Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
28 November 2022

Health economic outcomes of switching to alemtuzumab from other disease-modifying therapies in people with multiple sclerosis in the USA

Authors: Lita Araujo [email protected], Srikanth Kyatham, Kristen G Bzdek, Keiko Higuchi, and Nupur GreeneAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 12, Number 1
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2022-0127
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Describe demographics, clinical characteristics, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) switching to alemtuzumab from other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Patients & methods: Retrospective, observational study of IBM®MarketScan® claims database. PwMS previously treated with DMTs and initiating alemtuzumab (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019) were identified. “Index” was date of alemtuzumab initiation (prescription filled). Results: The study cohort (n = 341) was primarily female (72%) with (mean ± standard deviation) age 45.1 ± 9.5 years. At index, duration of MS was 5.3 ± 2.8 years. HCRU (inpatient/outpatient services), outpatient costs (including MS-specific MRI and emergency room visits) and annualized relapse rate significantly reduced over the 2 years following initiation of alemtuzumab. DMT costs reduced over the same period. Conclusion: Health economic and clinical benefits were seen following switching to alemtuzumab from other DMTs for treatment of MS, in this cohort from the USA.

Tweetable abstract

Switching to alemtuzumab from existing disease-modifying therapy was associated with significant reduction in healthcare resource utilization and economic outlay over 2-year follow-up in people with relapsing #multiplesclerosis in the USA.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Lublin FD, Coetzee T, Cohen JA, Marrie RA, Thompson AJ. The 2013 clinical course descriptors for multiple sclerosis: a clarification. Neurology 94(24), 1088–1092 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: The 2013 revisions. Neurology 83(3), 278–286 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 17(2), 162–173 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Klineova S, Lublin FD. Clinical Course of Multiple Sclerosis. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 8(9), a028928 (2018).
Google Scholar
5.
Walton C, King R, Rechtman L et al. Rising prevalence of multiple sclerosis worldwide: insights from the Atlas of MS, third edition. Mult. Scler. 26(14), 1816–1821 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Multiple Sclerosis International Federation. Atlas of MS (3rd Edition): mapping multiple sclerosis around the world key epidemiology findings (2021). www.msif.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Atlas-3rd-Edition-Epidemiology-report-EN-updated-30-9-20.pdf
Google Scholar
7.
Wallin MT, Culpepper WJ, Campbell JD et al; Us Multiple Sclerosis Prevalence Workgroup. The prevalence of MS in the United States: a population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology 92(10), e1029–e1040 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Cree BaC, Arnold DL, Chataway J et al. Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: New Insights. Neurology 97(8), 378–388 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. I. Clinical course and disability. Brain 112(Pt 1), 133–146 (1989).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Beiki O, Frumento P, Bottai M, Manouchehrinia A, Hillert J. Changes in the risk of reaching multiple sclerosis disability milestones in recent decades: a nationwide population-based cohort study in Sweden. JAMA Neurol. 76(6), 665–671 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Goodin DS, Reder AT, Ebers GC et al. Survival in MS: a randomized cohort study 21 years after the start of the pivotal IFNβ-1b trial. Neurology 78(17), 1315–1322 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Smith AL, Cohen JA, Hua LH. Therapeutic targets for multiple sclerosis: current treatment goals and future directions. Neurotherapeutics 14(4), 952–960 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Bergvall N, Makin C, Lahoz R et al. Relapse rates in patients with multiple sclerosis switching from interferon to fingolimod or glatiramer acetate: a US claims database study. PLOS ONE 9(2), e88472 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Bergvall N, Petrilla AA, Karkare SU et al. Persistence with and adherence to fingolimod compared with other disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a retrospective US claims database analysis. J. Med. Econ. 17(10), 696–707 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Grand'maison F, Yeung M, Morrow SA et al. Sequencing of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: perspectives and approaches. Neural. Regen. Res. 13(11), 1871–1874 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Alroughani R, Van Wijmeersch B, Al Khaboori J et al. The use of alemtuzumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: the Gulf perspective. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 13, 1756286420954119 (2020).
Google Scholar
17.
Cohen JA, Coles AJ, Arnold DL et al. Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 380(9856), 1819–1828 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Coles AJ, Arnold DL, Bass AD et al. Efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab over 6 years: final results of the 4-year CARE-MS extension trial. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 14, 1756286420982134 (2021).
Google Scholar
19.
Sanofi. LEMTRADA®(alemtuzumab) injection, for intravenous use [prescribing information] (2022). https://products.sanofi.us/lemtrada/lemtrada.pdf
Google Scholar
20.
Rae-Grant A, Day GS, Marrie RA et al. Practice guideline recommendations summary: disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 90(17), 777–788 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Ohlmeier C, Gothe H, Haas J et al. Epidemiology, characteristics and treatment of patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis and incidence of high disease activity: real world evidence based on German claims data. PLOS One 15(5), e0231846 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Raimundo K, Tian H, Zhou H et al. Resource utilization, costs and treatment patterns of switching and discontinuing treatment of MS patients with high relapse activity. BMC Health Serv. Res. 13, 131 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Ollendorf DA, Jilinskaia E, Oleen-Burkey M. Clinical and economic impact of glatiramer acetate versus beta interferon therapy among patients with multiple sclerosis in a managed care population. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 8(6), 469–476 (2002).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Chastek BJ, Oleen-Burkey M, Lopez-Bresnahan MV. Medical chart validation of an algorithm for identifying multiple sclerosis relapse in healthcare claims. J. Med. Econ. 13(4), 618–625 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI Medical care services (2013–2020)(2021). www.bls.gov/cpi/data.html
Google Scholar
26.
Paz-Zulueta M, Parás-Bravo P, Cantarero-Prieto D, Blázquez-Fernández C, Oterino-Durán A. A literature review of cost-of-illness studies on the economic burden of multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 43, 102162 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• This literature review focusing on the cost of illness in multiple sclerosis (MS) highlights the main cost determinants for patients with less severe MS as due to the costs of drugs, with costs incurred from informal care or production losses being more attributable in severe cases of MS.
27.
Freeman L, Kee A, Tian M, Mehta R. Retrospective claims analysis of treatment patterns, relapse, utilization, and cost among patients with multiple sclerosis initiating second-line disease-modifying therapy. Drugs Real World Outcomes 8(4), 497–508 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• This study highlighted poor adherence and non-persistence of patients with MS switching to a second disease-modifying therapy, and one-third of patients relapsed within 12-months of switching.
28.
Bass AD, Arroyo R, Boster AL et al; Care-Ms I C-MI, CAMMS03409, and TOPAZ Investigators. Alemtuzumab outcomes by age: post hoc analysis from the randomized CARE-MS studies over 8 years. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 49, 102717 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Pfeuffer S, Ruck T, Pul R et al. Impact of previous disease-modifying treatment on effectiveness and safety outcomes, among patients with multiple sclerosis treated with alemtuzumab. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 92(9), 1007–1013 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
30.
Zhang Y, Salter A, Wallström E, Cutter G, Stüve O. Evolution of clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 12, 1756286419826547 (2019).
Google Scholar
31.
Arnold DL, Fisher E, Brinar VV et al. Superior MRI outcomes with alemtuzumab compared with subcutaneous interferon β-1a in MS. Neurology 87(14), 1464–1472 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Zhang J, Shi S, Zhang Y et al. Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11(11), CD010968 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
33.
Bonafede MM, Johnson BH, Watson C. Health care-resource utilization before and after natalizumab initiation in multiple sclerosis patients in the US. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 6, 11–20 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Nicholas J, Boster A, Wu N et al. Comparison of disease-modifying therapies for the management of multiple sclerosis: analysis of healthcare resource utilization and relapse rates from US insurance claims data. Pharmacoecon. Open 2(1), 31–41 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• This study sought to provide a more accurate representation of cost burden associated with MS relapse, and found that cost drastically increased with the severity of relapse underscoring the need to manage relapses with high-efficacy treatments.
35.
Nicholas J, Zhou H, Deshpande C. Annual cost burden by level of relapse severity in patients with multiple sclerosis. Adv. Ther. 38(1), 758–771 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• This analysis of patients taking disease-modifying therapies found they were associated with reductions in healthcare utilization and non-prescription costs. Similar to our analysis, cost reductions were largely driven by reductions in the use of outpatient services and inpatient hospital visits.
|