throbber
|
`
`CNS drugs.
`vy, 29, no. 1 (2015 )
`General Collection
`w1 CN13
`2015-10-21 12:44:08
`
`
`
`DRUG THERAPY IN NEUROLOGY ANDPSYCHIATRY
`
`ETHa UmaCe)
`GSK-3 and Cognitive Dysfunction in Neuropsychiatric Disorders
`
`BipNMle aeCodta
`Emergency and Critical Care Managementof Acute Ischaemic Stroke
`
`Systematic Review
`_ Impact of Medication on Health-Related Quality of Life in GAD
`anMe.2
`Review Articles
`Post-Injection Delirium/Sedation Syndrome with Olanzapine Pamoate
`4 peeeee| Adherencein : with Parkinson’s Disease
`Ee Outpatient Pharmacotherapy
`and Modes ofAdministration for ARS
`ee
`=
`erie ae
`2
`earchArticle
`r
`Cost Effectiveness of Fingolimod, BUetNitinccc Dimethyl Fumarate
`Eoorom Osetuntetcoa Occtage he
`
`4
`
`M
`
`NATIONAL
`LIBRARY OF
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`Biogen Exhibit 2208
`Mylanv. Biogen
`IPR 2018-01403
`
`
`PENGAD800-631-6989
`
`
` sible PIGINE
`
`[2k-ade OlN0z,
`
`DEPOSITION
`EXHIBIT
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`Biogen Exhibit 2208
`Mylan v. Biogen
`IPR 2018-01403
`
`

`

`CNS Dru
`
`S
`
`The Americas (North, South, Central
`America and the Caribbean)
`Springer Journal Fulfillment
`233 Spring Street, New York
`NY 10013-1578, USA
`Tel.: 800-SPRINGER(777-4643);
`212-460-1500 (outside North America)
`journals-ny@springer.com,
`servicio-ny@springer.com
`(Central and South America)
`
`Outside the Americas
`Springer CustomerService Center GmbH
`Haberstr. 7, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany
`Tel.: +49-622 1-345-4303
`subscriptions@springer.com
`
`Advertisements
`E-mail contact: advertising@springer.com
`or anzeigen@springer.com
`
`Disclaimer
`Springer publishes advertisernents
`in this journalin reliance upon the
`responsibility of the advertiser to comply
`with all legal requirementsrelating to the
`marketing and sale of products orservices
`advertised. Springer and the editors are
`not responsible for claims made in the
`advertisements published in the journal.
`The appearance of advertisements in
`Springer publications does not constitute
`endorsement, implied or intended, of the
`product advertised or the claims made for
`it by the advertiser,
`
`Office of Publication
`Springer International Publishing AG, °
`GewerbestraBe [1, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
`Springer International Publishing is part of
`Springer Science+Business Media
`
`Editorial Staff
`Editorial Director: Diana Faulds
`Editorial Assistant: Carole Pearson
`
`errors or omissions that may have been
`made. The publisher makes no warranty,
`express or implied, with respect to the
`material contained hercin.
`All articles published in this journal
`are protected by copyright, which covers
`the exclusive rights to reproduce and
`distribute the article (e.g., as offprints),
`as well asall translation rights. No
`material published in this journal may
`be reproduced photographically or
`stored on microfilm, in electronic data
`bases, on videodisks, etc., without first
`obtaining written permission from
`the publisher (respective the copyright
`ownerif other than Springer). The use of
`general descriptive names, trade names,
`trademarks, etc., in this publication, even
`if not specifically identified, docs not
`imply that these namesare not protected
`by the relevant laws and regulations.
`Springer has partnered with Copyright
`Clearance Center’s RightsLink service
`to offer a variety of options for reusing
`Springer content. For permission to reuse
`our content please locate the material that
`you wish to use on link.springer.com or
`on springerimages.com andclick on the
`permissions link or go to copyright.com
`and enterthetitle of the publication that
`you wishto use. Forassistance in placing
`a permission request, Copyright Clearance
`Center canbe contacted directly via
`phone: +1-855-239-3415, fax: +1-978-646-
`8600 or e-mail: info@copyright.com.
`© Springer International Publishing
`Switzerland 2015
`
`Journal Website
`www.springer.com/40263
`Electronic edition: link.springer.com/
`journal/40263
`
`_ Subscription Information
`CNS Drugs is published 12 times a year.
`Volume 29 (12 issues) will be published
`in 2015,
`
`ISSN: 1172-7047 print
`ISSN: 1179-1934 electronic
`
`Forinformation on subscription rates please
`contact Springer Customer Service Center:
`
`Aims and Scope
`CNS Drugs promotes rational
`pharmacotherapy and effective patient
`management within the disciplines of
`clinical psychiatry and neurology by
`providing a regular programmeof review
`articles covering important issues in
`the drug treatment of psychiatric and
`neurological disorders.
`
`The journal includes:
`
`* Leading/currentopinion articles providing
`an overview ofcontentious or emerging
`issues,
`Definitive reviews on approachesto
`the managementofneurological and
`psychiatricillnesses.
`Therapy in Practice reviews providing
`practical recommendationsforspecific
`- clinical situations.
`Adis Drug Evaluations reviewing the
`properties andplace in therapy of both
`newerand established drugs in neurology
`and psychiatry.
`Original researcharticles will also be
`considered for publication.
`
`All manuscripts are subject to peer
`review by international experts. Letters
`to the Editor are welcomed andwill be
`considered for publication.
`
`_ Copyright Information
`ForAuthors
`As soon as anarticle is accepted for
`publication, authors will be requested
`to assign copyright of the article
`(or to grant exclusive publication and
`dissemination rights) to the publisher
`(respective the ownerif other than
`Springer). This will ensure the widest
`possible protection and dissemination of
`information under copyright laws.
`More information aboutcopyright
`regulations for this journal is available at
`www.springer.com/40263
`ForReaders
`
`While the advice and information in this
`journalis believed to be true and accurate
`at the date ofits publication, neitherthe
`authors,the editors, nor the publisher can
`accept any legal responsibility for any
`
`A Adis
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`

`

`CNS Drugs
`
`Volume 29 - Number1
`
`* 2015
`
`LEADING ARTICLE
`
`Glycogen Synthase Kinase-3 as a Therapeutic Target for Cognitive Dysfunction
`in Neuropsychiatric Disorders
`O, O'Leary - Y. Nolan
`
`THERAPY IN PRACTICE
`
`17
`
`Emergency and Critical Care Managementof Acute Ischaemic Stroke
`S.A. Figueroa « W. Zhao - V. Aiyagari
`
`SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
`
`29
`
`The Impact of Medication on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients
`with Generalized Anxiety Disorder
`H. Wilson - S. Mannix - H. Oko-osi - D.A. Revicki
`
`41
`
`47
`
`55
`
`71
`
`REVIEW ARTICLES
`
`Post-Injection Delirium/Sedation Syndromein Patients Treated
`with Olanzapine Pamoate: Mechanism,Incidence, and Management
`D. Luedecke - D. Schéttle - A. Karow - M. Lambert - D. Naber
`
`Medication Adherence in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease
`N. Malek - D.G. Grosset
`
`Outpatient Pharmacotherapy and Modesof Administration
`for Acute Repetitive and Prolonged Seizures
`H.R. McKee - B. Abou-Khalil
`
`ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
`
`;
`Cost Effectiveness of Fingolimod,Teriflunomide, Dimethyl Fumarate
`and IntramuscularInterferon-B,, in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
`X. Zhang - J.W. Hay - X. Niu
`
`Further articles can be found at link.springer.com
`
`Indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE,International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1PA), BIOSIS Previews,
`BIOSIS Reviews Reports and Meetings, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, Current Contents/Life
`Sciences, SciSearch, Science Citation Index, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, PASCAL,
`Chemical Abstracts Service, Sociedad Iberoamericana de Informacién Cientifica (SHC), Neuroscience
`Citation Index, PsycINFO and Journals@Ovid
`
`Instructions for authors for CNS Drugsare available at www.springer.com/40263
`
`Page 3 of 14
`
`This material was copied
`atthe NLM and may be
`Subject US Copyright Laws
`
`‘\ Adis
`
`Page 3 of 14
`
`

