New Therapies

Multiple Sclerosis Medications in the VHA: Delivering Specialty, High-Cost, Pharmacy Care in a National System

Fed Pract. 2020 April;37(1):S36-S42

References

1. Gooch CL, Pracht E, Borenstein AR. The burden of neurological disease in the United States: a summary report and call to action. Ann Neurol. 2017;81(4):479-484.

2. Hartung DM, Bourdette DN, Ahmed SM, Whitham RH. The cost of multiple sclerosis drugs in the US and the pharmaceutical industry: too big to fail? [published correction appears in Neurology. 2015;85(19):1728]. Neurology. 2015;84(21):2185–2192.

3. San-Juan-Rodriguez A, Good CB, Heyman RA, Parekh N, Shrank WH, Hernandez I. Trends in prices, market share, and spending on self-administered disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis in Medicare Part D. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(11):1386-1390.

4. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83(3):278-286.

5. Eriksson M, Andersen O, Runmarker B. Long-term follow up of patients with clinically isolated syndromes, relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis [published correction appears in Mult Scler. 2003;9(6):641]. Mult Scler. 2003;9(3):260-274.

6. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(2):162-173.

7. Cohen J, Belova A, Selmaj K, et al. Equivalence of generic glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72(12):1433-1441.

8. Selmaj K, Barkhof F, Belova AN, et al; GATE study group. Switching from branded to generic glatiramer acetate: 15-month GATE trial extension results. Mult Scler. 2017;23(14):1909-1917.

9. Aspinall SL, Sales MM, Good CB, et al. Pharmacy benefits management in the Veterans Health Administration revisited: a decade of advancements, 2004-2014. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(9):1058-1063.

10. Brown JWL, Coles A, Horakova D, et al. Association of initial disease-modifying therapy with later conversion to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. JAMA. 2019;321(2):175-187.

11. Hua LH, Harris H, Conway D, Thompson NR. Changes in patient-reported outcomes between continuers and discontinuers of disease modifying therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis over age 60 [published correction appears in Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;30:293]. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;30:252-256.

12. Bsteh G, Feige J, Ehling R, et al. Discontinuation of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis - Clinical outcome and prognostic factors. Mult Scler. 2017;23(9):1241-1248.

13. Weideman AM, Tapia-Maltos MA, Johnson K, Greenwood M, Bielekova B. Meta-analysis of the age-dependent efficacy of multiple sclerosis treatments. Front Neurol. 2017;8:577.

14. Kister I, Spelman T, Alroughani R, et al; MSBase Study Group. Discontinuing disease-modifying therapy in MS after a prolonged relapse-free period: a propensity score-matched study [published correction appears in J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(4):e2]. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87(10):1133-1137.

15. Birnbaum G. Stopping disease-modifying therapy in nonrelapsing multiple sclerosis: experience from a clinical practice. Int J MS Care. 2017;19(1):11-14.

16. Hawker K, O’Connor P, Freedman MS, et al. Rituximab in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Ann Neurol. 2009;66(4):460-471.

17. Hauser SL, Waubant E, Arnold DL, et al. B-cell depletion with rituximab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(7):676–688.

18. Alping P, Frisell T, Novakova L, et al. Rituximab versus fingolimod after natalizumab in multiple sclerosis patients. Ann Neurol. 2016;79(6):950–958.

19. Rituximab-abbs [package insert]. North Wales, PA: Teva Pharmaceuticals; 2018.

20. Zhovtis Ryerson L, Frohman TC, Foley J, et al. Extended interval dosing of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87(8):885-889.

21. Dimethyl fumarate [package insert]. Cambridge, MA: Biogen Inc; 2015.

22. van Kester MS, Bouwes Bavinck JN, Quint KD. PML in Patients treated with dimethyl fumarate. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):583-584.

23. Nieuwkamp DJ, Murk JL, van Oosten BW. PML in patients treated with dimethyl fumarate. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):584.

24. Rosenkranz T, Novas M, Terborg C. PML in a patient with lymphocytopenia treated with dimethyl fumarate. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(15):1476-1478.

25. Longbrake EE, Cross AH. Dimethyl fumarate associated lymphopenia in clinical practice. Mult Scler. 2015;21(6):796-797.

