Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
22 August 2023

Cost–consequence analysis of ofatumumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada

Authors: Virender Bhan, Fraser Clift, Moogeh Baharnoori, Kimberly Thomas, Barkha P Patel, François Blanchette, Nicholas Adlard, … Show All … , Umakanth Vudumula, Kapil Gudala, Nikkita Dutta, Daniel Grima, Soukaïna Mouallif [email protected], and Fatine FarhaneAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 12, Number 9
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2022-0175
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: The costs and consequences of initial and delayed ofatumumab treatment were evaluated in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with active disease in Canada. Materials & methods: A Markov cohort model was used (10-year horizon, annual cycle length, 1.5% discounting). Scenario analyses examined ofatumumab as first-line treatment versus 3 and 5 years following switch from commonly used first-line therapies. Results: Ofatumumab resulted in improvements in clinical outcomes (relapses and disease progression) and productivity (employment and full-time work), and reduction of economic burden (administration, monitoring and non-drug costs) that were comparable to other high-efficacy therapies (ocrelizumab, cladribine and natalizumab). Switching to ofatumumab earlier in the disease course may improve these outcomes. Conclusion: Results highlight the value of a high-efficacy therapy such as ofatumumab as initial treatment (i.e., first-line) in newly diagnosed relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients with active disease.

Plain language summary

What is this article about?

Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is the most common type of MS, an autoimmune disease that impacts the central nervous system, and is characterized by attacks (i.e., relapses) followed by complete or partial remissions. RRMS is associated with increased disability, costs, and reduced productivity due to disease progression. Early treatment with a high-efficacy therapy might improve outcomes and reduce costs. The study objective was to evaluate the costs and consequences of initial administration of the high-efficacy therapy ofatumumab, as well as after treatment with other commonly used first-line therapies, in patients with RRMS with active disease in Canada.

What were the results?

Ofatumumab resulted in improvements in clinical outcomes (relapses and disease progression) and productivity (employment and full-time work), and reduction of economic burden (administration, monitoring and non-drug costs) that were comparable to other high-efficacy therapies (ocrelizumab, cladribine and natalizumab). Switching to ofatumumab earlier in the disease course may improve these outcomes versus commonly administered first-line therapies.

What do the results of the study mean?

Results suggest that a high-efficacy therapy, like ofatumumab, would be a valuable early treatment option for patients with RRMS.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Montalban X, Gold R, Thompson AJ et al. ECTRIMS/EAN Guideline on the pharmacological treatment of people with multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 24(2), 96–120 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Vorobeychik G, Black D, Cooper P, Cox A. Multiple sclerosis and related challenges to young women's health: canadian expert review. Neurodegener. Dis. Manag. 10(Suppl. 2), 1–13 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Schiavolin S, Leonardi M, Giovannetti AM et al. Factors related to difficulties with employment in patients with multiple sclerosis: a review of 2002–2011 literature. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 36(2), 105–111 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Salter A, Thomas N, Tyry T, Cutter G, Marrie RA. Employment and absenteeism in working-age persons with multiple sclerosis. J. Med. Econ. 20(5), 493–502 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Shahrbanian S, Auais M, Duquette P, Andersen K, Mayo NE. Does pain in individuals with multiple sclerosis affect employment? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Res. Manag. 18(5), e94–e100 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Simmons RD, Tribe KL, McDonald EA. Living with multiple sclerosis: longitudinal changes in employment and the importance of symptom management. J. Neurol. 257(6), 926–936 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Chen J, Taylor B, Palmer AJ et al. Estimating MS-related work productivity loss and factors associated with work productivity loss in a representative Australian sample of people with multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 25(7), 994–1004 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Provides further support on the considerable economic burden related to presenteeism and absenteeism associated with MS, an outcome of interest in the results.
8.
Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, Rice G, Rosner AJ, Lafortune L. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 6(2), 91–98 (2000).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Bebo B, Cintina I, Larocca N et al. The Economic Burden of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States: Estimate of Direct and Indirect Costs. Neurology 98(18), e1810–e1817 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Freedman MS, Devonshire V, Duquette P et al. Treatment Optimization in Multiple Sclerosis: Canadian MS Working Group Recommendations. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 47(4), 437–455 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Samjoo IA, Worthington E, Drudge C et al. Efficacy classification of modern therapies in multiple sclerosis. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 10(6), 495–507 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Informed the treatment options and efficacy.
12.
Samjoo IA, Worthington E, Drudge C et al. Comparison of ofatumumab and other disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 9(18), 1255–1274 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Informed the treatment-specific inputs in the model.
13.
Scolding N, Barnes D, Cader S et al. Association of British Neurologists: revised (2015) guidelines for prescribing disease-modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis. Pract. Neurol. 15(4), 273–279 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
He A, Merkel B, Brown JWL et al. Timing of high-efficacy therapy for multiple sclerosis: a retrospective observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 19(4), 307–316 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Comi G et al. Ocrelizumab versus Interferon Beta-1a in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 376(3), 221–234 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Cohen JA et al. Ofatumumab versus Teriflunomide in Multiple Sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 383(6), 546–557 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Procedures for CADTH Reimbursement Reviews. https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/Drug_Review_Process/CADTH_Drug_Reimbursement_Review_Procedures.pdf (April 2021).
Google Scholar
18.
Mauskopf J, Fay M, Iyer R, Sarda S, Livingston T. cost–effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate compared with glatiramer acetate and fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J. Med. Econ. 19(4), 432–442 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Orme M, Kerrigan J, Tyas D, Russell N, Nixon R. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health 10(1), 54–60 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Patzold U, Pocklington PR. Course of multiple sclerosis. First results of a prospective study carried out of 102 MS patients from 1976–1980. Acta Neurol. Scand. 65(4), 248–266 (1982).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Mowry EM, Carey RF, Blasco MR et al. Multiple sclerosis susceptibility genes: associations with relapse severity and recovery. PLoS One 8(10), e75416 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Statistics Canada (Web Page). Life tables, Canada, provinces and territories, Table 13-10-0114-01 (2018–2020, qx column). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/84-537-X (January 2022).
Google Scholar
23.
Pokorski RJ. Long-term survival experience of patients with multiple sclerosis. J. Insur. Med. 29(2), 101–106 (1997).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Cho JY, Hong KS, Kim HJ et al. Disability weight for each level of the Expanded Disability Status Scale in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 20(9), 1217–1223 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Karampampa K, Gustavsson A, Miltenburger C, Kindundu CM, Selchen DH. Treatment experience, burden, and unmet needs (TRIBUNE) in multiple sclerosis: the costs and utilities of MS patients in Canada. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. 19(1), e11–25 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Informed model inputs such as cost inputs and productivity loss.