`

`This material may be protected by Copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code)|*
`CNS Drugs (2015) 29:71-81
`DOI 10,1007/s40263-014-0207-x
`
`
`ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
`
`Cost Effectiveness of Fingolimod, Teriflunomide,
`Dimethyl Fumarate and Intramuscular Interferon-Bj,
`in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
`
`Xinke Zhang + Joe] W. Hay + Xiaoli Niu
`
`Published online: 19 October 2014
`© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
`
`than 90 % of the simulations, dimethyl fumarate was the
`optimal therapy across all WTP values.
`Conclusion The three oral therapies were favoredin the cost-
`effectiveness analysis, Of the four DMDs, dimethy] fumarate
`was a dominant therapy to manage RRMS. Apart from dime-
`thy] fumarate,teriflunomide was the most cost-effective ther-
`apy compared with IM JFN-B),, with an ICER of US$7,115.
`
`
`
`‘ify Ruts
`
`This is the first cost-effectiveness analysis in
`relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis to (1) make
`comprehensive comparisons betweenthe three new oral
`disease-modifying drugs and the established therapy
`intramuscular (IM)interferon (IFN)-(,,, (2) incorporate
`second-line therapy in the model, and (3) presentresults
`in terms of incremental net monetary benefit (INMB)
`
`Dimethyl fumarate dominated all other therapies
`over the range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values,
`from US$0 to US$180,000. Compared with IM IFN-
`B,,, at a WTP of US$150,000, INMBs were
`estimated at US$36,567, US$49,780, and US$80,61 1
`for fingolimod,teriflunomide, and dimethyl
`fumarate, respectively. The three oral therapies were
`favored in the cost-effectiveness analysis
`
`Abstract
`Objective The aim of the study was to compare the cost
`effectiveness
`of
`fingolimod,
`teriflunomide,
`dimethyl
`fumarate, and intramuscular (JM) interferon (IFN)-B),4 as
`first-line therapies
`in the treatment of patients with
`relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).
`Methods A Markov model was developed to evaluate the
`cost effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) from
`a USsocietal perspective. The time horizon in the base case
`was 5 years. The primary outcome was incremental net
`monetary benefit (INMB), and the secondary outcome was
`incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The base case
`INMBwillingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was assumedto
`be US$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and
`the costs were in 2012 US dollars. One-way sensitivity
`analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were con-
`ducted to test the robustness of the model results.
`Results Dimethyl fumarate dominated all other therapies
`over the range of WTPs,
`from US$0 to US$180,000.
`Compared with IM IFN-B),, at a WTP of US$150,000,
`INMBs were estimated at US$36,567, US$49,780, and
`US$80,611 for fingolimod,
`teriflunomide, and dimethy!
`fumarate, respectively. The ICER of fingolimod versus
`teriflunomide was US$3,201,672. One-way sensitivity
`analyses demonstrated the model results were sensitive to
`the acquisition costs of DMDs andthe time horizon, but in
`most scenarios, cost-effectiveness rankings remained sta-
`ble. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for more
`After dimethyl fumarate, teriflanomide was the most
`pieieiaa
`cost-effective therapy compared with IM IFN-6),,
`with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of
`US$7,115. When the monthly cost is below
`US$5,132, fingolimod is cost effective compared
`with IM IFN-B),. However, fingolimod is not cost
`effective compared with teriflunomide
`
`X. Zhang - J. W. Hay (24) » X. Niu
`Departmentof Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical
`Economics and Policy, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health
`Policy and Economics, University of Southern California,
`University Park Campus, VPD 214-L, Los Angeles,
`CA 90089-3333, USA
`e-mail: jhay @usc.edu
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`This material was copied
`at the NLM and maybe
`Subject US Copyright Laws
`
`/\ Adis
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`

`

`72.
`X, Zhang et al.i
`
`1 Introduction
`
`Before the introduction of oral fingolimod (Gilenya™,
`Novartis, East Hanover, NJ, USA), over half of the patients
`with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) who
`were treated with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) were
`using injected interferons (IFNs) [1], and intramuscular
`(IM) IFN-8;, (Avonex™, Biogen Idec, Weston, MA, USA)
`had the largest market share in 2010 [2]. However, IM
`IFN-B;, and other traditional DMDs require long-term
`parenteral administration, which imposes a burden on
`patients and may have a significant impact on medication
`adherence. Over the past few years, three new oral DMDs,
`namely fingolimod,
`teriflunomide
`(Aubagio”, Sanofi
`Aventis, Cambridge, MA, USA), and dimethyl fumarate
`(Tecfidera”, Biogen Idec, Weston, MA, USA), were
`approved by the FDA in 2010, 2012, and 2013, respec-
`tively. Fingolimod wasthefirst oral therapy approved, and
`the Trial Assessing Injectable Interferon versus FTY720
`Oral in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (TRANS-
`FORMS) showed that fingolimod appeared to be more
`effective than IM IFN-B,,
`in reducing the frequency of
`relapses [3]. The large-scale phase II clinical
`trials the
`Teriflunomide Multiple Sclerosis Oral (TEMSO)trial and
`the Determination of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral
`Fumarate in Relapsing-Remitting MS (DEFINE)trial also
`demonstrated that
`teriflunomide and dimethyl
`fumarate,
`respectively, significantly reduced annualized relapserates,
`slowed disability progression, and reduced the number of
`lesions on magnetic resonance imaging [4, 5]. Although
`these new oral.therapies were thought to contribute to the
`growth of the total costs of multiple sclerosis (MS), so far
`there is no comprehensive evidence on either the cost
`effectiveness of the new oral DMDs compared with the
`established treatment
`IM IFN-f,,, or
`incremental cost
`effectiveness among the oral therapies. For these reasons,
`this paper compares the cost effectiveness of fingolimod,
`teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, and IM IFN-[,, asfirst-
`line therapies in the treatment of patients diagnosed with
`RRMS.
`
`2 Materials and Methods
`
`2.1 Model Overview
`
`The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a US
`societal perspective over a 5-year time horizon. We chose
`5-year rather than 10-year orlife time as the time horizon
`because (1) extrapolating a I- or 2-year randomized con-
`trolled trial (RCT) over long time horizons requires more
`unreliable assumptions on model extrapolations [6] and (2)
`high discontinuation rates imply that a large proportion of
`patients will discontinue or develop secondary-progressive
`multiple sclerosis (SPMS) over time [3-5, 7]. Costs were
`reported in 2012 US dollars, and both costs and outcomes
`were discounted at a 3 % annual rate in the base case
`scenario. The primary outcome was incremental net mon-
`etary benefit (INMB), and the secondary outcome was
`incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). INMB was
`chosen as the primary outcome since, when comparing
`multiple treatment options,
`it more clearly delineates
`treatments with dominance or extended dominance[8, 9].
`The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was assumed to
`be US$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY),
`whichis three times the 2012 US gross domestic product
`(GDP) per capita, as recommended by the World Health
`Organization {10, 11]. The choice of US$150,000 as the
`WTPthresholdrather than the antiquated US$50,000 value
`in the US context is also supported by the study of Brai-
`thwaite etal, [12] and is used in numerous previous studies
`[13-16].
`A Markov model was developed in Microsoft® Excel to
`simulate the disease progression of patients with RRMS
`(Fig. 1). The cycle is { month, The comparators included
`oral fingolimod at a daily dose of 0.5 mg, oral terifluno-
`mide 14 mg once daily, oral dimethyl fumarate 120 mg
`twice a day for the first 7 days and 240 mg twice a day
`after 7 days, and IM IFN-[,, at a weekly dose of 30 pg
`[17]. The disease progression was modeled by the Expan-
`ded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), which is most widely
`used in the measurement of MS [18]. Specifically, health
`
`Fig, 1 Markov model for the
`disease progression of multiple
`sclerosis. EDSS Expanded
`Disability Status Scale
`
`
`
`EDSS 0.0-2.5
`Relapse
`
`EDSS 3,0-5.5
`Relapse
`
`
`
`
`Fy
`
`«>
`
`QY
`
`
`
`EDSS 10.0
`(Death)
`
`All health states may
`progress to death
`
`LN Adis
`
`Page 5 of 14
`
`This material was copied
`at the NLM and maybe
`Subject US Copyright Laws
`
`Page 5 of 14
`
`

`

`73
`Cost Effectiveness of Oral Disease-Modifying Drugs Versus IM IFN-Bj).
`
`states were divided as EDSS 0.0-2.5 (no or mild disabil-
`ity), EDSS 3.0-5.5 (moderate disability, ambulatory with-
`out aid), EDSS 6.0-7.5 (waking aid required), EDSS
`8.0-9.5 (restricted to bed), EDSS 10.0 (death) and another
`two relapse states. Since MS is a progressive disease,
`patients were assumedto only progress to a more severe
`health state ora relapsestate.
`A cohort of 1,000 patients was assumed to enter the
`model, Consistent with the clinical trials, all patients were
`initially distributed to EDSS 0.0-2.5 and 3.0-5.5 states and
`treated withfirst-line DMDs [3-5]. The EDSS distribution
`ratio between the two states was estimated from a national
`cross-sectional survey [19]. In any cycle during the simu-
`lation, patients could discontinue the drug and then tran-
`sition to a second-line treatment, natalizumab, or to the
`symptom management
`(SM) arm without active drug
`therapy. Moreover, patients could also discontinue natal-
`izumab due to insufficient response or adverse events and
`then switch to SM treatment.
`The decision to choose natalizumab as the second-line
`therapy was based on the fact that (1) natalizamab was
`specifically indicated for use when previous DMDsfailed,
`as recommended by American Academy of Neurology
`[20]; (2) a retrospective cohort study found that approxi-
`mately 10 % of patients who were initially treated with
`IFN-B or glatiramer acetate (GA) experienced break-
`through disease and either switched to natalizumab or an
`immunosuppressant (e.g., mitoxantrone) or declined new
`therapy [21] (however, according to another study, which
`followed a cohort from 2000 to 2008, only 1 % of the first-
`line and second-line DMD populations used mitoxantrone
`[22]); and (3) otherfirst-line drugs are often used as sec-
`ond-line therapies, despite not being indicated after failure
`of a previous DMD, and they are actually similar in
`
`efficacy; however, there is evidence that switching to na-
`talizumab is more effective than switching to other first-
`line drugs
`[23]. Therefore, patients were assumed to
`receive natalizumab as second-line therapy.
`Patients in EDSS 0.0-2.5 and 3.0-5.5 states would
`likely transition to a temporary state of relapse and stay for
`a cycle (1 month). Following a relapse, patients could
`transition back to the previous state or progress to a next
`more severe health state. According to a recent natural
`history study of SPMS, for patients initially diagnosed with
`RRMS, 80.0 % reached SPMS at or before EDSS 6.0 and
`99,5 % at or before EDSS 8.0 [24]. Thatis to say, for those
`transitioned to EDSS 6.0, at
`least 80 % of the patients
`would have already reached SPMS, and so would almost
`all of the patients who progressed to EDSS 8.0. Therefore,
`it was assumed that patients in EDSS 6.0-7.5 and EDSS
`8.0-9.5 had developed SPMS and thus were not associated
`with further relapses. Since these DMDsare indicated for
`relapse forms of MS,patients transitioned to EDSS 6.0-7.5
`and EDSS 8.0-9.5 would stop DMD treatment and then be
`treated with SM.
`The model design in this paper was consistent with
`previous cost-effectiveness studies comparing DMDs in
`that the same health states were classified and the same
`disease progression path was defined [2, 25-27]. The health
`states were decided in a way that
`the transition points
`(EDSS 3.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10) reflected key disability levels
`in the natural history of MS and are critical in defining
`clinical course [7, 28-30]. In our model, we also allowed
`the patients to switch to second-line DMD treatment when
`they discontinued the first-line therapy,
`to better reflect
`clinical practice [20, 31]. In addition, we had each author
`verify the model equations and computations indepen-
`dently to ensure the internal validity [32].
`
`Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the patients
`Variable
`FREEDOMS[33]
`
`TRANSFORMS [3] °
`
`TEMSO[4]
`
`DEFINE [5]
`
`Placebo
`
`FIN
`
`FIN
`
`IM IFN-B),
`
`TER
`
`DF
`
`i D
`
`emographic characteristics
`Age, years
`Mean + SD
`Median(range)
`Female sex, %
`White race, %
`Clinical characteristics
`
`37.2 + 8.6
`37.0 (18-55)
`71.30
`~
`
`36.6 + 8.8
`36.0 (18-55)
`69.60
`-
`
`36.7 +88
`
`37 (18-55)
`65.40
`93.70
`
`36.0 + 8.3
`
`36 (18-55)
`67.80
`93.80
`
`37.8 + 82
`
`38.1491
`
`es
`71
`96.90
`
`i
`72
`78
`
`Relapses, No.
`In previous year, mean + SD
`In previous 2 years, mean + SD
`EDSSscore, mean + SD
`
`1440.7
`22412
`25 +13
`
`1.5 + 0.8
`2] ck Tel
`2.34 1.3
`
`15412
`#5 438
`
`1540.8
`23412
`
`13407
`2241.0
`
`13407
`=
`
`2.244133
`
`2194126
`
`2674124
`
`24041.29
`
`DFdimethyl fumarate, EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale, FIN fingolimod, /FN interferon, /M intramuscular, TER teriflunomide
`
`Page 6 of 14
`
`This material was copied
`atthe NLM end may be
`Subject US Copyright Laws
`
`4N Adis
`
`Page 6 of 14
`
`

`

`74
`X. Zhang et al.
`
`2.2 Patient Characteristics
`
`The baseline characteristics of the modeled patients were
`very similar in the phase III clinical trials across the four
`DMDs
`(Table 1)
`[3-5, 33]. Generally, patients were
`between 18 and 55 years old, had a diagnosis of RRMS,
`had had at least two relapses during the previous 2 years or
`at least one relapse during the previous year before ran-
`domization, and had an EDSS score of 0-5.5. Based on a
`national survey study,
`the initial proportions ofpatients
`distributed in EDSS 0.0-2.5 and EDSS 3.0-5.5 were esti-
`mated at 41.3 and 58.7 %, respectively [19],
`
`2.3 Transition Probabilities
`
`Transition probabilities for disease progression, relapses,
`- and discontinuation were obtained from the literature and
`modeled using the DEALE method (Table 2) [3-5, 33-
`36]. For patients in SM,
`the EDSS progression proba-
`bilities were estimated from the London Ontario natural
`history study of MS [7]. The London Ontario data were
`used because, unlike in other studies, the patients in the
`study did not receive disease-modifying therapies and the
`database was subjected to a rigorous quality review in
`2009 [37]. There were 806 RRMS-onset patients in the
`database, and the shortest follow-up was 16 years. Since
`the patients were similar in demographics and clinical
`characteristics, for patients treated with fingolimod,
`teri-
`flunomide, dimethyl
`fumarate,
`and natalizumab,
`the
`hazard ratios of disease progression for DMDs compared
`with placebo reported in phase III placebo-controlled
`trials were used to derive the I-month transition proba-
`bilities for each DMD. For the IFN-},, arm,
`the hazard
`ratio from the head-to-head trial TRANSFORMS between
`fingolimod and IFN-B,, was also used to estimate tran-
`sition probabilities [3].
`The transition probabilities of relapses for patients in
`SM were obtained from the placebogroup in the FT'Y720
`Research Evaluating Effects of Daily Oral Therapy in
`Multiple Sclerosis (FREEDOMS)trial [33]. Hazard ratios
`of
`relapses between DMDs
`(teriflunomide, dimethyl
`fumarate, and natalizumab) and placebo were used to
`derive the transition probabilities to relapse state for the
`DMDs.Forpatients treated with fingolimod and IFN-f),,
`relapse probabilities were estimated by using the data in the
`TRANSFORMStrial [3]. All discontinuation rates were
`extracted from the corresponding phaseIII clinical trials.
`After discontinuation of the first-line therapy, the assign-
`mentratio between natalizumab and SM was assumedto be
`equal
`in the base case scenario, and extreme cases were
`tested in sensitivity analyses. Since the mortality rate due
`to MSis very low,survival probabilities were based on the
`mortality rates of the general population [38]. The age-
`
`specific mortality rates were estimated from the life
`expectancy data in national vital statistics reports using the
`DEALE method [35, 36, 39].
`
`2.4 Utilities
`
`Since utilities were not available in the pivotal RCTs, we
`reviewed the literature and identified the best available
`evidence to support the utility estimates. The utilities for
`each health state from EDSS 0.0 to EDSS 9.5 and the
`disutility for IFN-8;, were obtained from the Prosseretal.
`[40] quality-of-life study. The study used the standard-
`gamble method to measure patient and community pref-
`erences for treatments and health states in patients with
`RRMS. The Prosser et al.
`[41] study was used because
`standard-gamble was thought to be the gold standard in
`preferenceelicitation since it is the only method thatesti-
`mates Von-Neumann—-Morgenstern
`utility
`(preference
`measured under uncertainty) [41]. Also, since this study
`was performed from a societal perspective, use of com-
`munity preferences was more appropriateasit reflected the
`society’s preference on the resource allocation [42]. Dis-
`utility for relapses was based on the Kobelt et al. study
`[19]. For the effects of fingolimod and natalizumab, though
`there was evidencethat fingolimod and natalizumab could
`improve the quality of life of MS patients significantly [43-
`45], no study on utility impacts was available. Therefore, to
`be conservative,
`the disutility for fingolimod and natal-
`izumab was assumed to be 0 in the base case scenario.
`Changes in assumed base case utility were explored in
`sensitivity analyses. For
`teriflunomide, one study has
`demonstrated that there was no disutility associated with
`administration of teriflunomide, so the impact of teriflun-
`omide on utility was assumed to be 0in the base case
`analysis [46]. Dimethyl fumarate has been reported to have
`significant improvements in physical and mental aspects of
`health and functioning, where the change in EQ-5SD value
`was 0.01 (47, 48]. The base case utilities and the effects of
`DMDson utilities are shown in Table 2.
`
`2.5 Costs
`
`Costs in the model were mainly obtained from the cost-of-
`illness study by Kobelt et al,
`[19] and inflated to 2012
`dollars (Table 2). We applied the results from the Kobelt
`et al. [19] study because the costs were reported on the
`basis ofstratified EDSS score, which corresponded to each
`health state in our model. The costs included costs of
`hospital
`inpatient care, ambulatory care,
`tests, drugs
`(DMDsand other drugs), services, adaptations and costs of
`informal care. The productivity losses were not included,
`because the costs associated with productivity were cap-
`tured in the QALYs [49]. All drug costs were obtained
`
`4 Adis
`
`——
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`This material was copied
`atthe NLM and maybe
`Subject US Copyright Laws
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`

`

`Cost Effectiveness of Oral Disease-Modifying Drugs Versus IM IFN-B,, 7seeereea
`
`
`Table 2 Parameters and range
`;
`One-way SA range”
`Base case
`Parameters
`.
`ahs
`-
`
`
`
`
`in one-way sensitivity analysis ayS/\Tang SourcesneUTTEInTTIASIRErae :
`IEEEeno
`Monthly probability of disease progression (SM)
`EDSS 0.0-2.5
`EDSS 3.0-5.5
`EDSS 6.0-7.5
`Monthly probability of progressing to death
`EDSS 0.0-2.5
`EDSS 3.0-5.5
`EDSS 6.0-7.5
`EDSS 8.0-9.5
`Annual relapse rate for SM
`Annual relapse rate for FIN
`Annual relapse rate for IM IFN-Bia
`HRof disease progression
`FIN vs, SM
`IM IFN-B), vs. FIN
`TERvs. SM
`DF vs. SM
`NATvs. SM
`HR of annual relapse rate
`TERvs. SM
`DFvs. SM
`NATvs. SM
`Annual discontinuation rate for FIN
`Annual discontinuation rate for IM IFN-B ya
`Discontinuation rate for TER, 2 year
`Discontinuation rate for DF, 2 year
`Discontinuation rate for NAT, 2 year
`Assignmentratio between NAT and SM
`Utilities estimates
`
`0.005760
`0.007194
`0.005760
`
`0.001684
`0.002348
`0.003121
`0.004457
`0.400
`0.160
`0.330
`
`0.700
`1,353
`0,700
`0.620
`0.580
`
`0.720
`0.510
`0.410
`0.103
`0.118
`0.265
`0.310
`0.083
`0.5:0.5
`
`NIA
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`0.120
`0.248
`
`0.525
`1.015
`0.525
`0,465
`N/A
`
`0.540
`0.383
`N/A
`0.077
`0.089
`0.199
`0.233
`N/A
`0:1
`
`0.200
`0.413
`
`0.875
`1.692
`0.875
`0.775
`
`0.900
`0.638
`
`0.128
`0.148
`0.332
`0.388
`
`1:0
`
`{7]
`17]
`[7]
`
`[39]
`(39)
`(39)
`[39]
`[39]
`(3]
`13)
`
`133}
`[3}
`[4]
`{5]
`[34]
`
`[4]
`[5]
`[34]
`(3]
`[3]
`[4]
`{5]
`134]
`
`0.899
`0.821
`0.769
`0.491
`~0.094
`-O.115
`0
`0
`0.01
`0
`
`0.674
`0.616
`0.577
`0.368
`—0.071
`—0.086
`—0.03
`—0.03
`—0.03
`N/A
`
`i
`J
`0.961
`0.614
`—0.118
`—0,144
`0.03
`0.03
`0.03
`
`[40]
`[40}
`[40]
`[40}
`[19]
`(40)
`[43, 44]
`[46]
`(47, 48}
`145]
`
`Utility EDSS 0,0-0-2,5
`Utility EDSS 3.0-0-5.5
`Utility EDSS 6.0-0-7.5
`Utility EDSS 8,0-0-9.5
`Disutiliry for relapse
`Disutility for IM IFN-By.
`Impact of FIN onutility
`Impact of TER onutility
`Impact of DF on utility
`Impact of NAT onutility
`Monthly costs, 2012 US dollars.
`[50]
`$5,204
`$3,123
`$4,164
`WACfor FIN
`(50)
`$4,794
`$2,876
`$3,835
`WAC for IM IFN-Bi,
`[50}
`$4,150
`$2,490
`$3,320
`WAC for NAT
`{50]
`$4,630
`$2,778
`$3,704
`WACfor TER
`[50]
`$4,182
`$2,509
`$3,346
`WAC for DF
`[19]
`$2,163
`$1,298
`$615
`Cost of EDSS 0.0-2.5
`DF dimethyl fumarate, EDSS
`[19]
`$4,614
`$2,768
`$1,289
`Cost of EDSS 3.0-5.5
`Expanded Disability Status Scale,
`
`
`PIN Solio,HEMaddy sue|OHHCag of DSS 60-75
`NATnatalizumab, SA sensitivity
`Cost of EDSS 8.0-9.5
`$6,369
`$8,093
`$13,489
`[19]
`analysis, SM symptom
`Cost of relapse
`$5,008
`$3,756
`$6,259
`[5]
`management, TER teriflunomide,
`DigeoUNE Tate
`0.03
`0
`0.05
`WAC wholesale average cost
`o! aepe' oy annenaindieaied
`Time horizon
`5 years
`2 years
`10 years
`
`Page 8 of 14
`
`This material wes copied
`atthe NLM and may be
`Subject US Copyright Laws
`
`4 Adis
`
`Page 8 of 14
`
`

