Author(s)
Bosco-Levy P1, Blin P2, Lignot-Maleyran S2, Lassalle R2, Abouelfath A2, Diez P2, Debouverie M3, Brochet B4, Guillemin F5, Moore N6, Droz-Perroteau C2
1Bordeaux PharmacoEpi, INSERM CIC1401, Bordeaux University ; Bordeaux population health research centre, INSERM UMR 1219, Bordeaux University, Bordeaux, France, 2Bordeaux PharmacoEpi, INSERM CIC1401, Bordeaux University, Bordeaux, 33, France, 3CHU de Nancy - Hôpital Central, Nancy, France, 4CRC SEP, service de neurologie, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France, 5CHRU de Nancy-Hôpitaux de Brabois, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, 6Bordeaux PharmacoEpi, INSERM CIC1401, Bordeaux University ; CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
OBJECTIVES Recently, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) was added to the therapeutic arsenal against Multiple Sclerosis (MS), but the cost-consequence of this drug versus other first-line disease-modifying therapies (i.e. injectable immunomodulatory drugs (IID) and two other oral drugs: fingolimod (FTY) and teriflunomide (TERI)) has never been studied in real world settings using data of a national claims database METHODS A cost–consequence analysis was performed for all patients identified in the French national claims database (SNDS), who initiated DMF, IID, TERI or FTY between 2015 and 2017, with 1 to 3.5 years of follow-up. DMF effectiveness compared to other treatment groups was assessed during the index treatment period by estimating the annual rate of relapses (ARR). Results were expressed in Relative Risk (RR). The annual costs of all reimbursed healthcare expenditures were compared between DMF and each of the other treatment groups from the healthcare system perspective, overall and by cost components (inpatient, medication and non-medication costs). RESULTS DMF proved to be significantly effective on ARR in comparison with IID and TERI (RR: 0.72 and 0.81, respectively). No significant difference was found with FTY, but the specific indication of FTY makes the comparison difficult. The mean overall cost per person-year for DMF was significantly higher than for TERI (14531€ vs. 13197€) and IID (14273 € vs. 12476€), this additional cost being mainly due to the medication costs (10352€ vs. 8640€ and 10274€ vs. 8130€, respectively for each treatment group). However, inpatients costs were significantly lower for DMF than for TERI (871€ vs. 1021€) and for IID (876€ vs. 1010€). In comparison to FTY, overall costs were significantly lower for DMF (15575€ vs. 24206€). CONCLUSIONS Compared to TERI and IID, DMF is an effective treatment strategy in reducing relapse occurrence in MS patients, which nevertheless entails an additional cost for the French healthcare system.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2020-11, ISPOR Europe 2020, Milan, Italy
Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue S2 (December 2020)
Code
PND25
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Neurological Disorders