A TREATMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS OF OCRELIZUMAB IN RELAPSING MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FROM A GREEK SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE
Author(s)
Elmor Pineda, MS, RPh, PharmD1, Angelos Adamopoulos, MBA2, Maria Giannou, MSc, MBA2, Katerina Vellopoulou, MSc3, Georgia Kourlaba, PhD4.
1Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA, 2ROCHE HELLAS S.A., Athens, Greece, 3ECONCARE LP, Athens, Greece, 4Department of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
1Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA, 2ROCHE HELLAS S.A., Athens, Greece, 3ECONCARE LP, Athens, Greece, 4Department of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the long-term clinical and economic impact of introducing ocrelizumab into the treatment pathway for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) in Greece from a societal perspective.
METHODS: A Treatment Impact Model (TIM) adapted to the Greek setting evaluated adults with relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis over a 10-year horizon (2021-2030). The market including ocrelizumab was compared to the market without ocrelizumab. The target population comprised 7,150 treated prevalent patients with RMS in 2021 (52% of the estimated treated RRMS population in Greece), with annual inflows averaging 645 incident and switching patients, reaching 12,956 patients by 2030. Clinical and economic inputs were derived from a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) informed by a network meta-analysis of disease-modifying therapies. The underlying CEM evaluated all EDSS health states, while the TIM focused on three disability milestones (EDSS≥4, EDSS≥6 and EDSS≥7). Additional outcomes included healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) costs, productivity losses and drug costs. Base-case and increased-uptake scenarios of ocrelizumab were assessed.
RESULTS: Among the 12,956 patients projected in 2030, fewer patients reached EDSS≥4 (6,684 vs 6,817; −1.96%), EDSS≥6 (2,829 vs 2,938; −3.70%) and EDSS≥7 (1,349 vs 1,407; −4.13%) in the market including ocrelizumab versus the market without ocrelizumab. Cumulative HCRU costs were lower (€341.1M vs €354.3M; −€13.1M), while productivity losses were lower (€738.6M vs €744.1M; −€5.5M). Although cumulative drug costs increased by €47.2M (€904.3M vs €857.2M), combined HCRU and productivity savings (€18.6M) partially offset the additional drug expenditure by almost 40%, reducing the net increase to €28.6M over the 10-year horizon. In the increased-uptake scenario, reductions in EDSS≥4, EDSS≥6 and EDSS≥7 reached 2.37%, 4.57% and 5.15%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Introducing ocrelizumab into the Greek RMS treatment pathway was associated with delayed disability progression and reduced healthcare and productivity burden over 10 years, supporting its long-term clinical and economic value for patients with RMS in Greece.
METHODS: A Treatment Impact Model (TIM) adapted to the Greek setting evaluated adults with relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis over a 10-year horizon (2021-2030). The market including ocrelizumab was compared to the market without ocrelizumab. The target population comprised 7,150 treated prevalent patients with RMS in 2021 (52% of the estimated treated RRMS population in Greece), with annual inflows averaging 645 incident and switching patients, reaching 12,956 patients by 2030. Clinical and economic inputs were derived from a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) informed by a network meta-analysis of disease-modifying therapies. The underlying CEM evaluated all EDSS health states, while the TIM focused on three disability milestones (EDSS≥4, EDSS≥6 and EDSS≥7). Additional outcomes included healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) costs, productivity losses and drug costs. Base-case and increased-uptake scenarios of ocrelizumab were assessed.
RESULTS: Among the 12,956 patients projected in 2030, fewer patients reached EDSS≥4 (6,684 vs 6,817; −1.96%), EDSS≥6 (2,829 vs 2,938; −3.70%) and EDSS≥7 (1,349 vs 1,407; −4.13%) in the market including ocrelizumab versus the market without ocrelizumab. Cumulative HCRU costs were lower (€341.1M vs €354.3M; −€13.1M), while productivity losses were lower (€738.6M vs €744.1M; −€5.5M). Although cumulative drug costs increased by €47.2M (€904.3M vs €857.2M), combined HCRU and productivity savings (€18.6M) partially offset the additional drug expenditure by almost 40%, reducing the net increase to €28.6M over the 10-year horizon. In the increased-uptake scenario, reductions in EDSS≥4, EDSS≥6 and EDSS≥7 reached 2.37%, 4.57% and 5.15%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Introducing ocrelizumab into the Greek RMS treatment pathway was associated with delayed disability progression and reduced healthcare and productivity burden over 10 years, supporting its long-term clinical and economic value for patients with RMS in Greece.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE60
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies, Work & Home Productivity - Indirect Costs
Disease
Neurological Disorders, No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas