Cost-effectiveness of ocrelizumab for treatment of Iranian patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis

Nayyereh Ayati; Saeed Taheri; Mohammad Ali Sahraian; Shekoufeh Nikfar

doi:10.18502/cjn.v20i3.7691

Nayyereh Ayati Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Administration, School of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Saeed Taheri Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharma Management, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Mohammad Ali Sahraian Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Shekoufeh Nikfar Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Administration, School of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/cjn.v20i3.7691

Keywords: Multiple Sclerosis; Immunologic Factors; Monoclonal Antibodies; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Iran

Abstract

Background: The current study desired to conduct an economic analysis on ocrelizumab (OCR), a new relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) treatment strategy, in comparison to natalizumab (NTL), as one of the mostly-used disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in Iran.

Methods: A 31-health-state Markov model, based on Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), containing patients on- and off-treatment with annual cycles was developed. Baseline demographics and utility scores were extracted from OPERA 1 and 2 trials. Confirmed disability progression (CDP) and annualized relapse rates (ARR) were extracted from the literature. Mortality was calculated based on age, sex, and disease state. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years gained (LYG) were measurements of efficacy. Direct and indirect costs were identified and calculated based on the national book of tariffs in Iranian Rial (IRR) rates, then converted to the 2020 United States Dollar (USD). Final results were reported in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which showed extra costs required for one additional QALY. Robustness of the model was analyzed
through deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

Results: OCR dominated NTL and was associated with cost-savings of 6971 USD, longer LYG (0.004), and higher QALYs (0.27). Although OCR had higher acquisition costs, which was the main component in both comparator arms, it was associated with lower total costs, due to lower disability progression and productivity loss. Results remained robust in DSA and PSA (93.5% cost-effectiveness in Iran’s pharmacoeconomic threshold, 2709 USD).

Conclusion: Results suggested that OCR was a more cost-effective option than NTL for the treatment of patients with RMS in Iran.