`

`from the Federal Supply Schedule drug prices [50]. Costs
`of relapses were estimated from a cross-sectional, web-
`based survey that investigated the impacts of relapses on
`costs and quality oflife for patients with RRMSin the USA
`[51].
`
`X, Zhang et al.
`76
`OOne
`parameter variation resulted in a major change in conclu-
`sion [49]. Tornado diagrams were plottedin the order from
`most sensitive parameter to least sensitive. Moreover,
`sensitivity to time horizon was specifically tested by
`varying the time horizon from 2 to 30 years under both
`discounted and non-discounted scenarios.
`The robustness of the base case results was also tested
`by probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a second
`order Monte Carlo simulation (1,000 times). Choice of
`the distribution for the model
`inputs was based on the
`recommendations
`and reflected
`how the
`confidence
`interval of each parameter was estimated [52]. The dis-
`tributions of hazard ratios and annual relapse rates were
`assumed to be log-normal [53]. Utilities were assumed to
`follow a beta distribution which is confined between 0
`and 1
`[53]. Health care costs for each health state and
`drug acquisition costs were assumed to follow a gamma
`distribution [53]. The result of the probabilistic sensitivity
`analysis was reported as the probability of each drug
`maximizing the net monetary benefits (NMBs) over the
`range of WTPs [54]. That is the probability of each drug
`being the optimal therapy.
`
`2.6 Sensitivity Analysis
`
`One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the
`robustness of the pairwise comparisons of three oral ther-
`apies versus IM IFN-B,, and the robustness of the optimal
`therapy selection by using INMB asthe outcome. The base
`case inputs of the parameters were varied by 25 % in both
`positive and negative directions, unless indicated otherwise
`(Table 2). We varied the parameters by 25 % so that the
`upper and lower bound of the sensitivity analysis range
`differed markedly from the base case inputs. The 25 %
`variation ranges of the parameters were also comparable to
`their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals where
`available. Key parameters that may affect
`the disease
`progression,utilities and costs were included in the ana-
`lysis. In addition, a threshold analysis was conducted if a
`
`Table 3 Results for the base case scenario (WTP = US$150,000)
`DMDs
`Cost
`QALY
`NMB
`INMB vs. IM IFN-B
`
`ICER vs, IM IFN-B 1.
`
`ICER:FIN vs. TER
`
`a I
`
`M IFN-B i,
`$223,606
`3.34
`$276,745
`=
`a
`_
`TER
`$226,085
`3,68
`$326,525
`$49,780
`$7,115
`_
`FIN
`$239,947
`3.69
`$313,312
`$36,567
`$46,328
`$3,201,672
`DF
`$200,145
`3.72
`$357,356
`$80,611
`Dominant
`_
`DFdimethyl fumarate, DMDs disease-modifying drugs, FIN fingolimod, /CER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, /FN interferon, IM intra-
`muscular,
`/VMB incremental net monetary benefit, NMB net monetary benefit, QALY quality-adjusted life year, TER teriflunomide, WTP
`willingness to pay
`
`Fig. 2 Net monetary benefits of
`the disease-modilying drugs.
`IFN interferon,
`JM intramuscular
`
`500000
`
`400000
`
`300000
`
`200000
`
`100000
`
`
`
`Netmonetarybenefits -100000
`
`
` 80000
`
`140000
`
`160000
`
`180000
`
`100000
`
`
`120000
`
`-200000
`
`-300000
`
`
`
`Dimethyl fumarate
`
`cc Teriflunomide
`
`seceeees Fingolimod —.— IMIFN B-1a
`
`Willingness-to-pay
`
`/N Adis
`
`Page 9 of 14
`
`This material was copied
`atthe NLM and maybe
`Subject US Copyright Laws
`
`Page 9 of 14
`
`

`

`Cost Effectiveness of Oral Disease-Modilying Drugs Versus IM IFN-B 4
`77
`
`Fig. 3. Results for one-way
`sensilivily analysis. DF
`dimethyl fumarate, EDSS
`Expanded Disability Status
`Scale, FIN fingolimod, //°N
`interferon, /M intramuscular,
`NAT natalizumab, SM symptom
`management, TER
`teriflunomide, WAC wholesale
`average cost, yr years
`
`(a) Fingolimod vs. IM IFN B-1a
`Monthly WAC for FIN
`Monthly WACfor IM IFN B-1a
`Time horizon
`Impactof FIN onutility
`Disutility for IM IFN B-1a
`;
`oo
`Annualdiscontinuation rate for IM IFN B-1a
`Annual discontinuation rate for FIN
`Utility EDSS 6.0-0-7.5
`Discount rate
`
`——S
`peor
`cnrecreens
`=—
`SI
`Ea
`ge
`
`Assignmentratio between NAT and SM
`-$10,000
`
`a
`$70,000
`$50,000
`$30,000
`$10,000
`Incremental net monetary benefit
`
`$

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket