RESUMO
PURPOSE: In the Brazilian public healthcare system, natalizumab is recommended as fourth-line treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Although natalizumab has already demonstrated higher effectiveness compared with fingolimod in some studies, this real-world study was conducted to evaluate annualized hospitalization rates (AHR) in Brazil for both treatments when switching from platform therapies. As secondary goals, we analyzed RRMS treatment patterns and hospitalization profiles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We extracted data from the DATASUS database of patients with MS (ICD-10 G35) who initiated treatment from January 2012 to December 2017. Two cohorts were screened for different purposes. Cohort 1 was used to analyze treatment patterns and hospitalization profiles and was defined as individuals who had at least one claim related to MS therapies and had received at least two lines of treatment. The second cohort, which was a subset of the first, was used to compare natalizumab's and fingolimod's AHR reduction from previous treatment lines and included patients switching from platform therapy to one of these two drugs. Cohort 2 adjustment was assessed through two different statistical methods: propensity score (PS) and inverse probability weighting (IPW). RESULTS: Of 29,410 patients screened, 2,876 were included in cohort 1. Three quarters of hospitalizations reported in this cohort were for treatment of MS relapse. Cohort 2 included 1,005 patients, and natalizumab was more commonly used (n = 540) than fingolimod (n = 465). Both PS and IPW analyses showed that patients treated with natalizumab had a statistical significantly reduction in AHR compared with first-line treatment (p<0.01 for both PS and IPW), while fingolimod did not result in significant reduction in AHR (p = 0.20 for PS and p = 0.17 for IPW). CONCLUSION: This study provides real-world evidence of natalizumab's and fingolimod's effectiveness in terms of AHR, with an increased reduction in AHR with natalizumab. The findings of this study also provide information to support disease management and healthcare planning in the Brazilian public healthcare system.
Assuntos
Cloridrato de Fingolimode/uso terapêutico , Imunossupressores/uso terapêutico , Esclerose Múltipla Recidivante-Remitente/tratamento farmacológico , Natalizumab/uso terapêutico , Demandas Administrativas em Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Brasil , Feminino , Cloridrato de Fingolimode/administração & dosagem , Cloridrato de Fingolimode/efeitos adversos , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Hospitais Públicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Imunossupressores/administração & dosagem , Imunossupressores/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Natalizumab/administração & dosagem , Natalizumab/efeitos adversosRESUMO
Objetivos: Os objetivos deste estudo são calcular o custo de um surto de esclerose múltipla sob a perspectiva de uma operadora de saúde privada e o impacto orçamentário da adoção de natalizumabe em primeira linha para esclerose múltipla remitente-recorrente altamente ativa (EMRRAA). Métodos: Para o cálculo do custo do surto, duas abordagens foram adotadas: para surtos que não levam a hospitalizações, foi aplicada uma pesquisa a 33 médicos neurologistas para identificação do consumo de recursos. Microcusteio foi realizado com base em bases de dados públicas. Para o cálculo do custo de surtos que levam a hospitalizações, foi utilizada uma base de contas médicas. Para o cálculo do impacto orçamentário, foi construído um modelo baseado em prevalência. Foram assumidos os seguintes custos: custo de aquisição de natalizumabe, custo de infusão de natalizumabe e custo de surtos. Taxa de ocorrência de surtos para natalizumabe e para seus comparadores, disponível apenas no sistema público, foi obtida em estudos clínicos e metanálises. O caso-base foi realizado considerando-se uma operadora que atende 100 mil vidas na região Sudeste. Análise de sensibilidade foi realizada. Resultados: O custo calculado de um surto foi de R$ 14.157,21. O impacto orçamentário calculado para adoção de natalizumabe para EMRRAA foi de R$ 0,64 por beneficiário por ano, ou 0,02% das despesas assistenciais de uma operadora de saúde suplementar, ou 0,02% de suas receitas de contraprestações. A análise de sensibilidade confirma que o impacto não chega a 1 real por beneficiário por ano e atinge, no máximo, 0,03% das despesas assistenciais. Conclusão: Dados os altos benefícios clínicos de natalizumabe, o impacto orçamentário de sua adoção para primeira linha de EMRRAA é considerado baixo. O impacto pode estar superestimado, visto que não foram considerados custos de progressão da doença.
Objetivos: The goals of this study are to evaluate the cost of a multiple sclerosis relapse and the budget impact of adopting natalizumab as first-line therapy for HARRMS, both from a private payer perspective. Methods: For calculating the cost of a relapse, two approaches were adopted: for relapses not resulting in hospitalizations, a research with 33 physicians was made to obtain resource utilization data. Microcosting was performed using public data sources. For calculating costs of relapses leading to hospitalizations, we analyzed a claims database. To calculate the budget impact of adopting natalizumab as per its label indication, we built a prevalence-based model. The following costs were included: drug acquisition, drug infusion and relapses costs. The relapses rates for natalizumab and its comparators present in the public system were calculated based on clinical trials and meta-analysis. The base case was calculated assuming a hypothetical payer covering one hundred lives in the southeastern region of Brazil. Sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: The calculated relapse cost was R$ 14,157.21. The calculated budget impact for adopting natalizumab for HARRMS was R$ 0.64 per person per year, or 0.02% of the payer's healthcare expenditures, or 0.02% of its revenue. The sensibility analysis confirmed that the budget impact does not reach one real per person per year and does not exceed 0.03% of healthcare expenses. Conclusion: Given the high clinical benefits of adopting Tysabri, its budget impact can be considered low. The results might be overestimated, since disability progression costs were not accounted in the calculations