Cargando…

The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND: Current first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are injectable or oral treatments. The Optogenerapy consortium is developing a novel bioelectronic cell-based implant for controlled release of beta-interferon (IFNβ1a) protein into the body. The cu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Visser, Laurenske A., Folcher, Marc, Delgado Simao, Claudia, Gutierrez Arechederra, Biotza, Escudero, Encarna, Uyl-de Groot, Carin A., Redekop, William Ken
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8739553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34480325
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y
_version_ 1784629126087311360
author Visser, Laurenske A.
Folcher, Marc
Delgado Simao, Claudia
Gutierrez Arechederra, Biotza
Escudero, Encarna
Uyl-de Groot, Carin A.
Redekop, William Ken
author_facet Visser, Laurenske A.
Folcher, Marc
Delgado Simao, Claudia
Gutierrez Arechederra, Biotza
Escudero, Encarna
Uyl-de Groot, Carin A.
Redekop, William Ken
author_sort Visser, Laurenske A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are injectable or oral treatments. The Optogenerapy consortium is developing a novel bioelectronic cell-based implant for controlled release of beta-interferon (IFNβ1a) protein into the body. The current study estimated the potential cost effectiveness of the Optogenerapy implant (hereafter: Optoferon) compared with injectable IFNβ1a (Avonex). METHODS: A Markov model simulating the costs and effects of Optoferon compared with injectable 30 mg IFNβ1a over a 9-year time horizon from a Dutch societal perspective. Costs were reported in 2019 Euros and discounted at a 4% annual rate; health effects were discounted at a 1.5% annual rate. The cohort consisted of 35-year-old, relapsing–remitting MS patients with mild disability. The device is implanted in a daycare setting, and is replaced every 3 years. In the base-case analysis, we assumed equal input parameters for Optoferon and Avonex regarding disability progression, health effects, adverse event probabilities, and acquisition costs. We assumed reduced annual relapse rates and withdrawal rates for Optoferon compared with Avonex. Sensitivity, scenario, value of information, and headroom analysis were performed. RESULTS: Optoferon was the dominant strategy with cost reductions (− €26,966) and health gains (0.45 quality-adjusted life-years gained). A main driver of cost differences are the acquisition costs of Optoferon being 2.5 times less than the costs of Avonex. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to variations in the annual acquisition costs of Avonex, the annual withdrawal rate of Avonex and Optoferon, and the disability progression of Avonex. CONCLUSION: Innovative technology such as the Optoferon implant may be a cost-effective therapy for patients with MS. The novel implantable mode of therapeutic protein administration has the potential to become a new mode of treatment administration for MS patients and in other disease areas. However, trials are needed to establish safety and effectiveness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8739553
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87395532022-01-20 The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Visser, Laurenske A. Folcher, Marc Delgado Simao, Claudia Gutierrez Arechederra, Biotza Escudero, Encarna Uyl-de Groot, Carin A. Redekop, William Ken Pharmacoeconomics Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Current first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are injectable or oral treatments. The Optogenerapy consortium is developing a novel bioelectronic cell-based implant for controlled release of beta-interferon (IFNβ1a) protein into the body. The current study estimated the potential cost effectiveness of the Optogenerapy implant (hereafter: Optoferon) compared with injectable IFNβ1a (Avonex). METHODS: A Markov model simulating the costs and effects of Optoferon compared with injectable 30 mg IFNβ1a over a 9-year time horizon from a Dutch societal perspective. Costs were reported in 2019 Euros and discounted at a 4% annual rate; health effects were discounted at a 1.5% annual rate. The cohort consisted of 35-year-old, relapsing–remitting MS patients with mild disability. The device is implanted in a daycare setting, and is replaced every 3 years. In the base-case analysis, we assumed equal input parameters for Optoferon and Avonex regarding disability progression, health effects, adverse event probabilities, and acquisition costs. We assumed reduced annual relapse rates and withdrawal rates for Optoferon compared with Avonex. Sensitivity, scenario, value of information, and headroom analysis were performed. RESULTS: Optoferon was the dominant strategy with cost reductions (− €26,966) and health gains (0.45 quality-adjusted life-years gained). A main driver of cost differences are the acquisition costs of Optoferon being 2.5 times less than the costs of Avonex. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to variations in the annual acquisition costs of Avonex, the annual withdrawal rate of Avonex and Optoferon, and the disability progression of Avonex. CONCLUSION: Innovative technology such as the Optoferon implant may be a cost-effective therapy for patients with MS. The novel implantable mode of therapeutic protein administration has the potential to become a new mode of treatment administration for MS patients and in other disease areas. However, trials are needed to establish safety and effectiveness. Springer International Publishing 2021-09-04 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8739553/ /pubmed/34480325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Visser, Laurenske A.
Folcher, Marc
Delgado Simao, Claudia
Gutierrez Arechederra, Biotza
Escudero, Encarna
Uyl-de Groot, Carin A.
Redekop, William Ken
The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_full The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_fullStr The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_full_unstemmed The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_short The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Cell-Based Bioelectronic Implantable Device Delivering Interferon-β1a Therapy Versus Injectable Interferon-β1a Treatment in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
title_sort potential cost-effectiveness of a cell-based bioelectronic implantable device delivering interferon-β1a therapy versus injectable interferon-β1a treatment in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8739553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34480325
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y
work_keys_str_mv AT visserlaurenskea thepotentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT folchermarc thepotentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT delgadosimaoclaudia thepotentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT gutierrezarechederrabiotza thepotentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT escuderoencarna thepotentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT uyldegrootcarina thepotentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT redekopwilliamken thepotentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT visserlaurenskea potentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT folchermarc potentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT delgadosimaoclaudia potentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT gutierrezarechederrabiotza potentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT escuderoencarna potentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT uyldegrootcarina potentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis
AT redekopwilliamken potentialcosteffectivenessofacellbasedbioelectronicimplantabledevicedeliveringinterferonb1atherapyversusinjectableinterferonb1atreatmentinrelapsingremittingmultiplesclerosis