Spelman T, Herring WL, Acosta C, Hyde R, Jokubaitis VG, Pucci E, Lugaresi A, Laureys G, Havrdova EK, Horakova D, Eichau S, Ozakbas S, Alroughani R, Kalincik T, Duquette P, Girard M, Petersen T, Patti F, Csepany T, Granella F, Grand'Maison F, Ferraro D, Karabudak R, Jose Sa M, Trojano M, Van Pesch V, Van Mijmeersch B, Cartechini E, McCombe P, Gerlach O, Spitaleri D, Rozsa C, Hodgkinson S, Bergamaschi R, Gouider R, Soysal A, Castillo-Trivino T, Prevost J, Garber J, de Gans K, Ampapa R, Simo M, Sanchez-Menoyo JL, Iuliano G, Sas A, van der Walt A, John N, Gray O, Hughes S, De Luca G, Izquierdo G, Onofrj M, Buzzard K, Skibina O, Terzi M, Slee M, Solaro C, Oreja-Guevara C, Ramo-Tello C, Fragoso Y, Shaygannejad V, Moore F, Rajda C, Aguera Morales E, Butzkueven H. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom. J Med Econ. 2023 Dec;27(1):109-25. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2293379

AIM: To evaluate the real-world comparative effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness, from a UK National Health Service perspective, of natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RES-RRMS).

METHODS: Real-world data from the MSBase Registry were obtained for patients with RES-RRMS who were previously either naive to disease-modifying therapies or had been treated with interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide (collectively known as BRACETD). Matched cohorts were selected by 3-way multinomial propensity score matching, and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month–confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M) were compared between treatment groups. Comparative effectiveness results were used in a cost-effectiveness model using an established Markov structure over a lifetime horizon with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Additional model data sources included the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available sources.

RESULTS: In the comparative effectiveness analysis, we found a significantly lower ARR for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (rate ratio [RR]=0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.73) or BRACETD (RR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). Similarly, CDI6M was higher for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio [HR]=1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55) and BRACETD (HR=1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85). In patients starting fingolimod, we found a lower ARR (RR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80) compared with starting BRACETD, but no difference in CDI6M (HR=1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Differences in CDW6M were not found between the treatment groups. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, natalizumab dominated fingolimod (0.302 higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and £17,141 lower predicted lifetime costs). Similar cost-effectiveness results were observed across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS: This MSBase Registry analysis suggests that natalizumab improves clinical outcomes when compared with fingolimod, which translates to higher QALYs and lower costs in UK patients with RES-RRMS.