Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets, alemtuzumab, and natalizumab in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in England. (3rd July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hettle, Robert; Harty, Gerard; Wong, Schiffon L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical economics. Volume 21:Number 7(2018)
• Page Start: 676
• Page End: 686
• Publication Date: 2018-07-03
• Subjects: Cladribine tablets -- alemtuzumab -- natalizumab -- multiple sclerosis -- cost-effectiveness; Medical care -- Cost control -- Periodicals; Medical economics -- Periodicals; 362.10941
• DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1461630
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6998

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Cladribine tablets were the first oral short-course treatment approved for highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). The Association of British Neurologists guidelines currently recommend two infusion therapies, alemtuzumab and natalizumab, to treat high disease activity relapsing remitting MS (HDA-RRMS). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets in HDA-RRMS compared with alemtuzumab and natalizumab, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Materials and methods: A cohort-based Markov model with 11 health states (10 Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] plus death) was developed. Transition matrices from the British Columbia registry were used to model the natural history of EDSS. The treatment effect on EDSS was modelled using hazard ratios for 6-month confirmed disability progression from an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Relapses and drug-related adverse events were modeled via annualized relapse rates and event probabilities, with associated costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) losses. Utilities were derived from trials and the literature, and costs from NHS and literature sources. Uncertainty was assessed via probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Results: Cladribine tablets were dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) vs alemtuzumab and natalizumab in pairwise comparisons, and the dominant strategy in fully incremental analyses. Incremental cost was driven largely by drug acquisition and administration costs, and incremental QALY gain largely by differences in delayed EDSS progression. Cladribine tablets had a 93% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30, 000 per QALY gained, and remained dominant across the scenario analyses tested. The greatest influence on results was the treatment effect on disability progression derived from the ITC. Limitations: Uncertainty over the efficacy of DMT beyond trial durations. In line with other comparative effectiveness analyses, the network meta-analysis informing this cost-effectiveness analysis was associated with a degree of uncertainty. No treatment switching analyses were undertaken. Conclusions: Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective alternative to alemtuzumab and natalizumab in the treatment of HDA-RRMS from the perspective of the NHS in England.