IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i1d10.1007_s40273-021-01081-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Author

Listed:
  • Laurenske A. Visser

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Marc Folcher

    (Institute of Molecular and Clinical Opthalmology Basel)

  • Claudia Delgado Simao

    (Eurecat, Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya)

  • Biotza Gutierrez Arechederra

    (Eurecat Centre Tecnologic de Catalunya)

  • Encarna Escudero

    (Eurecat, Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya)

  • Carin A. Uyl-de Groot

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • William Ken Redekop

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Background Current first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are injectable or oral treatments. The Optogenerapy consortium is developing a novel bioelectronic cell-based implant for controlled release of beta-interferon (IFNβ1a) protein into the body. The current study estimated the potential cost effectiveness of the Optogenerapy implant (hereafter: Optoferon) compared with injectable IFNβ1a (Avonex). Methods A Markov model simulating the costs and effects of Optoferon compared with injectable 30 mg IFNβ1a over a 9-year time horizon from a Dutch societal perspective. Costs were reported in 2019 Euros and discounted at a 4% annual rate; health effects were discounted at a 1.5% annual rate. The cohort consisted of 35-year-old, relapsing–remitting MS patients with mild disability. The device is implanted in a daycare setting, and is replaced every 3 years. In the base-case analysis, we assumed equal input parameters for Optoferon and Avonex regarding disability progression, health effects, adverse event probabilities, and acquisition costs. We assumed reduced annual relapse rates and withdrawal rates for Optoferon compared with Avonex. Sensitivity, scenario, value of information, and headroom analysis were performed. Results Optoferon was the dominant strategy with cost reductions (− €26,966) and health gains (0.45 quality-adjusted life-years gained). A main driver of cost differences are the acquisition costs of Optoferon being 2.5 times less than the costs of Avonex. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to variations in the annual acquisition costs of Avonex, the annual withdrawal rate of Avonex and Optoferon, and the disability progression of Avonex. Conclusion Innovative technology such as the Optoferon implant may be a cost-effective therapy for patients with MS. The novel implantable mode of therapeutic protein administration has the potential to become a new mode of treatment administration for MS patients and in other disease areas. However, trials are needed to establish safety and effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurenske A. Visser & Marc Folcher & Claudia Delgado Simao & Biotza Gutierrez Arechederra & Encarna Escudero & Carin A. Uyl-de Groot & William Ken Redekop, 2022. "The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 91-108, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01081-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whichello, Chiara & Bywall, Karin Schölin & Mauer, Jonathan & Stephen, Watt & Cleemput, Irina & Pinto, Cathy Anne & van Overbeeke, Eline & Huys, Isabelle & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hermann, Richard, 2020. "An overview of critical decision-points in the medical product lifecycle: Where to include patient preference information in the decision-making process?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(12), pages 1325-1332.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Megan Thomas & Deborah A. Marshall & Daksh Choudhary & Susan J. Bartlett & Adalberto Loyola Sanchez & Glen S. Hazlewood, 2022. "The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 423-434, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01081-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.