Journal of Multiple Sclerosis

Unlocking the Long-Term Value Proposition: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Glatiramer Acetate in the Treatment Landscape of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis from the UK NHS Perspective

Elche Greeds^* and Oman Godsy ^*Correspondence: Elche Greeds, Department of Neurology, University of Texas, Dallas, USA, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

In the dynamic realm of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) treatment, the spotlight has recently been cast on the long-term effects of Glatiramer Acetate (GA) and interferons-ß (IFNs), particularly within the confines of the UK Multiple Sclerosis Risk Sharing Scheme (RSS)[1-3]. This article embarks on an exhaustive exploration, offering a detailed and comprehensive perspective on the cost-effectiveness of GA for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) from the standpoint of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Methods

The crux of our analytical journey lies in a meticulous examination of a discrete Markov model, a sophisticated tool developed for the purpose of comparing GA (administered in dosages of 20 mg qd or 40 mg tiw) against a spectrum of treatments including Best Supportive Care (BSC), IFN-1a 44 µg, IFN-1a 22 µg, IFN-1a 30 µg, and IFN-1b. With a comprehensive 50-year time horizon, this model features 21 health states meticulously defined by the Expanded Disability Status Scale. It doesn't merely stop at baseline considerations; the model incorporates a rich tapestry of variables such as adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and the incorporation of various second-line treatments. It even accounts for the complexities of neutralizing antibodies [4-6].

Derived from a foundation of natural history studies in RRMS patients, the model elegantly incorporates relapse rates and disability progression transition probabilities. A de novo network meta-analysis was conducted, utilizing results extracted from a pool of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The robustness of our findings is validated through a rigorous comparison of outputs against a scenario that seamlessly integrates realworld data from the RSS.

In this scientific odyssey, Glatiramer Acetate emerges as the triumphant protagonist, dominating its counterparts in the form of IFN-1a 22µg and IFN-1a 30µg. This domination is not merely in terms of clinical efficacy but extends to the realm of economic prudence, as GA exhibits lower overall costs and notably superior Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gains, recording 0.226 and 0.067, respectively.

When juxtaposed against Best Supportive Care, GA demonstrates a clear and decisive stance in terms of cost-effectiveness, showcasing an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of £14,789 per QALY gained. This economic advantage, coupled with its clinical efficacy, positions GA as a frontrunner in the treatment armamentarium for RRMS.

The narrative takes an intriguing turn when comparing GA against IFN-1a 44µg and IFN-1b. Even though a reversed ICER is observed, GA does not waver in maintaining its cost-effectiveness standing. This resilience is a testament to the multifaceted nature of GA's efficacy, where it not only contends with economic considerations but steadfastly holds its own against alternative therapeutic options.

Sensitivity analysis

Delving deeper into the nuances of our analysis, the sensitivity analysis serves as a compass navigating through the various influential factors. At the forefront is the treatment-specific Hazard Ratio (HR) for disability progression, emerging as the most pivotal factor influencing the model's dynamics. As this ratio ebbs and flows, so do the contours of the economic and clinical landscape. This underscores the importance of understanding the intricacies of disability progression and its direct impact on the overall cost-effectiveness of GA.

Other influential factors identified through the sensitivity analysis include the proportion of patients transitioning to second-line treatments, discount rates, the phenomenon of treatment waning, and the dynamic nature of health-state costs. Each of these variables contributes to the tapestry of the model, weaving a complex narrative that underscores the need for a holistic understanding of the myriad factors shaping the economic and clinical outcomes.

Scenario analyses

The robustness of any model is not truly tested until subjected to the rigors of scenario analyses. In our case, the incorporation of treatment-specific HR from the RSS provides a real-world anchor, confirming the steadfastness of our base case findings. This not only validates the accuracy and reliability of our model but also serves as a bridge connecting the theoretical framework with the tangible outcomes observed in the RSS. The scenario analyses extend beyond validation; they illuminate the adaptability of our model to diverse data sources. Comparing favorably with the 6-year RSS results, our model demonstrates its resilience in accommodating real-world dynamics, thereby enhancing its utility as a tool for decision-makers within the healthcare landscape.

Conclusions

The synthesis of our findings traverses the realms of clinical efficacy, economic prudence, and adaptability to real-world scenarios. From different modeling approaches to diverse data sources, the consistent thread woven throughout is the cost-effectiveness of Glatiramer Acetate in the treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.

GA emerges not just as a cost-effective option but as a paragon of efficacy, surpassing initial predictions outlined at the inception of the RSS. The evidence presented in this comprehensive analysis positions GA as a compelling, sustainable, and economically sound choice for the long-term treatment of RRMS from the perspective of the UK NHS.

As we navigate the intricate landscape of MS treatment, the tale of Glatiramer Acetate stands out as a testament to the intersection of science, economics, and patient-centric care. In the journey ahead, this analysis serves as a guiding light for healthcare decision-makers, offering a nuanced perspective that transcends the boundaries of theoretical constructs, leading the way toward improved outcomes and enhanced quality of life for those navigating the challenges of RRMS.

References

1. Ruth, D., & Gavin G. "Multiple sclerosis–a review." European journal of neurology 26.1 (2019): 27-40.

   [CrossRef]

2. Weiner, Howard L., & James M. Stankiewicz, eds. “Multiple sclerosis: diagnosis andtherapy.” John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

   [CrossRef]

3. Olek MJ. “Multiple Sclerosis”. Ann Intern Med 2021

   [CrossRef]

4. Xavier, M, et al. "Ocrelizumab versus placebo in primary progressive multiple sclerosis." New England Journal of Medicine 376.3 (2017): 209-220. 

   [CrossRef]

5. Despoina, F, et al. "Anti-CD20 agents for multiple sclerosis: spotlight on ocrelizumab and ofatumumab." Brain Sciences 10.10 (2020): 758.

   [CrossRef]

6. Christoph, H., et al. "Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: new treatment complexities urge patient engagement." Journal of the neurological sciences 306.1-2 (2011): 192-197.

   [CrossRef]