Assessing the Socioeconomic Value of Ocrelizumab Subcutaneous for Treating Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis in the Evolving Treatment Landscape in the United Kingdom
Author(s)
Nahida Choudhury, BSc, MSc1, Katya Galactionova, PhD2.
1Roche Products Limited, Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom, 2Roche Products Limited, Basel, Switzerland.
1Roche Products Limited, Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom, 2Roche Products Limited, Basel, Switzerland.
OBJECTIVES: In recent years, the MS treatment landscape has changed; newer anti-CD20 medicines have received NICE approval and ocrelizumab is available as a subcutaneous injection. This study assessed the socio-economic value of ocrelizumab subcutaneous, compared to ublituximab and ofatumumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Direct and indirect costs were used to highlight the broader societal value of ocrelizumab subcutaneous in the UK.
METHODS: A Markov model based on the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) states was used to calculate costs associated with disease progression. The model incorporates progression on EDSS, conversion to secondary progressive MS, relapses, and death (using age-adjusted general population mortality). Transition probabilities and efficacy were derived from published literature and network meta-analysis. Time horizon of 10 years and 3.5% discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Direct medical costs included administration and monitoring. Drug costs were excluded due to confidential net prices. Resource use estimates and costs were sourced from previous NICE appraisals, NHS reference costs 2023/24, PSSRU 2024 and published literature. Indirect costs included productivity losses to patients (due to short term absence, long term absence and early retirement) and informal care.
RESULTS: The socioeconomic value of ocrelizumab subcutaneous versus ublituximab and ofatumumab was approximately £188 million and £44 million, respectively. These cost savings were mainly driven by direct costs for ublitaximab and indirect costs for ofatumumab. Productivity loss was £42 million and £17 million, and caregiver burden was £39 million and £16 million for ublituximab and ofatumumab respectively. The cost of EDSS ranged from £7,180 and £55,521 from 0-9.
CONCLUSIONS: The results presented show that reducing MS progression can result in patients going back to work and requiring less informal care. This analysis highlights the importance of considering the societal perspective when assessing the benefit of anti-CD20 medicines in RMS to the wider society.
METHODS: A Markov model based on the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) states was used to calculate costs associated with disease progression. The model incorporates progression on EDSS, conversion to secondary progressive MS, relapses, and death (using age-adjusted general population mortality). Transition probabilities and efficacy were derived from published literature and network meta-analysis. Time horizon of 10 years and 3.5% discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Direct medical costs included administration and monitoring. Drug costs were excluded due to confidential net prices. Resource use estimates and costs were sourced from previous NICE appraisals, NHS reference costs 2023/24, PSSRU 2024 and published literature. Indirect costs included productivity losses to patients (due to short term absence, long term absence and early retirement) and informal care.
RESULTS: The socioeconomic value of ocrelizumab subcutaneous versus ublituximab and ofatumumab was approximately £188 million and £44 million, respectively. These cost savings were mainly driven by direct costs for ublitaximab and indirect costs for ofatumumab. Productivity loss was £42 million and £17 million, and caregiver burden was £39 million and £16 million for ublituximab and ofatumumab respectively. The cost of EDSS ranged from £7,180 and £55,521 from 0-9.
CONCLUSIONS: The results presented show that reducing MS progression can result in patients going back to work and requiring less informal care. This analysis highlights the importance of considering the societal perspective when assessing the benefit of anti-CD20 medicines in RMS to the wider society.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE63
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Work & Home Productivity - Indirect Costs
Disease
Neurological Disorders