Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Using One-Molar Gadolinium-Based Magnetic Resonance Contrast Agent Compared to Half-Molar Agents for the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis

Objective: to conduct a comparative assessment of the pharmacoeconomic advantages of using gadobutrol in comparison with half-molar (0.5 M) gadolinium chelates for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS).

Material and methods. A calculator was developed in Microsoft Excel, in which the number of exacerbations of multiple sclerosis was obtained when using one-molar (1.0 M) gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) and 0.5 M gadolinium chelates, and pharmacoeconomical results were analyzed by conducting a cost analysis and a budget impact analysis. The analysis took into account only direct medical costs (research costs (administering of GBCAs) and hospitalization costs due to exacerbations) funded under the mandatory health insurance system. The results have been calculated for a cohort of 1.000 patients.

Results. The analysis of pharmacoeconomic effectiveness showed that magnetic resonance studies of the central nervous system using gadobutrol were characterized by a reduction in the number of MS exacerbations by 70 cases. In the cost analysis the use of gadobutrol in both patients less than 75 kg (7.5 ml administered volume) and more than 75 kg (15 ml administered volume) demonstrated a reduction in total costs compared to 0.5 M gadolinium chelates (gadodiamide, gadoteric acid, and gadoteridol). Budget impact analysis showed that the transfer of 1.000 patients with studies using 0.5 M GBCAs on the gadobutrol due to the reduction in the incidence of MS exacerbations leads to budgetary savings in the group of patients under 75 kg from 4.264.610 to 6.565.827 RUB, and in patients more than 75 kg from 2.267.767 to 6.870.201 RUB.

Conclusion. As a result of pharmacoeconomical modeling, it was found that the use of gadobutrol for central nervous system studies for the diagnosis of MS in comparison with using 0.5 GBCAs can reduce the number of MS exacerbations and lead to money savings.

1. Gasperini С, Prosperini L, Tintore M, Sormani MP, Filippi M, Rio J, et al. Unraveling treatment response in multiple sclerosis: a clinical and MRI challenge. Neurology. 2019; 92(4): 180-92. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006810

2. Revised Guidelines of the Consortium of MS Centers MRI Protocol for the Diagnosis and Follow-up of MS, 2018. Available at: https://cdn.ymaws.com/mscare.site-ym.com/resource/collection/9C5F19B9-3489-48B0-A54B-623A1ECEE07B2018MRIGuidelines_booklet_withfinal_changes_0522.pdf (accessed July 17, 2020).

3. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, Carroll WM, Coetzee T, Comi G, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2018; 17(2): 162-73. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422 (17) 30470-2

4. Rovira XA, Auger XC, Huerga XE, Corral XJF, Mitjana XR, Sastre-Garriga J, et al. Cumulative dose of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent improves detection of enhancing lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 38(8): 1486-93. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5253

5. Uysal E., Erturk SM, Yildirim H, Seleker F, Basak M. Sensitivity of immediate and delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI after injection of 0.5 M and 1.0 M Gadolinium chelates for detecting multiple sclerosis lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188(3): 697-702. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.2212

6. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, Jentoft ME, Murray DL, Thielen KR, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015; 275(3): 772-82. doi: 10.1148/radiol.15150025

7. Lohrke J, Frisk AL, Frenzel T, Schockel L, Rosenbruch M, Jost G, et al. Histology and gadolinium distribution in the rodent brain after the administration of cumulative high doses of linear and macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol. 2017; 52(6): 324-33. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000344

8. Ramalho J, Semelka RC, Ramalho M, Nunes RH, AlObaidy M, Castillo M. Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulation and toxicity: an update. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016; 37(7): 1192-8. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4615

9. Runge VM. Safety of the gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging, focusing in part on their accumulation in the brain and especially the dentate nucleus. Invest Radiol. 2016; 51(5): 273-9. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000273

10. Olchowy C, Cebulski K, Lasecki M, Chaber R, Olchowy A, Kaf-wak K, Zaleska-Dorobisz U. The presence of the gadolinium-based contrast agent depositions in the brain and symptoms of gadolinium neurotoxicity: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2): e0171704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171704

11. Robert P, Lehericy S, Grand S, Violas X, Fretellier N, Idee JM, et al. T1-weighted hypersignal in the deep cerebellar nuclei after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents in healthy rats: difference between linear and macrocyclic agents. Invest Radiol. 2015; 50: 473-80. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000181

12. ACR Manual on contrast media 2020. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/7media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/Contrast_Media.pdf (accessed July 17, 2020).

13. ESUR Guidelines on contrast agents. European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Available at: http://www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/2019/ESUR_Guidelines_10.0_Final_Version.pdf (accessed July 17, 2020).

14. Karmazanovskiy GG, Shimanovskiy NL, Baryshev PM. Pharmaco-economic study of one molar gadolinium magnetic-resonance contrast media use for diagnostics of CNS diseases in comparison with 0.5 molar ones. Medical Visualization. 2012; 4: 1-5 (in Russian).