Health economics and patient outcomes of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus disease-modifying therapies for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States of America.

Objective: To estimate differences in treatment costs and health outcomes between non-myeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).
Methods: We collected data on costs and reimbursements for patients who underwent HSCT for RRMS at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago (USA) between January 2017 and January 2019. The costs of HSCT were compared against those for DMTs in the United States, obtained from the literature. We also conducted a literature review to interpret the cost comparisons in terms of disease control and patients' wellbeing defined as no evidence of disease activity (NEDA), neurologic disability by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and quality of life by the short form SF-36, respectively.
Results: Outside of the data, herein, no other studies on cost of HSCT for RRMS were found in the literature. HSCT mean total costs, based on our own hospital, were $85,184 (range $70,635 to $120,260). Mean revenue collected was $95,268 (range $16,544 to $173,204). In comparison, according to the literature, 2019 DMT costs in the USA ranged from $80,000 to $100,000 per year per patient. Compared to DMTs, studies of HSCT reported greater improvement in no evidence of disease activity, disability, and quality of life.
Limitations: Costs of HSCT would be expected to vary by conditioning regimen utilized, patient selection, center experience, and regional variation. No cost data on other HSCT regimens or on the three most recently licensed DMTs, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, and cladribine, are available. Randomized trials for cost comparisons are missing and variations in HSCT designs, populations, and methodology preclude more precise cost estimates.
Conclusion: Costs of non-myeloablative HSCT after which DMTs are indefinitely discontinued, are approximately the same cost as those for one year of prescription DMTs. Since DMTs assessed in this analysis are given on an ongoing basis, whilst HSCT is not, HSCT is expected to produce long-term cost-savings. When considered alongside the available clinical evidence, which suggests that HSCT may generate more health gains than DMTs, HSCT is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Model-based health economic analyses are required to substantiate this conclusion.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None.
(Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)