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

• Published in: PharmacoEconomics Vol. 40; no. 1; pp. 91 - 108
• Main Authors: Visser, Laurenske A., Folcher, Marc, Delgado Simao, Claudia, Gutierrez Arechederra, Biotza, Escudero, Encarna, Uyl-de Groot, Carin A., Redekop, William Ken
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Chronic illnesses; Consortia; Cost analysis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease; Health Administration; Health Economics; Humans; Interferon; Interferon beta-1a; Interferon-beta; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Multiple sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis - drug therapy; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting - drug therapy; Original; Original Research Article; Patients; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes; Proteins; Public Health; Quality of Life Research; Transplants & implants; Netherlands
• ISSN: 1170-7690; 1179-2027
• DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y

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.