26.
Government of Canada (Web Page). CPP Retirement Pension. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/cpp-benefit/when-start.html (May 2022).
Google Scholar
27.
Patwardhan MB, Matchar DB, Samsa GP, McCrory DC, Williams RG, Li TT. Cost of multiple sclerosis by level of disability: a review of literature. Mult. Scler. 11(2), 232–239 (2005).
PubMed
Google Scholar
28.
Ontario Case Costing Initiative (Web Page). Costing Analysis Tool. https://hsimi.ca/occp/occpreports/ (2022).
Google Scholar
29.
Government of Ontario (Web Page). Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. https://www.formulary.health.gov.on.ca/formulary/ (2022).
Google Scholar
30.
Ontario Ministry of Health (Web Page). Schedule of Benefits for Laboratory Services (Effective July 1, 2020). http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/lab/lab_mn2020.pdf (2022).
Google Scholar
31.
Government of Ontario (Web Page). Ontario Exceptional Access Program Formulary. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/drugs/odbf/odbf_except_access.aspx (2022).
Google Scholar
32.
Ontario Ministry of Health (Web Page). Schedule of Benefits, Physician Services Under the Health Insurance Act (Effecive March 14, 2021). http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/physserv/sob_master20200306.pdf (2022).
Google Scholar
33.
Tam VC, Ko YJ, Mittmann N et al. cost–effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr. Oncol. 20(2), e90–e106 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Government of Alberta (Web Page) Alberta interactive drug benefit list. https://idbl.ab.bluecross.ca/idbl/load.do (2022).
Google Scholar
35.
Baharnoori M, Bhan V, Clift F et al. cost–effectiveness analysis of ofatumumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada. PharmacoEconomics-Open 6(6), 859–870 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• The accompanying cost–effectiveness manuscript for ofatumumab versus first- and second-line therapies for RRMS and informed inputs in the model.
36.
Koeditz D, Frensch J, Bierbaum M et al. Comparing the long-term clinical and economic impact of ofatumumab versus dimethyl fumarate and glatiramer acetate in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: a cost-consequence analysis from a societal perspective in Germany. Mult. Scler. J. Exp. Transl. Clin. 8(1), (2022).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Provides recent evidence to emphasize and support the adoption of early treatment of ofatumumab and the improved clinical and productivity outcomes.
37.
Frasco MA, Shih T, Incerti D, Diaz Espinosa O, Vania DK, Thomas N. Incremental net monetary benefit of ocrelizumab relative to subcutaneous interferon β-1a. J. Med. Econ. 20(10), 1074–1082 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
38.
Furneri G, Santoni L, Ricella C, Prosperini L. cost–effectiveness analysis of escalating to natalizumab or switching among immunomodulators in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. BMC Health Serv. Res. 19(1), 1–9 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
39.
Yang H, Duchesneau E, Foster R, Guerin A, Ma E, Thomas NP. cost–effectiveness analysis of ocrelizumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J. Med. Econ. 20(10), 1056–1065 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
40.
Eriksson J, Kobelt G, Gannedahl M, Berg J. Association between disability, cognition, fatigue, EQ-5D-3L domains, and utilities estimated with different Western European value sets in patients with multiple sclerosis. Value Health 22(2), 231–238 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Demonstrates the correlation between EDSS scores and HRQoL and the positive association that receiving high efficacy treatment early in the course of disease has on such outcomes.
41.
Kobelt G, Thompson A, Berg J et al. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Mult. Scler. 23(8), 1123–1136 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
42.
Busche K, Fisk J, Murray T, Metz L. Short term predictors of unemployment in multiple sclerosis patients. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 30(2), 137–142 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
43.
Tauhid S, Chu R, Sasane R et al. Brain MRI lesions and atrophy are associated with employment status in patients with multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. 262(11), 2425–2432 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
44.
Rumrill P, Li J, Strauser D et al. Personal, health and function, and career maintenance factors as determinants of quality of life among employed people with multiple sclerosis. Work 67(1), 81–94 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
45.
Chiu C, Bishop M, Pionke J, Strauser D, Santens RL. Barriers to the accessibility and continuity of health-care services in people with multiple sclerosis: a literature review. Int. J. MS Care 19(6), 313–321 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
46.
Owens GM. Economic burden of multiple sclerosis and the role of managed care organizations in multiple sclerosis management. Am. J. Manag. Care 22(Suppl. 6), S151–S158 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
47.
Statistics Canada (Web Page). Consumer Price Index [Health care], monthly, not seasonally adjusted; Table 18-10-0004-01. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1810000401 (2022).
Google Scholar
48.
Harding K, Williams O, Willis M et al. Clinical outcomes of escalation vs early intensive disease-modifying therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 76(5), 536–541 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Demonstrates the importance of initially receiving highly effective treatments and the positive effect on clinical outcomes such as time to progression.
49.
Ahn E, Kang H. Concepts and emerging issues of network meta-analysis. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 74(5), 371–382 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
50.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Royston, UK (2011).
Google Scholar
|