This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

2019 May 21
From the Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston
Financial relationships between neurologists and industry: The 2015 Open Payments database
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31110144

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To analyze research and nonresearch payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database.
METHODS:
In this retrospective database analysis, we computed the percentage of neurologists in the United States receiving payments, the median/mean payments per neurologist, payment categories, regional trends, and sponsors. We computed the number of practicing neurologists from the Association of American Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data Book, 2015.
RESULTS:
In 2015, approximately 96% of US neurologists received nonresearch payments totaling $93,920,993. The median payment per physician was $407. The highest proportion of neurologists (24%) received between $1,000 and $10,000. Food and beverage was the most frequent category (83% of the total number of payments). The highest amount was paid for serving as faculty/speaker for noncontinuing medical education activities (49%). The top sponsor of nonresearch payments was Teva Pharmaceuticals ($16,461,055; 17.5%). A total of 412 neurologists received $2,921,611 in research payments (median $1,132). Multiple sclerosis specialists received the largest proportion ($285,537; 9.7%). Daiichi Sankyo paid the largest amount in research payments ($826,029; 28%).
CONCLUSIONS:
The Open Payments program was established to foster transparent disclosure of physician compensations from industry, in response to legislative and public concerns of the effect of conflicts of interest on practice, education, and research. The effects of this program remain unclear and studies of changes in prescribing practices, costs, and other outcomes are necessary. CMS should ensure that incorrect information can be rectified quickly and easily.

2019 May 20
Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Economic burden of multiple sclerosis in a population with low physical disability.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31109317

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
In multiple sclerosis (MS), half of affected people are unemployed within 10 years of diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the economic impact of MS in adult subjects with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and primary progressive MS (PPMS).
METHODS:
A multicenter, non-interventional, cross-sectional study was conducted. The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the 23-item Multiple Sclerosis Work Difficulties Questionnaire (MSWDQ-23) were used to assess disability and work performance, respectively. Only indirect costs were considered using the human capital method, including work costs. Professional support costs and informal caregivers' costs were also estimated.
RESULTS:
A total of 199 subjects were studied (mean age: 43.9 ± 10.5 years, 60.8% female, 86.4% with RRMS). Median EDSS score was 2.0 (interquartile range: 1.0-3.5) and median MSWDQ-23 total score was 31.5 (15.2, 50.0). The number of employed subjects decreased after MS diagnosis from 70.6 to 47.2%, and the number of retired people increased (23.6%). Mean age of retirement was 43.6 ± 10.5 years. Ten percent of the population had sick leaves (absenteeism was seen in 90.9% of the student population and 30.9% of the employed population). Professional support in their daily life activities was needed in 28.1% of subjects. Costs for sick leave, work absenteeism, premature retirement and premature work disability/pensioner were €416.6 ± 2030.2, €763.4 ± 3161.8, €5810.1 ± 13,159.0 and €1816.8 ± 9630.7, respectively. Costs for professional support and informal caregiving activities were €1026.93 ± 4622.0 and €1328.72, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS:
MS is responsible for a substantial economic burden due to indirect and informal care costs, even in a population with low physical disability.

2019 Jul 16
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston
Biosimilar Drugs for Multiple Sclerosis: An Unmet International Need or a Regulatory Risk?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31313222

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) more than any other neurological disorder has experienced a tremendous progress in available evidence-based innovator disease modifying therapies (DMT). These medications include injectable complex nonbiological drugs (CNBD), the injectable biological products β-interferons-1a and -1b, and the infusible monoclonal antibodies (MAB), as well as oral synthetic therapeutic molecules. The degree of efficacy and adverse effects profile is variable. By the end of 2019, all medications have been approved for relapsing forms of MS, including five with indication for clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), two for active secondary progressive MS, and one for primary progressive MS. With the advent of the first generation or "platform" injectable DMT in the 1990s the cost of MS care increased substantially driven basically by the cost of these therapies. As new drugs licensed by health agencies appeared in the global market, the cost of these agents notably increased augmenting the economic gravamen of disease particularly in North America This industrial phenomenon has been promoted by the remarkable profits obtained by the biopharmaceutical companies producing these medications, costs increasing about seven times per patient per year in the span of two decades. The global MS drug market was valued at US$16.3 billion in 2016, expecting to reach US$27.8 billion by 2025. The societal and economic effect of these costs constitute an international concern for health systems which adjudicate an increasing portion of financial resources to MS care. This effect has had a more notorious impact in emerging countries with economies in development. In the early 2000s the industry producers of biosimilar molecules initiated the concept of manufacturing follow-on biosimilar therapeutic options for MS available at a reduced cost without affecting efficacy and safety. Latin American biotechnological companies from Mexico, Argentina and Uruguay, introduced into the regional markets biosimilar β-interferons. These products were licensed by the local regulatory agencies without challenging pharmacological profile and their claims of similarity with the innovator medications. In the licensing process, biosimilar manufactures have typically utilized published literature and phase III clinical trials data previously acquired by the brand medication ("third approval pathway''). This has raised concerns among local neurological communities and patient organizations in the area. This situation is compounded by the fact that no discernible health cost savings have resulted since their introduction in Latin American countries. In some European countries where the health care system, public and private systems, regulated by Ministries of Health, negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry drug pricing and payment systems. The business scenario has stimulated local industries to produce follow-on biosimilar medications, theoretically to compete or replace the original brands. Countries such as Iran who have experienced a substantial increase in MS prevalence (101.19 per 100,000 inhabitants) has enabled their national Food and Drug Organization (FDO) to license locally produced biosimilar interferon 1-a and 1-b based on somewhat limited clinical studies. The Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, approved the first biosimilar β-interferon-1a (44 mcg subcutaneous administration) manufactured in the country and developed in accordance to the guidelines of the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for phase I and phase III studies. The EMA, however, along with other international licensing agencies: United States Food and Drug Agency (FDA), Health Canada, the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHPRA), and others, have produced strict guidelines regulating registration of biosimilar medicines. Thus far these agencies have not approved any interferon or MAB for MS based on these principles. The main obstacles for the approval of biosimilar medications by international health agencies is their consistent inability to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence through physiochemistry, biology, immunogenicity aspects, molecular behavior and clinical studies, preferably through a controlled phase III study, or ideally, utilizing a comparative head-to-head trial with the innovator. Recommendations proposed by experts from the Latin American region to guarantee production quality of biosimilar products, efficacy and safety, include strict application of current regulations; avoid uncontrolled interchangeability; implement strong pharmacovigilance; educate healthcare professionals and regulatory officials on the different issues involved in the biosimilarity concept and use evidence-based decision for therapy selection. The main priority should always be the protection and well-being of the patient irrespectively of therapy availability or pharmacoeconomic issues.