Disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: cost-effectiveness systematic review

Cristian Eduardo Navarro, Eliana Ordóñez-Callamand, Juan Pablo Alzate

To identify and describe cost-effectiveness studies that  evaluate disease modifying therapies in the context of relapsing- remitting multiple sclerosis. A systematic review of the literature was carried out by  searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, LILACS, the Tufts  Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, the National Health  Service Economic Evaluation Database and Open Grey. The search was  performed in January 2018 and covered articles published between  January 2010 and December 2017. The studies reviewed were payer- perspective cost-effectiveness analyses for interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, fingolimod, dimethyl  fumarate, natalizumab, alemtuzumab and rituximab. The Quality of  Health Economic Studies instrument was used to determine the quality  of the studies reviewed. Risk of bias was assessed without a  standardized tool. An analysis was made of direct costs, quality- adjusted life-years and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Data  extraction and evaluation of information were conducted separately by  each author. Four hundred one references were found; nine studies were included. A great degree of variability was identified for several  methodological aspects. Two studies that applied the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (cost) showed no first-line therapy to be cost- effective. A third study demonstrated dominance of interferon beta-1b  over placebo (USD -315,109.45) and a fourth paper showed dominance  of teriflunomide over interferons and glatiramer acetate (USD - 121,840.37). As regards second-line therapies, dimethyl fumarate was  cost-effective in a study that compared it to glatiramer acetate and  interferon beta-1a and it was dominant in another study that compared  it with glatiramer acetate (USD -158,897.93) and fingolimod (USD - 92,988.97). In the third line of treatment, one study showed  natalizumab to be cost-effective as compared with fingolimod, and  another study showed alemtuzumab to be dominant over fingolimod  (USD -49,221). A third trial demonstrated alemtuzumab to be dominant over natalizumab (USD -1,656,266.07). Many of the trials have  sponsorship bias. Eight of the trials received a high QHES score. The present paper shows that cost-effectiveness studies have high levels of methodological variability, some of them  reaching contradictory results. As a result, it is not possible to  determine which disease- modifying therapy is really cost-effective in  the context of relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis.