{"title":"利用治疗序列模型估算抗 CD20 治疗复发性多发性硬化症的健康经济效益。","authors":"Ide Smets, Matthijs Versteegh, Simone Huygens, Cato Corsten, Beatrijs Wokke, Joost Smolders","doi":"10.1177/20552173231189398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In high-income countries, four anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are used or in the pipeline for relapsing MS: ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (both registered), ublituximab (awaiting registration) and rituximab (off-label). List prices differ significantly between registered and off-label drugs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Comparing differences in benefits between anti-CD20 mAbs from a health-economic and societal perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To reflect lifetime use of DMTs, we used a treatment-sequence model to compare ocrelizumab/ofatumumab and eight other drug classes in terms of health (lifetime relapses, time to Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 6, lifetime quality-adjusted life years) and cost-effectiveness (net health benefit). To become cost-effective compared to ocrelizumab, we modelled the list price of ublituximab and desired effect on EDSS progression of rituximab.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although drug sequences with ocrelizumab in first- and second-line were more cost-effective than ofatumumab, our probabilistic analysis suggests this outcome was very uncertain. To be more cost-effective than ocrelizumab, ublituximab needs to be about 25% cheaper whilst rituximab needs to equal the effect on disability progression seen with first-line treatments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our model showed no clear difference in cost-effectiveness between ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. Hence, prescribing the least costly anti-CD20 mAb can democratise MS care without a loss in health benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":18961,"journal":{"name":"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical","volume":"9 3","pages":"20552173231189398"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10387699/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health-economic benefits of anti-CD20 treatments in relapsing multiple sclerosis estimated using a treatment-sequence model.\",\"authors\":\"Ide Smets, Matthijs Versteegh, Simone Huygens, Cato Corsten, Beatrijs Wokke, Joost Smolders\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552173231189398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In high-income countries, four anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are used or in the pipeline for relapsing MS: ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (both registered), ublituximab (awaiting registration) and rituximab (off-label). List prices differ significantly between registered and off-label drugs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Comparing differences in benefits between anti-CD20 mAbs from a health-economic and societal perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To reflect lifetime use of DMTs, we used a treatment-sequence model to compare ocrelizumab/ofatumumab and eight other drug classes in terms of health (lifetime relapses, time to Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 6, lifetime quality-adjusted life years) and cost-effectiveness (net health benefit). To become cost-effective compared to ocrelizumab, we modelled the list price of ublituximab and desired effect on EDSS progression of rituximab.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although drug sequences with ocrelizumab in first- and second-line were more cost-effective than ofatumumab, our probabilistic analysis suggests this outcome was very uncertain. To be more cost-effective than ocrelizumab, ublituximab needs to be about 25% cheaper whilst rituximab needs to equal the effect on disability progression seen with first-line treatments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our model showed no clear difference in cost-effectiveness between ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. Hence, prescribing the least costly anti-CD20 mAb can democratise MS care without a loss in health benefits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical\",\"volume\":\"9 3\",\"pages\":\"20552173231189398\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10387699/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552173231189398\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552173231189398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Health-economic benefits of anti-CD20 treatments in relapsing multiple sclerosis estimated using a treatment-sequence model.
Background: In high-income countries, four anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are used or in the pipeline for relapsing MS: ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (both registered), ublituximab (awaiting registration) and rituximab (off-label). List prices differ significantly between registered and off-label drugs.
Objective: Comparing differences in benefits between anti-CD20 mAbs from a health-economic and societal perspective.
Methods: To reflect lifetime use of DMTs, we used a treatment-sequence model to compare ocrelizumab/ofatumumab and eight other drug classes in terms of health (lifetime relapses, time to Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 6, lifetime quality-adjusted life years) and cost-effectiveness (net health benefit). To become cost-effective compared to ocrelizumab, we modelled the list price of ublituximab and desired effect on EDSS progression of rituximab.
Results: Although drug sequences with ocrelizumab in first- and second-line were more cost-effective than ofatumumab, our probabilistic analysis suggests this outcome was very uncertain. To be more cost-effective than ocrelizumab, ublituximab needs to be about 25% cheaper whilst rituximab needs to equal the effect on disability progression seen with first-line treatments.
Conclusions: Our model showed no clear difference in cost-effectiveness between ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. Hence, prescribing the least costly anti-CD20 mAb can democratise MS care without a loss in health benefits.