cost effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, and intramuscular (IM) interferon (IFN)-β(1a) as first-line therapies in the treatment of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) from a US societal perspective. The time horizon in the base case was 5 years. The primary outcome was incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and the secondary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The base case INMB willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was assumed to be US$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and the costs were in 2012 US dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to test the robustness of the model results. RESULTS:Dimethyl fumarate dominated all other therapies over the range of WTPs, from US$0 to US$180,000. Compared with IM IFN-β(1a), at a WTP of US$150,000, INMBs were estimated at US$36,567, US$49,780, and US$80,611 for fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, respectively. The ICER of fingolimod versus teriflunomide was US$3,201,672. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were sensitive to the acquisition costs of DMDs and the time horizon, but in most scenarios, cost-effectiveness rankings remained stable. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for more than 90% of the simulations, dimethyl fumarate was the optimal therapy across all WTP values. CONCLUSION: The three oral therapies were favored in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Of the four DMDs, dimethyl fumarate was a dominant therapy to manage RRMS. Apart from dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide was the most cost-effective therapy compared with IM IFN-β(1a), with an ICER of US$7,115.
Authors: Ludwig Kappos; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Paul O'Connor; Chris Polman; Reinhard Hohlfeld; Peter Calabresi; Krzysztof Selmaj; Catherine Agoropoulou; Malgorzata Leyk; Lixin Zhang-Auberson; Pascale Burtin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Antonio Scalfari; Anneke Neuhaus; Alexandra Degenhardt; George P Rice; Paolo A Muraro; Martin Daumer; George C Ebers Journal: Brain Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Marita Zimmermann; Elizabeth Brouwer; Jeffrey A Tice; Matt Seidner; Anne M Loos; Shanshan Liu; Richard H Chapman; Varun Kumar; Josh J Carlson Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Mai F Alsaqa'aby; Varun Vaidya; Noura Khreis; Thamer Al Khairallah; Ahmed H Al-Jedai Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2017 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.526
Authors: Ingrid E H Kremer; Mickael Hiligsmann; Josh Carlson; Marita Zimmermann; Peter J Jongen; Silvia M A A Evers; Svenja Petersohn; Xavier G L V Pouwels; Nick Bansback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.583