Search

Introduction: The advent of new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), resulted in significant changes in the treatment guidelines for Multiple sclerosis (MS) and improvement in the clinical outcomes. However, mAbs, such as rituximab, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab, are expensive with variable effectiveness rates. Thus, the present study aimed to compare the direct medical cost and consequences (e.g., clinical relapse, disability progression, and new MRI lesions) between rituximab and natalizumab in managing relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Saudi Arabia. Also, the study aimed to explore the cost and consequence of ocrelizumab in managing RRMS as a second-choice treatment. Methods: The electronic medical records (EMRs) of patients with RRMS were retrospectively reviewed to retrieve the patients' baseline characteristics and disease progression from two tertiary care centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Biologic–naïve patients treated with rituximab or natalizumab or those switched to ocrelizumab and treated for at least six months were included in the study. The effectiveness rate was defined as no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) (i.e., absence of new T2 or T1 gadolinium (Gd) lesions as demonstrated by the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), disability progression, and clinical relapses), while the direct medical costs were estimated based on the utilization of healthcare resources. In addition, bootstrapping with 10,000 replications and inverse probability weighting based on propensity score were conducted. Results: Ninety–three patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (natalizumab (n = 50), rituximab (n = 26), ocrelizumab (n = 17)). Most of the patients were otherwise healthy (81.72%), under 35 years of age (76.34%), females (61.29%), and on the same mAb for more than one year (83.87%). The mean effectiveness rates for natalizumab, rituximab, and ocrelizumab were 72.00%, 76.92%, and 58.83%, respectively. Natalizumab mean incremental cost compared to rituximab was $35,383 (95% CI: $25,401.09– $49,717.92), and its mean effectiveness rate was 4.92% lower than rituximab (95% CI: -30–27.5) with 59.41% confidence level that rituximab will be dominant. Conclusions: Rituximab seems to be more effective and is less costly than natalizumab in the management of RRMS. Ocrelizumab does not seem to slow the rates of disease progression among patients previously treated with natalizumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]