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

Laurenske A. Visser (), Marc Folcher (), Claudia Delgado Simao (), Biotza Gutierrez Arechederra (), Encarna Escudero (), Carin A. Uyl- de Groot () and William Ken Redekop ()
Additional contact information
Laurenske A. Visser: Erasmus University Rotterdam
Marc Folcher: Institute of Molecular and Clinical Opthalmology Basel
Claudia Delgado Simao: Eurecat, Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya
Biotza Gutierrez Arechederra: Eurecat Centre Tecnologic de Catalunya
Encarna Escudero: Eurecat, Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya
Carin A. Uyl- de Groot: Erasmus University Rotterdam
William Ken Redekop: Erasmus University Rotterdam

PharmacoEconomics, 2022, vol. 40, issue 1, No 9, 108 pages

Abstract: Abstract 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.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01081-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01081-y

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().