26. Gold R, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, et al. Long-term effects of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate in multiple sclerosis: Interim analysis of ENDORSE, a randomized extension study. Mult Scler. 2017;23(2):253–265.

27. Hanson RL, Habibi M, Khamo N, Abdou S, Stubbings J. Integrated clinical and specialty pharmacy practice model for management of patients with multiple sclerosis. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(6):463-469.

28. Federal Planning Bureau. Consumer Price Index - Inflation forecasts. https://www.plan.be/databases/17-en-consumer+price+index+inflation+forecasts. Updated March 3, 2020. Accessed March 9, 2020.

Factors Impacting DMT Use

Recent changes to MS typing have impacted utilization of DMTs. Traditionally, there were 4 subtypes of MS: relapsing remitting (RRMS), secondary progressive (SPMS), progressive relapsing (PRMS), and primary progressive (PPMS). These subtypes are now viewed more broadly and grouped as either relapsing or progressive. The traditional subtypes fall under these broader definitions. Additionally, SPMS has been broken into active SPMS, characterized by continued worsening of disability unrelated to acute relapses, superimposed with activity that can be seen on magnetic resonance images (MRIs), and nonactive SPMS, which has the same disability progression as active SPMS but without MRI-visible activity.^4-6 In 2019, these supplementary designations to SPMS made their first appearance in FDA-approved indications. All existing DMTs now include this terminology in their labelling and are indicated in active SPMS. There remain no DMTs that treat nonactive SPMS.

The current landscape of DMTs is highly varied in method of administration, risks, and benefits. As efficacy of these medications often is marked by how well they can prevent the immune system from attacking myelin, an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy results. The standard treatment outcomes in MS have evolved over time. The following are the commonly used primary outcomes in clinical trials: relapse reduction; increased time between relapses; decreased severity of relapses; prevention or extend time to disability milestones as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and other disability measures; prevention or extension of time to onset of secondary progressive disease; prevention or reduction of the number and size of new and enhancing lesions on MRI; and limitation of overall MRI lesion burden in the central nervous system (CNS).

Newer treatment outcomes employed in more recent trials include: measures of axonal damage, CNS atrophy, evidence of microscopic disease via conventional MRI and advanced imaging modalities, biomarkers associated with inflammatory disease activity and neurodegeneration in MS, and the use of no evidence of disease activity (NEDA). These outcomes also must be evaluated by the safety concerns of each agent. Short- and long-term safety are critical factors in the selection of DMTs for MS. The injectable therapies for MS (interferon β‐1a, interferon β‐1b, and GA) have established long-term safety profiles from > 20 years of continuous use. The long-term safety profiles of oral immunomodulatory agents and monoclonal antibodies for these drugs in MS have yet to be determined. Safety concerns associated with some therapies and added requirements for safety monitoring may increase the complexity of a therapeutic selection.

Current cost minimization strategies for DMT include limiting DMT agents on formularies, tier systems that incentivize patients/prescribers to select the lowest priced agents on the formulary, negotiating arrangements with manufacturers to freeze prices or provide discounts in exchange for a priority position in the formulary, and requiring prior authorization to initiate or switch therapy. The use of generic medications and interchange to these agents from a brand name formulation can help reduce expense. Several of these strategies have been implemented in VHA.

Disease-Modifying Therapies

In 2019, 18,645 veterans with MS had either a MS-specific DMT or ≥ 1 annual encounters with a primary diagnosis of MS. Of this population, 4,720 were female and 13,357 were service connected according to VA data. About 50% of veterans with MS take a DMT. This percentage has remained stable over the past decade (Table 2). Although it appears the number of unique veterans prescribed an outpatient DMT is decreasing, this does not include the growing use of infused DMTs or DMTs obtained through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP)/Community Care (CC).

References

1. Gooch CL, Pracht E, Borenstein AR. The burden of neurological disease in the United States: a summary report and call to action. Ann Neurol. 2017;81(4):479-484.

4. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83(3):278-286.

5. Eriksson M, Andersen O, Runmarker B. Long-term follow up of patients with clinically isolated syndromes, relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis [published correction appears in Mult Scler. 2003;9(6):641]. Mult Scler. 2003;9(3):260-274.