I’m sitting in Florida and the start of spring training is only about a month from now, so please forgive a baseball analogy: The heavy-hitters of the MS-fighting treatments, the monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), are moving up in the lineup.
Five treatments currently are in the mAbs class: Ocrevus, Lemtrada, Rituxan, Tysabri, and Zinbryta. (Rituxan isn’t approved as an MS treatment in the United States. Nonetheless, it’s being prescribed off-label by some neurologists). Until recently, these mAb therapies weren’t usually prescribed as the first treatments for someone newly diagnosed with MS — one or two other disease-modifying treatments (DMT) were tried first. Two reasons appear to explain this. First, some patients and neurologists were concerned about the level of risk with these therapies. Second, some insurance companies and government health plans weren’t happy with their cost.
Costs
However, a recent audit of patients and neurologists by Spherix Global Insights, a business intelligence and market research company, reports an apparent change in attitude about cost:
“While neurologists report payers being at least somewhat restrictive during the current DMT selection process, only 28% of mAb DMT-treated patients were required to step through prior therapies before obtaining access to their current DMT. This finding suggests that payer-influenced treatment sequencing may not be a substantial barrier to increased use of mAb DMTs as induction therapy (the first treatment prescribed) in appropriate candidates.”
Risk versus benefit
A similar attitude change seems to have taken place regarding risk versus benefit. The report suggests that neurologists are increasingly prescribing certain monoclonal antibody therapies for their patients even though they may feel, as a group, that mAbs pose a risk. According to the report, neurologists believe that, for certain patients, the high-efficacy benefit of a specific mAbs made its risk “acceptable.”
Bravo!
In my travels around the social media world, I regularly read complaints from MS patients whose insurance, or government plan, won’t pay for one of the five monoclonal antibodies until that patient had failed two of the more conventional MS therapies. I also read about neurologists who are hesitant to prescribe mAbs, even for a patient whose disease is progressing rapidly. Hopefully, this new report is indicative of a change of attitude by doctors and by payers that will benefit those of us who fight the MS battle every day.
(This post first appeared as my column on www.multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com)
Unfortunately, I’m part of that 28%, and I learned recently that the first MS therapy I failed wasn’t even on the preferred drug formulary that my health plan uses.
Since I wasn’t diagnosed until very late in the disease process, I feel like I’m running out of time – and energy – to continue fighting the health insurance appeals process. Sounds like there is hope for others who are being diagnosed earlier, though :).
None of these are a cure. All I heard, MS effects each one of us differently and the treatments effect each one of us differently, but none of these is a cure. You would never know it with the price spikes/increases the companies are charging. I was on Copaxone and the side effects were the same as the MS symptoms and there is no cure.