Cost Effectiveness of Glatiramer Acetate and Natalizumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
Abstract
Background: Disease-modifying drugs are a significant expenditure for treating multiple sclerosis. Natalizumab (NZ) has been shown to be effective in reducing relapses and disease progression. However, assessment of the cost effectiveness of NZ compared with other disease-modifying drugs in the presence of long-term data has been limited. Objective: To assess the lifetime cost effectiveness from the US healthcare and societal perspectives of glatiramer acetate (GA) and NZ (both given with symptom management) relative to symptom management alone in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) using evidence from long-term published studies. Methods: A Markov model was developed with patients transitioning through health states based on Kurtzke's expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Patients were ≥18 years of age with RRMS, EDSS <6.0 and receiving treatment. Treatment effects were obtained from clinical trials for years 1 and 2 of therapy and long-term clinical assessments thereafter. Transitions were adjusted for discontinuation and persistent NZ antibodies. Patients incurred drug, other medical and lost worker productivity costs. Patient quality of life was considered in the form of utilities, which were taken from assessments of patients with MS. Costs were valued in 2007 $US, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Various parameters and assumptions were tested in one-way sensitivity analyses, and scenario-based analyses were also performed. Results: Remaining lifetime, direct medical costs for patients receiving GA or NZ versus symptom management were $US408 000, $US422 208 and $US341 436, respectively. Patients receiving GA or NZ benefited from increased years in EDSS 0.0-5.5 (1.18 and 1.09, respectively), years relapse-free (1.30 and 1.18) and QALYs (0.1341 and 0.1332). The incremental cost per QALY for GA or NZ compared with symptom management was $US496 222 and $US606 228, respectively, excluding lost worker productivity costs. GA was associated with a cost saving compared with NZ. The incremental cost per QALY results were sensitive to changes in time horizon, disease progression and drug costs. Improved QALYs for NZ were sensitive to changes in the clinical effect of NZ on disease progression and discontinuation over time. Conclusions: GA or NZ in RRMS patients is associated with increased benefits compared with symptom management, albeit at higher costs. Although year 1 and 2 disease progression and relapse rates were better for NZ than GA, long-term evidence may show GA to have similar, if not improved, clinical benefit.Download Info
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic Info
Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal Applied Health Economics & Health Policy.
Volume (Year): 7 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 91-108
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:7:y:2009:i:2:p:91-108
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://healtheconomics.adisonline.com/
For corrections or technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dave Dustin).
Related research
Keywords:Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
References
No references listed on IDEASYou can help add them by filling out this form.
Citations
Lists
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:7:y:2009:i:2:p:91-108For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.