WSLHD
Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://wslhd.intersearch.com.au/wslhdjspui/handle/1/8997
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSpelman, T.-
dc.contributor.authorHerring, W. L.-
dc.contributor.authorAcosta, C.-
dc.contributor.authorHyde, R.-
dc.contributor.authorJokubaitis, V. G.-
dc.contributor.authorPucci, E.-
dc.contributor.authorLugaresi, A.-
dc.contributor.authorLaureys, G.-
dc.contributor.authorHavrdova, E. K.-
dc.contributor.authorHorakova, D.-
dc.contributor.authorIzquierdo, G.-
dc.contributor.authorEichau, S.-
dc.contributor.authorOzakbas, S.-
dc.contributor.authorAlroughani, R.-
dc.contributor.authorKalincik, T.-
dc.contributor.authorDuquette, P.-
dc.contributor.authorGirard, M.-
dc.contributor.authorPetersen, T.-
dc.contributor.authorPatti, F.-
dc.contributor.authorCsepany, T.-
dc.contributor.authorGranella, F.-
dc.contributor.authorGrand'Maison, F.-
dc.contributor.authorFerraro, D.-
dc.contributor.authorKarabudak, R.-
dc.contributor.authorJose Sa, M.-
dc.contributor.authorTrojano, M.-
dc.contributor.authorvan Pesch, V.-
dc.contributor.authorVan Wijmeersch, B.-
dc.contributor.authorCartechini, E.-
dc.contributor.authorMcCombe, P.-
dc.contributor.authorGerlach, O.-
dc.contributor.authorSpitaleri, D.-
dc.contributor.authorRozsa, C.-
dc.contributor.authorHodgkinson, S.-
dc.contributor.authorBergamaschi, R.-
dc.contributor.authorGouider, R.-
dc.contributor.authorSoysal, A.-
dc.contributor.authorCastillo, Trivino-
dc.contributor.authorPrevost, J.-
dc.contributor.authorGarber, J.-
dc.contributor.authorde Gans, K.-
dc.contributor.authorAmpapa, R.-
dc.contributor.authorSimo, M.-
dc.contributor.authorSanchez-Menoyo, J. L.-
dc.contributor.authorIuliano, G.-
dc.contributor.authorSas, A.-
dc.contributor.authorvan der Walt, A.-
dc.contributor.authorJohn, N.-
dc.contributor.authorGray, O.-
dc.contributor.authorHughes, S.-
dc.contributor.authorDe Luca, G.-
dc.contributor.authorOnofrj, M.-
dc.contributor.authorBuzzard, K.-
dc.contributor.authorSkibina, O.-
dc.contributor.authorTerzi, M.-
dc.contributor.authorSlee, M.-
dc.contributor.authorSolaro, C.-
dc.contributor.authorOreja, Guevara-
dc.contributor.authorRamo-Tello, C.-
dc.contributor.authorFragoso, Y.-
dc.contributor.authorShaygannejad, V.-
dc.contributor.authorMoore, F.-
dc.contributor.authorRajda, C.-
dc.contributor.authorAguera Morales, E.-
dc.contributor.authorButzkueven, H.-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T00:57:58Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T00:57:58Z-
dc.date.issued2024-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Economics 27(1):109-125, 2024-
dc.identifier.urihttps://wslhd.intersearch.com.au/wslhdjspui/handle/1/8997-
dc.description.abstractAIM: 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 comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, 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.-
dc.titleComparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2023.2293379-
dc.subject.keywordsNatalizumab-
dc.subject.keywordsFingolimod Hydrochloride-
dc.subject.keywordsImmunosuppressive Agents-
dc.subject.keywordsMultiple Sclerosis-
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Medical Economics-
dc.contributor.wslhdGarber, J.-
dc.identifier.pmid38085684-
dc.identifier.facilityWestmead-
Appears in Collections:Westmead Hospital 2019 - 2024

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in the repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.