Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34921350›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2022

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Natalizumab and Fingolimod in Patients with Inadequate Response to Disease-Modifying Therapies in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the United Kingdom.

Timothy Spelman, William L Herring, Yuanhui Zhang, Michael Tempest, Isobel Pearson, Ulrich Freudensprung, Carlos Acosta, Thibaut Dort, Robert Hyde, Eva Havrdova and 25 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Art of Sequencing Disease-Modifying Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

35 authors at 20 institutions in 13 countries.

Timothy Spelman *Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
William L Herring *RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Yuanhui ZhangRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Michael TempestMarket Access, Biogen, Maidenhead, UK.
Isobel PearsonRTI Health Solutions, Manchester, UK.
Ulrich FreudensprungMedical, Biogen, Baar, Switzerland.
Carlos AcostaValue and Market Access, Biogen International GmbH, Neuhofstrasse 30, 6340, Baar, Switzerland. carlos.acosta@biogen.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7257-8675
Thibaut Dort *Value and Market Access, Biogen International GmbH, Neuhofstrasse 30, 6340, Baar, Switzerland.
Robert HydeMedical, Biogen, Baar, Switzerland.
Eva HavrdovaDepartment of Neurology and Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, General University Hospital and Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Dana HorakovaDepartment of Neurology and Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, General University Hospital and Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Maria TrojanoDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Giovanna De LucaMultiple Sclerosis Centre, Neurology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, University "G. d'Annunzio", Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Alessandra LugaresiIRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Guillermo IzquierdoHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.
Pierre GrammondCentre de Réadaptation Déficience Physique Chaudière-Appalache, Lévis, Canada.
Pierre DuquetteHôpital Notre Dame, Montreal, Canada.
Raed AlroughaniAmiri Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Eugenio PucciNeurology Unit, ASUR Marche-AV3, Macerata, Italy.
Franco GranellaUniversity of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Jeannette Lechner-ScottJohn Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, Australia.
Patrizia SolaAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico/OCB, Neurology Unit, Modena, Italy.
Diana FerraroDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neurosciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Francois Grand'MaisonNeuro Rive-Sud, Hôpital Charles LeMoyne, Longueuil, Canada.
Murat TerziMayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
Csilla RozsaJahn Ferenc Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary.
Cavit BozKaradeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.
Raymond HuppertsZuyderland Medical Center, Sittard, The Netherlands.
Vincent Van PeschCliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
Celia Oreja-GuevaraHospital ClínicoSan Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Anneke van der WaltDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Vilija G JokubaitisDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tomas KalincikCORe, Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Helmut ButzkuevenDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
MSBase Investigators
Monash University · AUCharles University · CZBiogen (Switzerland) · CHAmiri Hospital · KWCliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena · ESKaradeniz Technical University · TROndokuz Mayıs University · TRThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · ITUniversity of Parma · ITHôpital Notre-Dame · CAHospital Clínico San Carlos · ESJohn Hunter Hospital · AUOspedale SS. Annunziata · ITRTI Health Solutions · USAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena · ITBiogen (United Kingdom) · GBCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches · CAHôpital Charles-Le Moyne · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis inadequately responding to first-line therapies (interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide, known collectively as "BRACETD") often switch to natalizumab or fingolimod.

objectiveThe aim was to estimate the comparative effectiveness of switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD using real-world data and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to natalizumab versus fingolimod using a United Kingdom (UK) third-party payer perspective.

methodsReal-world data were obtained from MSBase for patients relapsing on BRACETD in the year before switching to natalizumab or fingolimod or within BRACETD. Three-way-multinomial-propensity-score-matched cohorts were identified, and comparisons between treatment groups were conducted for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month-confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M). Results were applied in a cost-effectiveness model over a lifetime horizon using a published Markov structure with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Other model parameters were obtained from the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available UK sources.

resultsThe MSBase analysis found a significant reduction in ARR (rate ratio [RR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.72; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67; 95% CI 1.30-2.15; p < 0.001) for switching to natalizumab compared with BRACETD. For switching to fingolimod, the reduction in ARR (RR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.81-1.03; p = 0.133) and increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.99-1.72; p = 0.058) compared with BRACETD were not significant. Switching to natalizumab was associated with a significant reduction in ARR (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.62-0.79; p < 0.001) and an increase in CDI6M (HR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.01-1.62; p = 0.040) compared to switching to fingolimod. No evidence of difference in CDW6M was found between treatment groups. Natalizumab dominated (higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and lower costs) fingolimod in the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis (0.453 higher QALYs and £20,843 lower costs per patient). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses.

conclusionsThis novel real-world analysis suggests a clinical benefit for therapy escalation to natalizumab versus fingolimod based on comparative effectiveness results, translating to higher QALYs and lower costs for UK patients inadequately responding to BRACETD.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingCost-Benefit AnalysisFingolimod HydrochlorideHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsNatalizumabFingolimod HydrochlorideImmunosuppressive AgentsNatalizumab

Identifiers

PMID34921350
PMCPMC8866337
OpenAlexW4200579141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.