REAL-WORLD HEALTHCARE RESOURCE UTILIZATION AND ASSOCIATED COSTS OF OCRELIZUMAB COMPARED TO OFATUMUMAB IN FRANCE: 12-MONTH RESULTS FROM THE OLIDIA COHORT
Author(s)
Laurent Suchet, MD1, Xavier Moisset, PhD, MD2, Alexandre Civet, MSc3, Emmanuele Conde Da Silva Fraga, PhD3, Floriane Deygas, MSc4, Guillaume Bourel, MSc3, Paula A. Allier Lechuga, Bsc3, David Pau, MSc3, Jonathan Ciron, MD5.
1Department of Neurology, Hôpital Européen Marseille, Marseille, France, 2Neurology department, Neuro-Dol, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 3Roche, Boulogne-Billancourt, France, 4Epimentis, Lyon, France, 5Department of Neurology, CRC-SEP, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
1Department of Neurology, Hôpital Européen Marseille, Marseille, France, 2Neurology department, Neuro-Dol, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 3Roche, Boulogne-Billancourt, France, 4Epimentis, Lyon, France, 5Department of Neurology, CRC-SEP, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs over a 12-month follow-up for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients initiating ocrelizumab (OCR) compared to ofatumumab (OFA) in France.
METHODS: OLIDIA is a retrospective real-world cohort study that utilizes data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS). Adult MS patients initiating OCR or OFA (September 2021-December 2022) were included, stratified by prior treatment history and 1:1 propensity score matched, adjusting for baseline sociodemographics, treatment initiation timing, disease severity, number of previous treatments, and comorbidities. HCRU and costs over 0-12 months were compared between treatments across treatment naïve and non-naïve cohorts.
RESULTS: The study included 1,302 matched patients, with overall high baseline needs for symptomatic treatments (>77%) and out-hospital laboratory testing (>85%). Among matched non-naïve patients (N=437 pairs), the proportion with at least one non-infusion MS-related hospitalization was similar between groups (OCR:23.6% vs. OFA:25.2%), with no statistical difference in hospitalization rates (Incidence Rate Ratio[IRR]=0.92 [0.65-1.28], p=0.61). The proportion of corticosteroid utilization, indicative of acute relapse, was equivalently low (OCR:27.0% vs. OFA:28.6%), with comparable dispensing rates (IRR=0.85 [0.57-1.28], p=0.44). In the naïve patient cohort (N=214 pairs), corticosteroid dispensing rates were also comparable, and under 20% of OCR patients required a non-infusion hospitalization (vs. OFA:31.3%), with no significant difference in hospitalization rates (IRR=0.65 [0.36-1.16], p=0.14). Within the naïve cohort, mean monthly sick leave days were similar (OCR:13.8 vs. OFA:13.6), consistent with no statistical difference in sick leave rates (IRR=1.01 [0.69-1.47], p=0.97). When excluding treatment-related expenses, mean monthly costs were comparable (OCR:€466.1 vs. OFA:€411.2, p=0.41).
CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, OCR and OFA showed comparable 12-month profiles for acute relapse HCRU and non-treatment costs. Twice-yearly OCR infusions did not differentially impact work productivity (sick leaves) compared to monthly OFA administration for naïve patients. These findings suggest similar real-world HCRU and work compatibility across cohorts.
METHODS: OLIDIA is a retrospective real-world cohort study that utilizes data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS). Adult MS patients initiating OCR or OFA (September 2021-December 2022) were included, stratified by prior treatment history and 1:1 propensity score matched, adjusting for baseline sociodemographics, treatment initiation timing, disease severity, number of previous treatments, and comorbidities. HCRU and costs over 0-12 months were compared between treatments across treatment naïve and non-naïve cohorts.
RESULTS: The study included 1,302 matched patients, with overall high baseline needs for symptomatic treatments (>77%) and out-hospital laboratory testing (>85%). Among matched non-naïve patients (N=437 pairs), the proportion with at least one non-infusion MS-related hospitalization was similar between groups (OCR:23.6% vs. OFA:25.2%), with no statistical difference in hospitalization rates (Incidence Rate Ratio[IRR]=0.92 [0.65-1.28], p=0.61). The proportion of corticosteroid utilization, indicative of acute relapse, was equivalently low (OCR:27.0% vs. OFA:28.6%), with comparable dispensing rates (IRR=0.85 [0.57-1.28], p=0.44). In the naïve patient cohort (N=214 pairs), corticosteroid dispensing rates were also comparable, and under 20% of OCR patients required a non-infusion hospitalization (vs. OFA:31.3%), with no significant difference in hospitalization rates (IRR=0.65 [0.36-1.16], p=0.14). Within the naïve cohort, mean monthly sick leave days were similar (OCR:13.8 vs. OFA:13.6), consistent with no statistical difference in sick leave rates (IRR=1.01 [0.69-1.47], p=0.97). When excluding treatment-related expenses, mean monthly costs were comparable (OCR:€466.1 vs. OFA:€411.2, p=0.41).
CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, OCR and OFA showed comparable 12-month profiles for acute relapse HCRU and non-treatment costs. Twice-yearly OCR infusions did not differentially impact work productivity (sick leaves) compared to monthly OFA administration for naïve patients. These findings suggest similar real-world HCRU and work compatibility across cohorts.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE357
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
Neurological Disorders, No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas