Pharmaceutical economics & health policyOriginal researchLong-Term Cost-Effectiveness Model of Interferon Beta-1b in the Early Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States
Introduction
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease that impairs the brain and spinal cord. There is no cure for MS, and the safest and most reliable medications available are disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), which were introduced in the 1990s to slow down or alter the natural course of MS to enhance patient quality of life. Although evidence1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 suggests that these drugs delay disease progression and reduce the incidence of relapses in patients with MS, the effects of DMTs on long-term survival outcomes are much less understood. Several recent, large-scale, population-based mortality studies and registries, however, demonstrate a distinct survival disadvantage (7−14 years) in MS patients compared with the general population,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 with differences emerging as early as 2 to 10 years after the MS diagnosis.12
As a reaction to the lack of definitive long-term data regarding the impact of DMT on survival/mortality in MS patients, the 21-Year Long-Term Follow-Up (21Y-LTF)14 study to the interferon beta (IFNβ)-1b pivotal trial1, 2 was undertaken. The 21Y-LTF study assessed the effects of IFNβ-1b on mortality by examining 372 patients who participated in the IFNβ-1b pivotal trial 21 years after the trial was initiated. At the 21-year follow-up, the study found a statistically significant survival advantage for patients randomized to receive earlier treatment with IFNβ-1b 250 μg compared with placebo (no early treatment), with a hazard ratio of 0.532 (95% CI, 0.314–0.902). With near-complete patient ascertainment (98.4%), a randomized controlled trial design approach, and the longest period of follow-up for a treatment-exposed MS population, this study provides valuable insights into the effect of IFNβ-1b on all-cause mortality outcomes in MS patients, as well as a strong indication about this agent's potential role in prolonging the survival of patients with MS.
To simulate the long-term benefit of IFNβ-1b in the early treatment of patients with relapse-remitting MS (RRMS) in the United States, we present a cost-effectiveness model that was developed based on the findings of the 21Y-LTF study.14 The analysis adopts the societal perspective, with considerations of higher mortality risks for MS patients and an observed survival benefit associated with early IFNβ-1b treatment. This is the fundamental difference between the design of our cost-effectiveness study and previous economic studies in MS, as many published models only consider the effect of treatments on disease progression but not on the survival benefit.15, 16, 17, 18 In addition, our cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the MS cohort over a lifetime (70 years) to accurately portray the chronic disease nature of MS and fully capture the survival benefits associated with IFNβ-1b treatment. Some cost-effectiveness publications16, 17 considering shorter-term (eg, 10 years) outcomes have suggested a high cost for modest health gains for DMTs in MS care. Our study attempts to investigate the cost-effectiveness outcomes over a longer time horizon. We obtained cost and utilization estimates by using the resource use pattern and quality of life data of a recently surveyed nationally representative MS population in the United States.19 With this approach, our cost-effectiveness model results are expected to override the concerns raised in existing models for the US patient population, where the analyses are often based on information from outdated cost and utility sources or the use of small convenience samples for utility predictions.15, 17, 18
Section snippets
Modeling Approach
A Markov model was developed to simulate the long-term experience of the patient cohort from the 21Y-LTF study.14 The clinical course of MS was modeled by using 7 health states representing the grouped scoring levels of the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS): 0 to 1.5, 2.0 to 2.5, 3.0 to 3.5, 4.0 to 5.5, 6.0 to 7.5, 8.0 to 9.5, and 10 (death) (Figure 1). Health states were determined according to disease severity and were defined to match the EDSS groups used in the source data for
Predicted Survival of MS Patients
MS patients receiving early treatment of IFNβ-1b displayed a distinct advantage in survival early on, which persisted throughout the time horizon of analysis, compared with the placebo patients (Figure 3). Over a lifetime period, early treatment with IFNβ-1b reduced LYs lost by 7.8 years (Table III), and the median age at death for the placebo group was predicted to be 63.7 years versus 71.6 years for the IFNβ-1b group. Based on the median disease-onset age of 27 years from the IFNβ-1b pivotal
Discussion
The base case model results indicated that over the lifetime of MS patients, early treatment with IFNβ-1b greatly improved LYs and QALYs, with a modest increase in costs. The significant, long-term survival benefits observed in the initially treated MS patients highlighted the potential value of early IFNβ-1b intervention in both disease progression and life expectancy. On average, our economic analyses projected that patients randomized to receive IFNβ-1b therapy during the initial trial
Conclusions
The clinical course and long-term outcomes of the 21Y-LTF study patient cohort were investigated in a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IFNβ-1b from the societal perspective in the United States. Treatment with IFNβ-1b during the early disease phase of MS patients has shown improvement in the disease progression, significantly reduced all-cause mortality, and greatly increased overall patient LYs and QALYs over their lifetime. Compared with the placebo arm, early IFNβ-1b
Conflicts of Interest
This economic study was sponsored by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Wang is a full-time, salaried employee of Bayer. Dr. Pleimes is also a salaried employee of Bayer. Dr. Cutter is a paid consultant to Bayer. Dr. Pan, Ms. Goh, and Mr. Wu are employees of United BioSource Corporation, which was funded by Bayer to develop the cost-effectiveness analysis and manuscript.
Acknowledgments
Dr. Pan, Ms. Goh, Dr. Cutter, and Dr. Wang contributed to the study design. Dr. Pan and Mr. Goh conducted literature search. Mr. Su developed the model. All authors contributed to writing and data interpretation.
References (36)
- et al.
Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: results of a 2-year prospective randomised multicentre study (INCOMIN)
Lancet
(2002) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis
Value Health
(2004) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the Medicare population
Value Health
(2009) - et al.
Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis
J Health Econ
(1997) Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosisI. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group
Neurology
(1993)Interferon beta-1b in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: final outcome of the randomized controlled trialThe IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group
Neurology
(1995)Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon beta-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosisPRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon beta-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group
Lancet
(1998)- et al.
Intramuscular interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosisThe Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG)
Ann Neurol
(1996) - et al.
Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a phase III multicenter, double-blind placebo-controlled trialThe Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group
Neurology
(1995) - et al.
Randomized, comparative study of interferon beta-1a treatment regimens in MS: the EVIDENCE Trial
Neurology
(2002)
Trends in survival and cause of death in Danish patients with multiple sclerosis
Brain
Survival and cause of death in multiple sclerosis: results from a 50-year follow-up in Western Norway
Mult Scler
Survival and cause of death in multiple sclerosis: a prospective population-based study
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
Long-term survival of patients with multiple sclerosis in West France
Mult Scler
Causes of death among patients with multiple sclerosis
Mult Scler
Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in US veteransVIII. Long-term survival after onset of multiple sclerosis
Brain
Survival in MS: a randomized cohort study 21 years after the start of the pivotal IFNβ-1b trial
Neurology
Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on long-term clinical data
J Manag Care Pharm
Cited by (17)
Economic costs associated with an MS relapse
2014, Multiple Sclerosis and Related DisordersCitation Excerpt :The average cost in Ireland is €15,000 per year for first-line therapy rising to €22,000 per year for second-line agents and are a significant contributor to the direct costs early in the disease. Cost-effectiveness has yet to be proven (Noyes et al., 2011) and can depend on the model used but earlier treatment is associated with improved survival and quality adjusted life years (QALY) (Kobelt et al., 2009, Pan et al., 2012). High relapse activity early in the disease is a significant predictor of the need to switch to second line therapies (Portaccio et al., 2009) and further impacts on cost.
Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease
2023, European Journal of Health EconomicsIncorporating patients’ preferences in the value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a narrative review
2021, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes ResearchDo Research Groups Align on an Intervention’s Value? Concordance of Cost-Effectiveness Findings Between the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Other Health System Stakeholders
2020, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy