Perspectives for managed care organizations on the burden of multiple sclerosis and the cost-benefits of disease-modifying therapies

Abstract

Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are a core component of multiple sclerosis (MS) management. Given current constraints on health care expenditures, the relative cost-effectiveness of these therapies needs to be considered when making treatment decisions. The objective of this article is to review the burden of illness of MS, discuss the cost-effectiveness data for DMTs, and summarize the implications for payers. For the burden of illness in MS, a retrospective analysis of managed care administrative data from the IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database was performed. Data from claims submitted for patients with confirmed MS (ICD-9-CM code 340) over a period of 1 year (2009) were analyzed. A literature review was conducted to put these data into perspective. The retrospective analysis determined that the mean annual cost of treating MS in the United States in 2009 was $23,434, which varied according to the presence of comorbidities/complications. Overall, DMTs accounted for 69% of the total costs of managing the disease. According to the literature review, the typical first-line DMTs (interferon beta [IFNβ] formulations and glatiramer acetate [GA]) are generally associated with incremental cost-utility or cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of $100,000 per quality of life year gained. Natalizumab may have cost benefits over other agents in patients with more aggressive disease. According to the available data, studies indicate that DMT cost-effectiveness (specifically cost per quality-adjusted life years) appears to improve with treatment initiation during the early stages of the disease. In relapsing-remitting MS, there is currently little evidence to differentiate between the DMTs that are typically used first-line (IFNs and GA) based on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility studies. Presently, optimal therapy decisions for DMT-naïve patients are likely to be made individually based on patient and provider preference, adherence, and medication risk-benefit profiles. For patients with more advanced disease, natalizumab appears to have greater efficacy and to be more cost-effective than other agents.