Background: In high-income countries, four anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are used or in the pipeline for relapsing MS: ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (both registered), ublituximab (awaiting registration) and rituximab (off-label). List prices differ significantly between registered and off-label drugs.
Objective: Comparing differences in benefits between anti-CD20 mAbs from a health-economic and societal perspective.
Methods: To reflect lifetime use of DMTs, we used a treatment-sequence model to compare ocrelizumab/ofatumumab and eight other drug classes in terms of health (lifetime relapses, time to Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 6, lifetime quality-adjusted life years) and cost-effectiveness (net health benefit). To become cost-effective compared to ocrelizumab, we modelled the list price of ublituximab and desired effect on EDSS progression of rituximab.
Results: Although drug sequences with ocrelizumab in first- and second-line were more cost-effective than ofatumumab, our probabilistic analysis suggests this outcome was very uncertain. To be more cost-effective than ocrelizumab, ublituximab needs to be about 25% cheaper whilst rituximab needs to equal the effect on disability progression seen with first-line treatments.
Conclusions: Our model showed no clear difference in cost-effectiveness between ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. Hence, prescribing the least costly anti-CD20 mAb can democratise MS care without a loss in health benefits.
Keywords: Multiple sclerosis; anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies; cost-effectiveness research; disease-modifying treatment; net health benefit; quality-adjusted life years.
© The Author(s), 2023.