10-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES OF FREMANEZUMAB COMPARED TO NO TREATMENT AS A PREVENTIVE TREATMENT IN CHRONIC AND EPISODIC MIGRAINE FOR PATIENTS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO PRIOR PREVENTIVE TREATMENTS
Author(s)
Smolen L1, Gandhi SK2, Klein T1, Thompson S2, Cohen J2
1Medical Decision Modeling Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frazer, PA, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide, is approved for preventive treatment of migraine in adults. Its cost-effectiveness compared to no treatment for prevention of chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) was examined in patients who had responded inadequately to 2 to 4 classes of prior preventive treatments. METHODS: A semi-Markov cost-effectiveness model (CEM) was developed with a 4-week cycle and 10-year analysis time horizon. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.0% annual rates. Treatment efficacies were incorporated as reductions in mean migraine days (MDs)/28-days versus placebo. Patient cohorts were distributed among MD categories (0–28 MDs/28-days) based on mean MD levels. The CEM estimated costs (fremanezumab acquisition costs, MD-related costs [direct and indirect]) and health-related quality-of-life (MD- and treatment status-based utilities) for fremanezumab and no-treatment arms. Only background mortality was modeled. Outcome measures were costs, reduction in MDs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Analyses were performed on a combined CM(67%)/EM(33%) population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported as cost/QALY gained between fremanezumab and no treatment. Fremanezumab MDs/28-day reductions versus placebo were sourced from a Network Meta-Analysis (NMA). In the base-case versus no-treatment analysis, fremanezumab was compared with constant no-treatment MD profiles. Fremanezumab was also compared with randomized clinical trial (RCT)-sourced placebo-arm MD profiles. RESULTS: In the base-case versus no-treatment 10-year analysis time horizon, fremanezumab treatment resulted in cost/QALY ICER of $31,998; average incremental costs, $5,893/patient; incremental QALYs, 0.184; and reduction in MDs,107.0 MDs. Excluding indirect costs, fremanezumab treatment resulted in a cost/QALY ICER of $55,850; average incremental costs, $10,285/patient. Including placebo effects, fremanezumab treatment resulted in a cost/QALY ICER of $48,925; average incremental costs, $7,650/patient; incremental QALYs, 0.156, and reduction in MDs, 83.6 MDs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current pricing and RCT results, fremanezumab treatment is cost effective versus no treatment.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2019-11, ISPOR Europe 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark
Code
PND36
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
Neurological Disorders