Natasha Antonovich, PharmD, BCPS

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated demyelinating disorder. There are 2 broad categories of MS: relapsing, also called active MS; and progressive MS. Unfortunately, there is no cure for MS, but disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can help prevent relapses and new central nervous system lesions in people living with active MS. For patients with the most common type of MS, relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), DMTs are typically continued for decades while the patient has active disease. RRMS will usually transition to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), which can present as active SPMS or nonactive SPMS. The latter is the type of MS most people with RRMS eventually experience.

A 2019 study estimated that nearly 1 million people in the United States were living with MS.¹ This population estimate indicated the peak age-specific prevalence of MS was 55 to 64 years. Population data demonstrate improved mortality rates for people diagnosed with MS from 1997 to 2012 compared with prior years.² Therefore, the management of nonactive SPMS is an increasingly significant area of need. There are currently no DMTs on the market approved for nonactive SPMS, and lifelong DMTs in these patients are neither indicated nor supported by evidence. Nevertheless, the discontinuation of DMTs in nonactive SPMS has been a long-debated topic with varied opinions on how and when to discontinue.

The 2018 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline recommends that clinicians advise patients with SPMS to discontinue DMT use if they do not have ongoing relapses (or gadolinium-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging activity) or have not been ambulatory (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≥ 7) for ≥ 2 years.³ In recent years, there has been increased research on nonactive SPMS, specifically on discontinuation of DMTs. This clinical review assesses the recent evidence from a variety of standpoints, including the effect of discontinuing DMTs on the MS disease course and quality of life (QOL) and the perspectives of patients living with MS. Based on this evidence, a conversation guide will be presented as a framework to aid with the clinician-patient discussion on discontinuing MS DMTs.

Disease Modifying Therapies

Roos and colleagues used data from 2 large MS cohorts: MSBase and Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP) to compare high-efficacy vs low-efficacy DMT in both active and nonactive SPMS.⁴ In the active SPMS group, the strength of DMTs did not change disability progression, but high-efficacy DMTs reduced relapses better than the low-efficacy DMTs. On the other hand, the nonactive SPMS group saw no difference between DMTs in both relapse risk and disability progression. Another observational study of 221 patients with RRMS who discontinued DMTs noted that there were 2 independent predictors for the absence of relapse following DMT discontinuation: being aged > 45 years and the lack of relapse for ≥ 4 years prior to DMT discontinuation.⁵ Though these patients still may have been classified as RRMS, both these independent predictors for stability postdiscontinuation of DMTs are the typical characteristics of a nonactive SPMS patient.

Pathophysiology may help explain why DMT discontinuation seems to produce no adverse clinical outcomes in people with nonactive SPMS. Nonactive SPMS, which follows after RRMS, is largely correlated with age. In nonactive SPMS, there is less B and T lymphocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, a lifetime of low-grade inflammation during the RRMS phase results in axonal damage and declined repair capacity, which produces the predominance of neurodegeneration in the nonactive SPMS disease process.⁶ This pathophysiologic difference between active and nonactive disease not only explains the different symptomatology of these MS subtypes, but also could explain why drugs that target the inflammatory processes more characteristic of active disease are not effective in nonactive SPMS.

Other recent studies explored the impact of age on DMT efficacy for patients with nonactive SPMS. A meta-analysis by Weidman and colleagues pooled trial data across multiple DMT classes in > 28,000 patients.⁷ The resulting regression model predicted zero efficacy of any DMT in patients who are aged > 53 years. High-efficacy DMTs only outperformed low-efficacy DMTs in people aged < 40.5 years. Another observational study by Hua and colleagues saw a similar result.⁸ This study included patients who discontinued DMT who were aged ≥ 60 years. The median follow-up time was 5.3 years. Of the 178 patients who discontinued DMTs, only 1 patient had a relapse. In this study, the age for participation provided a higher likelihood that patients included were in nonactive SPMS. Furthermore, the outcome reflects the typical presentation of nonactive SPMS where, despite the continuation or discontinuation of DMT, there was a lack of relapses. When comparing patients who discontinued DMTs with those who continued use, there was no significant difference in their 25-foot walk times, which is an objective marker for a more progressive symptom seen in nonactive MS.

The DISCOMS trial (NCT03073603) has been completed, but full results are not yet published. In this noninferiority trial, > 250 patients aged ≥ 55 years were assessed on a variety of outcomes, including relapses, EDSS score, and QOL. MS subtypes were considered at baseline, and subgroup analysis looking particularly at the SPMS population could provide further insight into its effect on MS course.

Quality of Life

Whether discontinuation of DMTs is worth considering in nonactive SPMS, it is also important to consider the risks and burdens associated with continuation. Medication administration burdens come with all MS DMTs whether there is the need to inject oneself, increased pill burden, or travel to an infusion clinic. The ever-rising costs of DMTs also can be a financial burden to the patient.⁹ All MS DMTs carry risks of adverse effects (AEs). These can range from a mild injection site reaction to severe infection, depending on the DMT used. Many of these severe AEs, such as opportunistic infections and cancer, have been associated with either an increased risk of occurrence and/or worsened outcomes in older adults who remain on DMTs, particularly moderate- to high-efficacy DMTs, such as sphingosine-1- phosphate receptor modulators, fumarates, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, cladribine, and anti-CD20 antibodies.¹⁰ In a 2019 survey of 377 patients with MS, 63.8% of respondents ranked safety as the most important reason they would consider discontinuing their DMTs.¹¹ In addition, a real-world study comparing people with nonactive SPMS who continued DMTs vs those who discontinued found that discontinuers reported better QOL.⁸

Conversation Guide for Discontinuing Therapies

The 2019 survey that assessed reasons for discontinuation also asked people with nonactive SPMS whether they thought they were in a nonactive disease stage, and what was their likelihood they would stop DMTs.¹¹ Interestingly, only 59.4% of respondents self-assessed their MS as nonactive, and just 11.9% of respondents were willing to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ These results suggest that there may be a need for patient education about nonactive SPMS and the rationale to continue or discontinue DMTs. Thus, before broaching the topic of discontinuation, explaining the nonactive SPMS subtype is important.

Even with a good understanding of nonactive SPMS, patients may be hesitant to stop using DMTs that they previously relied on to keep their MS stable. The 2019 survey ranked physician recommendation as the third highest reason to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ Taking the time to explain the clinical evidence for DMT discontinuation may help patients better understand a clinician’s recommendation and inspire more confidence.

Another important aspect of DMT discontinuation decision making is creating a plan for how the patient will be monitored to provide assurance if they experience a relapse. The 2019 survey asked patients what would be most important to them for their management plan after discontinuing DMT; magnetic resonance imaging and neurologic examination monitoring ranked the highest.¹¹ The plan should include timing for follow-up appointments and imaging, providing the patient comfort in knowing their MS will be monitored and verified for the relapse stability that is expected from nonactive SPMS. In the rare case a relapse does occur, having a contingency plan and noting the possibility of restarting DMTs is an integral part of reassuring the patient that their decision to discontinue DMTs will be treated with the utmost caution and individualized to their needs.

Lastly, highlighting which aspects of MS treatment will continue to be a priority in nonactive SPMS, such as symptomatic medication management and nonpharmacologic therapy, is important for the patient to recognize that there are still opportunities to manage this phase of MS. There are many lifestyle modifications that can be considered complementary to medical management of MS at any stage of the disease. Vascular comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, have been associated with more rapid disability progression in MS.¹² Optimized management of these diseases may slow disability progression, in addition to the benefit of improved outcomes of the vascular comorbidity. Various formats of exercise have been studied in the MS population. A meta-analysis of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise found benefits in these formats on health-related QOL.¹³

Many dietary strategies have been studied in MS. A recent network meta-analysis reviewed some of the more commonly studied diets, including low-fat, modified Mediterranean, ketogenic, anti-inflammatory, Paleolithic, intermittent fasting, and calorie restriction vs a usual diet.¹⁴ Although the overall quality of evidence was low, the Paleolithic and modified Mediterranean showed greater reductions in fatigue, as well as increased physical and mental QOL compared with a usual diet. The low-fat diet was associated with a reduction in fatigue. Many of these lifestyle modifications may complement optimized vascular comorbidity treatment; however, any exercise regimen or dietary change should be considered with the whole health of the patient in mind.

As with any health care decision, it is important to involve the patient in a joint decision regarding their care. This may mean giving the patient time to think about the information presented, do their own research, talk to family members or other clinicians, etc. The decision to discontinue DMT may not happen at the same appointment it is initially brought up at. It may even be reasonable to revisit the conversation later if discontinuation is not something the patient is amenable to at the time.

Conclusions

There is high-quality evidence that discontinuing DMTs in nonactive SPMS is not a major detriment to the MS disease course. Current literature also suggests that there may be benefits to discontinuation in this MS subtype in terms of QOL and meeting patient values. Additional research particularly in the nonactive SPMS population will continue to improve the knowledge and awareness of this aspect of MS DMT management. The growing evidence in this area may make discontinuation of DMT in nonactive SPMS a less-debatable topic, but it is still a major treatment decision that clinicians must thoroughly discuss with the patient to provide high-quality, patient-centered care.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated demyelinating disorder. There are 2 broad categories of MS: relapsing, also called active MS; and progressive MS. Unfortunately, there is no cure for MS, but disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can help prevent relapses and new central nervous system lesions in people living with active MS. For patients with the most common type of MS, relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), DMTs are typically continued for decades while the patient has active disease. RRMS will usually transition to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), which can present as active SPMS or nonactive SPMS. The latter is the type of MS most people with RRMS eventually experience.

A 2019 study estimated that nearly 1 million people in the United States were living with MS.¹ This population estimate indicated the peak age-specific prevalence of MS was 55 to 64 years. Population data demonstrate improved mortality rates for people diagnosed with MS from 1997 to 2012 compared with prior years.² Therefore, the management of nonactive SPMS is an increasingly significant area of need. There are currently no DMTs on the market approved for nonactive SPMS, and lifelong DMTs in these patients are neither indicated nor supported by evidence. Nevertheless, the discontinuation of DMTs in nonactive SPMS has been a long-debated topic with varied opinions on how and when to discontinue.

The 2018 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline recommends that clinicians advise patients with SPMS to discontinue DMT use if they do not have ongoing relapses (or gadolinium-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging activity) or have not been ambulatory (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≥ 7) for ≥ 2 years.³ In recent years, there has been increased research on nonactive SPMS, specifically on discontinuation of DMTs. This clinical review assesses the recent evidence from a variety of standpoints, including the effect of discontinuing DMTs on the MS disease course and quality of life (QOL) and the perspectives of patients living with MS. Based on this evidence, a conversation guide will be presented as a framework to aid with the clinician-patient discussion on discontinuing MS DMTs.

Disease Modifying Therapies

Roos and colleagues used data from 2 large MS cohorts: MSBase and Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP) to compare high-efficacy vs low-efficacy DMT in both active and nonactive SPMS.⁴ In the active SPMS group, the strength of DMTs did not change disability progression, but high-efficacy DMTs reduced relapses better than the low-efficacy DMTs. On the other hand, the nonactive SPMS group saw no difference between DMTs in both relapse risk and disability progression. Another observational study of 221 patients with RRMS who discontinued DMTs noted that there were 2 independent predictors for the absence of relapse following DMT discontinuation: being aged > 45 years and the lack of relapse for ≥ 4 years prior to DMT discontinuation.⁵ Though these patients still may have been classified as RRMS, both these independent predictors for stability postdiscontinuation of DMTs are the typical characteristics of a nonactive SPMS patient.

Pathophysiology may help explain why DMT discontinuation seems to produce no adverse clinical outcomes in people with nonactive SPMS. Nonactive SPMS, which follows after RRMS, is largely correlated with age. In nonactive SPMS, there is less B and T lymphocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, a lifetime of low-grade inflammation during the RRMS phase results in axonal damage and declined repair capacity, which produces the predominance of neurodegeneration in the nonactive SPMS disease process.⁶ This pathophysiologic difference between active and nonactive disease not only explains the different symptomatology of these MS subtypes, but also could explain why drugs that target the inflammatory processes more characteristic of active disease are not effective in nonactive SPMS.

Other recent studies explored the impact of age on DMT efficacy for patients with nonactive SPMS. A meta-analysis by Weidman and colleagues pooled trial data across multiple DMT classes in > 28,000 patients.⁷ The resulting regression model predicted zero efficacy of any DMT in patients who are aged > 53 years. High-efficacy DMTs only outperformed low-efficacy DMTs in people aged < 40.5 years. Another observational study by Hua and colleagues saw a similar result.⁸ This study included patients who discontinued DMT who were aged ≥ 60 years. The median follow-up time was 5.3 years. Of the 178 patients who discontinued DMTs, only 1 patient had a relapse. In this study, the age for participation provided a higher likelihood that patients included were in nonactive SPMS. Furthermore, the outcome reflects the typical presentation of nonactive SPMS where, despite the continuation or discontinuation of DMT, there was a lack of relapses. When comparing patients who discontinued DMTs with those who continued use, there was no significant difference in their 25-foot walk times, which is an objective marker for a more progressive symptom seen in nonactive MS.

The DISCOMS trial (NCT03073603) has been completed, but full results are not yet published. In this noninferiority trial, > 250 patients aged ≥ 55 years were assessed on a variety of outcomes, including relapses, EDSS score, and QOL. MS subtypes were considered at baseline, and subgroup analysis looking particularly at the SPMS population could provide further insight into its effect on MS course.

Quality of Life

Whether discontinuation of DMTs is worth considering in nonactive SPMS, it is also important to consider the risks and burdens associated with continuation. Medication administration burdens come with all MS DMTs whether there is the need to inject oneself, increased pill burden, or travel to an infusion clinic. The ever-rising costs of DMTs also can be a financial burden to the patient.⁹ All MS DMTs carry risks of adverse effects (AEs). These can range from a mild injection site reaction to severe infection, depending on the DMT used. Many of these severe AEs, such as opportunistic infections and cancer, have been associated with either an increased risk of occurrence and/or worsened outcomes in older adults who remain on DMTs, particularly moderate- to high-efficacy DMTs, such as sphingosine-1- phosphate receptor modulators, fumarates, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, cladribine, and anti-CD20 antibodies.¹⁰ In a 2019 survey of 377 patients with MS, 63.8% of respondents ranked safety as the most important reason they would consider discontinuing their DMTs.¹¹ In addition, a real-world study comparing people with nonactive SPMS who continued DMTs vs those who discontinued found that discontinuers reported better QOL.⁸

Conversation Guide for Discontinuing Therapies

The 2019 survey that assessed reasons for discontinuation also asked people with nonactive SPMS whether they thought they were in a nonactive disease stage, and what was their likelihood they would stop DMTs.¹¹ Interestingly, only 59.4% of respondents self-assessed their MS as nonactive, and just 11.9% of respondents were willing to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ These results suggest that there may be a need for patient education about nonactive SPMS and the rationale to continue or discontinue DMTs. Thus, before broaching the topic of discontinuation, explaining the nonactive SPMS subtype is important.

Even with a good understanding of nonactive SPMS, patients may be hesitant to stop using DMTs that they previously relied on to keep their MS stable. The 2019 survey ranked physician recommendation as the third highest reason to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ Taking the time to explain the clinical evidence for DMT discontinuation may help patients better understand a clinician’s recommendation and inspire more confidence.

Another important aspect of DMT discontinuation decision making is creating a plan for how the patient will be monitored to provide assurance if they experience a relapse. The 2019 survey asked patients what would be most important to them for their management plan after discontinuing DMT; magnetic resonance imaging and neurologic examination monitoring ranked the highest.¹¹ The plan should include timing for follow-up appointments and imaging, providing the patient comfort in knowing their MS will be monitored and verified for the relapse stability that is expected from nonactive SPMS. In the rare case a relapse does occur, having a contingency plan and noting the possibility of restarting DMTs is an integral part of reassuring the patient that their decision to discontinue DMTs will be treated with the utmost caution and individualized to their needs.

Lastly, highlighting which aspects of MS treatment will continue to be a priority in nonactive SPMS, such as symptomatic medication management and nonpharmacologic therapy, is important for the patient to recognize that there are still opportunities to manage this phase of MS. There are many lifestyle modifications that can be considered complementary to medical management of MS at any stage of the disease. Vascular comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, have been associated with more rapid disability progression in MS.¹² Optimized management of these diseases may slow disability progression, in addition to the benefit of improved outcomes of the vascular comorbidity. Various formats of exercise have been studied in the MS population. A meta-analysis of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise found benefits in these formats on health-related QOL.¹³

Many dietary strategies have been studied in MS. A recent network meta-analysis reviewed some of the more commonly studied diets, including low-fat, modified Mediterranean, ketogenic, anti-inflammatory, Paleolithic, intermittent fasting, and calorie restriction vs a usual diet.¹⁴ Although the overall quality of evidence was low, the Paleolithic and modified Mediterranean showed greater reductions in fatigue, as well as increased physical and mental QOL compared with a usual diet. The low-fat diet was associated with a reduction in fatigue. Many of these lifestyle modifications may complement optimized vascular comorbidity treatment; however, any exercise regimen or dietary change should be considered with the whole health of the patient in mind.

As with any health care decision, it is important to involve the patient in a joint decision regarding their care. This may mean giving the patient time to think about the information presented, do their own research, talk to family members or other clinicians, etc. The decision to discontinue DMT may not happen at the same appointment it is initially brought up at. It may even be reasonable to revisit the conversation later if discontinuation is not something the patient is amenable to at the time.

Conclusions

There is high-quality evidence that discontinuing DMTs in nonactive SPMS is not a major detriment to the MS disease course. Current literature also suggests that there may be benefits to discontinuation in this MS subtype in terms of QOL and meeting patient values. Additional research particularly in the nonactive SPMS population will continue to improve the knowledge and awareness of this aspect of MS DMT management. The growing evidence in this area may make discontinuation of DMT in nonactive SPMS a less-debatable topic, but it is still a major treatment decision that clinicians must thoroughly discuss with the patient to provide high-quality, patient-centered care.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated demyelinating disorder. There are 2 broad categories of MS: relapsing, also called active MS; and progressive MS. Unfortunately, there is no cure for MS, but disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can help prevent relapses and new central nervous system lesions in people living with active MS. For patients with the most common type of MS, relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), DMTs are typically continued for decades while the patient has active disease. RRMS will usually transition to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), which can present as active SPMS or nonactive SPMS. The latter is the type of MS most people with RRMS eventually experience.

A 2019 study estimated that nearly 1 million people in the United States were living with MS.¹ This population estimate indicated the peak age-specific prevalence of MS was 55 to 64 years. Population data demonstrate improved mortality rates for people diagnosed with MS from 1997 to 2012 compared with prior years.² Therefore, the management of nonactive SPMS is an increasingly significant area of need. There are currently no DMTs on the market approved for nonactive SPMS, and lifelong DMTs in these patients are neither indicated nor supported by evidence. Nevertheless, the discontinuation of DMTs in nonactive SPMS has been a long-debated topic with varied opinions on how and when to discontinue.

The 2018 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline recommends that clinicians advise patients with SPMS to discontinue DMT use if they do not have ongoing relapses (or gadolinium-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging activity) or have not been ambulatory (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≥ 7) for ≥ 2 years.³ In recent years, there has been increased research on nonactive SPMS, specifically on discontinuation of DMTs. This clinical review assesses the recent evidence from a variety of standpoints, including the effect of discontinuing DMTs on the MS disease course and quality of life (QOL) and the perspectives of patients living with MS. Based on this evidence, a conversation guide will be presented as a framework to aid with the clinician-patient discussion on discontinuing MS DMTs.

Disease Modifying Therapies

Roos and colleagues used data from 2 large MS cohorts: MSBase and Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP) to compare high-efficacy vs low-efficacy DMT in both active and nonactive SPMS.⁴ In the active SPMS group, the strength of DMTs did not change disability progression, but high-efficacy DMTs reduced relapses better than the low-efficacy DMTs. On the other hand, the nonactive SPMS group saw no difference between DMTs in both relapse risk and disability progression. Another observational study of 221 patients with RRMS who discontinued DMTs noted that there were 2 independent predictors for the absence of relapse following DMT discontinuation: being aged > 45 years and the lack of relapse for ≥ 4 years prior to DMT discontinuation.⁵ Though these patients still may have been classified as RRMS, both these independent predictors for stability postdiscontinuation of DMTs are the typical characteristics of a nonactive SPMS patient.

Pathophysiology may help explain why DMT discontinuation seems to produce no adverse clinical outcomes in people with nonactive SPMS. Nonactive SPMS, which follows after RRMS, is largely correlated with age. In nonactive SPMS, there is less B and T lymphocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, a lifetime of low-grade inflammation during the RRMS phase results in axonal damage and declined repair capacity, which produces the predominance of neurodegeneration in the nonactive SPMS disease process.⁶ This pathophysiologic difference between active and nonactive disease not only explains the different symptomatology of these MS subtypes, but also could explain why drugs that target the inflammatory processes more characteristic of active disease are not effective in nonactive SPMS.

Other recent studies explored the impact of age on DMT efficacy for patients with nonactive SPMS. A meta-analysis by Weidman and colleagues pooled trial data across multiple DMT classes in > 28,000 patients.⁷ The resulting regression model predicted zero efficacy of any DMT in patients who are aged > 53 years. High-efficacy DMTs only outperformed low-efficacy DMTs in people aged < 40.5 years. Another observational study by Hua and colleagues saw a similar result.⁸ This study included patients who discontinued DMT who were aged ≥ 60 years. The median follow-up time was 5.3 years. Of the 178 patients who discontinued DMTs, only 1 patient had a relapse. In this study, the age for participation provided a higher likelihood that patients included were in nonactive SPMS. Furthermore, the outcome reflects the typical presentation of nonactive SPMS where, despite the continuation or discontinuation of DMT, there was a lack of relapses. When comparing patients who discontinued DMTs with those who continued use, there was no significant difference in their 25-foot walk times, which is an objective marker for a more progressive symptom seen in nonactive MS.

The DISCOMS trial (NCT03073603) has been completed, but full results are not yet published. In this noninferiority trial, > 250 patients aged ≥ 55 years were assessed on a variety of outcomes, including relapses, EDSS score, and QOL. MS subtypes were considered at baseline, and subgroup analysis looking particularly at the SPMS population could provide further insight into its effect on MS course.

Quality of Life

Whether discontinuation of DMTs is worth considering in nonactive SPMS, it is also important to consider the risks and burdens associated with continuation. Medication administration burdens come with all MS DMTs whether there is the need to inject oneself, increased pill burden, or travel to an infusion clinic. The ever-rising costs of DMTs also can be a financial burden to the patient.⁹ All MS DMTs carry risks of adverse effects (AEs). These can range from a mild injection site reaction to severe infection, depending on the DMT used. Many of these severe AEs, such as opportunistic infections and cancer, have been associated with either an increased risk of occurrence and/or worsened outcomes in older adults who remain on DMTs, particularly moderate- to high-efficacy DMTs, such as sphingosine-1- phosphate receptor modulators, fumarates, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, cladribine, and anti-CD20 antibodies.¹⁰ In a 2019 survey of 377 patients with MS, 63.8% of respondents ranked safety as the most important reason they would consider discontinuing their DMTs.¹¹ In addition, a real-world study comparing people with nonactive SPMS who continued DMTs vs those who discontinued found that discontinuers reported better QOL.⁸

Conversation Guide for Discontinuing Therapies

The 2019 survey that assessed reasons for discontinuation also asked people with nonactive SPMS whether they thought they were in a nonactive disease stage, and what was their likelihood they would stop DMTs.¹¹ Interestingly, only 59.4% of respondents self-assessed their MS as nonactive, and just 11.9% of respondents were willing to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ These results suggest that there may be a need for patient education about nonactive SPMS and the rationale to continue or discontinue DMTs. Thus, before broaching the topic of discontinuation, explaining the nonactive SPMS subtype is important.

Even with a good understanding of nonactive SPMS, patients may be hesitant to stop using DMTs that they previously relied on to keep their MS stable. The 2019 survey ranked physician recommendation as the third highest reason to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ Taking the time to explain the clinical evidence for DMT discontinuation may help patients better understand a clinician’s recommendation and inspire more confidence.

Another important aspect of DMT discontinuation decision making is creating a plan for how the patient will be monitored to provide assurance if they experience a relapse. The 2019 survey asked patients what would be most important to them for their management plan after discontinuing DMT; magnetic resonance imaging and neurologic examination monitoring ranked the highest.¹¹ The plan should include timing for follow-up appointments and imaging, providing the patient comfort in knowing their MS will be monitored and verified for the relapse stability that is expected from nonactive SPMS. In the rare case a relapse does occur, having a contingency plan and noting the possibility of restarting DMTs is an integral part of reassuring the patient that their decision to discontinue DMTs will be treated with the utmost caution and individualized to their needs.

Lastly, highlighting which aspects of MS treatment will continue to be a priority in nonactive SPMS, such as symptomatic medication management and nonpharmacologic therapy, is important for the patient to recognize that there are still opportunities to manage this phase of MS. There are many lifestyle modifications that can be considered complementary to medical management of MS at any stage of the disease. Vascular comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, have been associated with more rapid disability progression in MS.¹² Optimized management of these diseases may slow disability progression, in addition to the benefit of improved outcomes of the vascular comorbidity. Various formats of exercise have been studied in the MS population. A meta-analysis of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise found benefits in these formats on health-related QOL.¹³

Many dietary strategies have been studied in MS. A recent network meta-analysis reviewed some of the more commonly studied diets, including low-fat, modified Mediterranean, ketogenic, anti-inflammatory, Paleolithic, intermittent fasting, and calorie restriction vs a usual diet.¹⁴ Although the overall quality of evidence was low, the Paleolithic and modified Mediterranean showed greater reductions in fatigue, as well as increased physical and mental QOL compared with a usual diet. The low-fat diet was associated with a reduction in fatigue. Many of these lifestyle modifications may complement optimized vascular comorbidity treatment; however, any exercise regimen or dietary change should be considered with the whole health of the patient in mind.

As with any health care decision, it is important to involve the patient in a joint decision regarding their care. This may mean giving the patient time to think about the information presented, do their own research, talk to family members or other clinicians, etc. The decision to discontinue DMT may not happen at the same appointment it is initially brought up at. It may even be reasonable to revisit the conversation later if discontinuation is not something the patient is amenable to at the time.

Conclusions

There is high-quality evidence that discontinuing DMTs in nonactive SPMS is not a major detriment to the MS disease course. Current literature also suggests that there may be benefits to discontinuation in this MS subtype in terms of QOL and meeting patient values. Additional research particularly in the nonactive SPMS population will continue to improve the knowledge and awareness of this aspect of MS DMT management. The growing evidence in this area may make discontinuation of DMT in nonactive SPMS a less-debatable topic, but it is still a major treatment decision that clinicians must thoroughly discuss with the patient to provide high-quality, patient-centered care.

Prior to the first approved disease modifying therapy (DMT) in the 1990s, treatment approaches for multiple sclerosis (MS) were not well understood. The discovery that MS was an immune mediated inflammatory disease paved the way for the treatments we know today. In 1993, interferon β‐1b became the first DMT for MS approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approvals for interferon β‐1a as well as glatiramer acetate (GA) soon followed. Today, we consider these the mildest immunosuppressant DMTs; however, their success verified that suppressing the immune system had a positive effect on the MS disease process.

Following these approvals, the disease process in MS is now better understood. Recently approved therapies include monoclonal antibodies, which affect other immune pathways. Today, there are 14 approved DMTs (Table 1). Although the advent of these newer DMTs has revolutionized care for patients with MS, it has been accompanied by increasing costs for the agents. Direct medical costs associated with MS management, coupled with indirect costs from lost productivity, have been estimated to be $24.2 billion annually in the US.¹ These increases have been seen across many levels of insurance coverage—private payer, Medicare, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).^2,3

The Figure demonstrates the cost increase that have been seen across VHA between 2004 and 2019 for the DMTs identified in Table 1. Indeed, this compound annual growth rate may be an underestimate because infusion therapies (eg, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and alemtuzumab) are difficult to track as they may be dispensed directly via a Risk Evaluation Medication Strategy (REMS) program. According to the VHA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM), in September 2019, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) had the 13th highest total outpatient drug cost for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), interferon β‐1a ranked 62nd and 83rd (prefilled pen and syringe, respectively), and GA 40 mg ranked 89th.

Factors Impacting DMT Use

Recent changes to MS typing have impacted utilization of DMTs. Traditionally, there were 4 subtypes of MS: relapsing remitting (RRMS), secondary progressive (SPMS), progressive relapsing (PRMS), and primary progressive (PPMS). These subtypes are now viewed more broadly and grouped as either relapsing or progressive. The traditional subtypes fall under these broader definitions. Additionally, SPMS has been broken into active SPMS, characterized by continued worsening of disability unrelated to acute relapses, superimposed with activity that can be seen on magnetic resonance images (MRIs), and nonactive SPMS, which has the same disability progression as active SPMS but without MRI-visible activity.^4-6 In 2019, these supplementary designations to SPMS made their first appearance in FDA-approved indications. All existing DMTs now include this terminology in their labelling and are indicated in active SPMS. There remain no DMTs that treat nonactive SPMS.

The current landscape of DMTs is highly varied in method of administration, risks, and benefits. As efficacy of these medications often is marked by how well they can prevent the immune system from attacking myelin, an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy results. The standard treatment outcomes in MS have evolved over time. The following are the commonly used primary outcomes in clinical trials: relapse reduction; increased time between relapses; decreased severity of relapses; prevention or extend time to disability milestones as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and other disability measures; prevention or extension of time to onset of secondary progressive disease; prevention or reduction of the number and size of new and enhancing lesions on MRI; and limitation of overall MRI lesion burden in the central nervous system (CNS).

Newer treatment outcomes employed in more recent trials include: measures of axonal damage, CNS atrophy, evidence of microscopic disease via conventional MRI and advanced imaging modalities, biomarkers associated with inflammatory disease activity and neurodegeneration in MS, and the use of no evidence of disease activity (NEDA). These outcomes also must be evaluated by the safety concerns of each agent. Short- and long-term safety are critical factors in the selection of DMTs for MS. The injectable therapies for MS (interferon β‐1a, interferon β‐1b, and GA) have established long-term safety profiles from > 20 years of continuous use. The long-term safety profiles of oral immunomodulatory agents and monoclonal antibodies for these drugs in MS have yet to be determined. Safety concerns associated with some therapies and added requirements for safety monitoring may increase the complexity of a therapeutic selection.

Current cost minimization strategies for DMT include limiting DMT agents on formularies, tier systems that incentivize patients/prescribers to select the lowest priced agents on the formulary, negotiating arrangements with manufacturers to freeze prices or provide discounts in exchange for a priority position in the formulary, and requiring prior authorization to initiate or switch therapy. The use of generic medications and interchange to these agents from a brand name formulation can help reduce expense. Several of these strategies have been implemented in VHA.

Disease-Modifying Therapies

In 2019, 18,645 veterans with MS had either a MS-specific DMT or ≥ 1 annual encounters with a primary diagnosis of MS. Of this population, 4,720 were female and 13,357 were service connected according to VA data. About 50% of veterans with MS take a DMT. This percentage has remained stable over the past decade (Table 2). Although it appears the number of unique veterans prescribed an outpatient DMT is decreasing, this does not include the growing use of infused DMTs or DMTs obtained through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP)/Community Care (CC).

The overall outpatient pharmacy costs for veterans have remained constant despite the reduction in outpatient pharmacy prescription numbers. This may be due to increases in DMT cost to the VHA and the use of more expensive oral agents over the previously used platform injection DMTs.

Generic Conversion

GA is available in 20 mg daily and 40 mg3 times weekly subcutaneous injection dosing. The first evidence of clinical efficacy for a generic formulation for GA was evaluated by the GATE trial.⁷ This trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Eligible participants were randomized to receive daily SC injection for 9 months of 20 mg generic GA (n = 5,353), 20 mg brand GA (n = 5,357), or placebo (n = 584). The primary endpoint was the mean number of gadolinium (Gd1) lesions visible on MRIs during months 7, 8, and 9, which were significantly reduced in the combined GA-treated group and in each GA group individually when compared with the placebo group, confirming the study sensitivity (ie, GA was effective under the conditions of the study). Tolerability (including injection site reactions) and safety (incidence, spectrum, and severity of adverse events [AEs]) were similar in the generic and brand GA groups. These results demonstrated that generic and brand GA had equivalent efficacy, tolerability, and safety over a 9-month period.⁷

Results of a 15-month extension of the study were presented in 2015 and showed similar efficacy, safety, and tolerability in participants treated with generic GA for 2 years and patients switched from brand to generic GA.⁸ Multiple shifts for GA occurred, most notably the conversion from branded Copaxone (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries) to generic Glatopa (Sandoz). Subsequently, Sandoz released a generic 40 mg 3 times weekly formulation. Additionally, Mylan entered the generic GA market. With 3 competing manufacturers, internal data from the VHA indicated that it was able to negotiate a single source contract for this medication that provided a savings of $32,088,904.69 between September 2016 and May 2019.

The impact of generic conversions is just being realized. Soon, patents will begin to expire for oral DMTs, leading to an expected growth of generic alternatives. Already the FDA has approved 4 generic alternatives for teriflunomide, 3 for fingolimod (with 13 tentative approvals), and 15 generic alternatives for dimethyl fumarate (DMF). Implementation of therapeutic interchanges will be pursued by VHA as clinically supported by evidence.

Criteria for Use

PBM supports utilizing criteria to help guide providers on DMT options and promote safe, effective, and value-based selection of a DMT. The PBM creates monographs and criteria for use (CFU) for new medications. The monograph contains a literature evaluation of all studies available to date that concern both safety and efficacy of the new medication. Therapeutic alternatives also are presented and assessed for key elements that may determine the most safe and effective use. Additional safety areas for the new medications such as look-alike, sound-alike potential, special populations use (ie, those who are pregnant, the elderly, and those with liver or renal dysfunction), and drug-drug interactions are presented. Lastly, and possibly most importantly in an ever-growing growing world of DMTs, the monograph describes a reasonable place in therapy for the new DMT.

CFU are additional guidance for some DMTs. The development of CFU are based on several questions that arise during the monograph development for a DMT. These include, but are not limited to:

• Are there safety concerns that require the drug to receive a review to ensure safe prescribing (eg, agents with REMS programs, or safety concerns in specific populations)?
• Does the drug require a specialty provider type with knowledge and experience in those disease states to ensure appropriate and safe prescribing (eg restricted to infectious diseases)?
• Do VHA or non-VHA guidelines suggest alternative therapy be used prior to the agent?
• Is a review deemed necessary to ensure the preferred agent is used first (eg, second-line therapy)?

The CFU defines parameters of drug use consistent with high quality and evidence-based patient care. CFUs also serve as a basis for monitoring local, regional, and national patterns of pharmacologic care and help guide health care providers (HCPs) on appropriate use of medication.

CFUs are designed to ensure the HCP is safely starting a medication that has evidence for efficacy for their patient. For example, alemtuzumab is a high-risk, high-efficacy DMT. The alemtuzumab CFU acknowledges this by having exclusion criteria that prevent a veteran at high risk (ie, on another immunosuppressant) from being exposed to severe AEs (ie, severe leukopenia) that are associated with the medication. On the other hand, the inclusion criteria recognize the benefits of alemtuzumab and allows those with highly active MS who have failed other DMTs to receive the medication.

The drug monograph and CFU process is an important part of VHA efforts to optimize patient care. After a draft version is developed, HCPs can provide feedback on the exclusion/inclusion criteria and describe how they anticipate using the medication in their practice. This insight can be beneficial for MS treatment as diverse HCPs may have distinct viewpoints on how DMTs should be started. Pharmacists and physicians on a national level then discuss and decide together what to include in the final drafts of the drug monograph and CFU. Final documents are disseminated to all sites, which encourages consistent practices across the VHA.⁹ These documents are reviewed on a regular basis and updated as needed based on available literature evidence.

It is well accepted that early use of DMT correlates with lower accumulated long-term disability.¹⁰ However, discontinuation of DMT should be treated with equal importance. This benefits the patient by reducing their risk of AEs from DMTs and provides cost savings. Age and disease stability are factors to consider for DMT discontinuation. In a study with patients aged > 45 years and another with patients aged > 60 years, discontinuing DMT rarely had a negative impact and improved quality of life.^11,12 A retrospective meta-analysis of age-dependent efficacy of current DMTs predicted that DMT loses efficacy at age 53 years. In addition, higher efficacy DMT only outperforms lower efficacy DMT in patients aged < 40.5 years.¹³ Stability of disease and lack of relapses for ≥ 2 years also may be a positive predictor to safely discontinue DMT.^14,15 The growing literature to support safe discontinuation of DMT makes this a more convincing strategy to avoid unnecessary costs associated with current DMTs. With an average age of 59 years for veterans with MS, this may be one of the largest areas of cost avoidance to consider.

Off-Label Use

Other potential ways to reduce DMT costs is to consider off-label treatments. The OLYMPUS trial studied off-label use of rituximab, an anti-CD20 antibody like ocrelizumab. It did not meet statistical significance for its primary endpoint; however, in a subgroup analysis, off-label use was found to be more effective in a population aged < 51 years.¹⁶ Other case reports and smaller scale studies also describe rituximab’s efficacy in MS.^17,18 In 2018, the FDA approved the first rituximab biosimilar.¹⁹ Further competition from biosimilars likely will make rituximab an even more cost-effective choice when compared with ocrelizumab.

Alternate Dosing Regimens

Extended interval dosing of natalizumab has been studied, extending the standard infusion interval from every 4 weeks to 5- to 8-week intervals. One recent article compared these interval extensions and found that all extended intervals of up to 56 days did not increase new or enhancing lesions on MRI when compared with standard interval dosing.²⁰ Another larger randomized trial is underway to evaluate efficacy and safety of extended interval dosing of natalizumab (NCT03689972). Utilization of this dosing may reduce natalizumab annual costs by up to 50%.

Safety Monitoring

DMF is an oral DMT on the VHA formulary with CFU. Since leukopenia is a known AE, baseline and quarterly monitoring of the complete blood count (CBC) is recommended for patients taking DMF. Additionally, DMF should be held if white blood cell count (WBC) falls below 2,000/mm³.²¹ There have been recent reports of death secondary to progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) among European patients taking DMF.^22-24 This has raised concerns about adherence to recommended CBC monitoring in veterans taking DMF. The association of DMF and leukopenia has been evident since early clinical trials.²⁵ Leukopenia in immunocompromised patients increases the risk of PML.

In the long-term extension study ENDORSE, 6% to 7% of patients continuing DMF had WBC counts of 3.0×10⁹/L compared with 7% to 10% in the new to DMF group.²⁶ In addition 6% to 8% of patients continuing DMF had lymphocyte counts of 0.5×10⁹/L, compared with 5% to 9% in the new to DMF group. The cases of PML occurred in patients who had low lymphocyte counts over an extended period with no adjustment to DMF therapy, such as holding the drug until WBC counts returned to normal levels or stopping the drug. Discussion and review within VHA resulted in the recommendation for quarterly WBC monitoring criteria.

PBM and VA Center for Medication Safety (MedSafe) conducted a medication usage evaluation (MUE) on adherence to the WBC monitoring set forth in the CFU. Data collection began in fourth quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2015 with the most recent reporting period of fourth quarter of FY 2017. The Medication Utilization Evaluation Tool tracks patients with no reported WBC in 90 days and WBC < 2,000/mm³. Over the reporting period, 20% to 23% of patients have not received appropriate quarterly monitoring. Additionally, there have been 4 cases where the WBC decreased below the threshold limit. To ensure safe and effective use of DMF, it is important to adhere to the monitoring requirements set forth in the CFU.

Impact of REMS and Special Distribution

As DMTs increase in efficacy, there are often more risks associated with them. Some of these high-risk medications, including natalizumab and alemtuzumab, have REMS programs and/or have special distribution procedures. Although REMS are imperative for patient safety, the complexity of these programs can be difficult to navigate, which can create a barrier to access. The PBM helps to assist all sites with navigating and adhering to required actions to dispense and administer these medications through a national Special Handling Drugs Microsoft SharePoint site, which provides access to REMS forms and procurement information when drugs are dispensed from specialty pharmacies. Easing this process nationwide empowers more sites to be confident they can dispense specialty medications appropriately.

Clinical Pharmacists

The VHA is unique in its utilization of pharmacists in outpatient clinic settings. Utilization of an interdisciplinary team for medication management has been highly used in VHA for areas like primary care; however, pharmacist involvement in specialty areas is on the rise and MS is no exception. Pharmacists stationed in clinics, such as neurology or spinal cord injury, can impact care for veterans with MS. Interdisciplinary teams that include a pharmacist have been shown to increase patient adherence to DMTs.²⁷ However, pharmacists often assist with medication education and monitoring, which adds an additional layer of safety to DMT treatment. At the VHA, pharmacists also can obtain a scope of practice that allows them to prescribe medications and increase access to care for veterans with MS.

Education

The VHA demonstrates how education on a disease state like MS can be distributed on a large, national scale through drug monographs, CFU, and Microsoft SharePoint sites. In addition, VHA has created the MS Centers of Excellence (MSCoE) that serve as a hub of specialized health care providers in all aspects of MS care.

A core function of the MSCoE is to provide education to both HCPs and patients. The MSCoE and its regional hubs support sites that may not have an HCP who specializes in MS by providing advice on DMT selection, how to obtain specialty medications, and monitoring that needs to be completed to ensure veterans’ safety. The MSCoE also has partnered with the National MS Society to hold a lecture series on topics in MS. This free series is available online to all HCPs who interact with patients who have MS and is a way that VA is extending its best practices and expertise beyond its own health care system. There also is a quarterly newsletter for veterans with MS that highlights new information on DMTs that can affect their care.

Conclusion

It is an exciting and challenging period in MS treatment. New DMTs are being approved and entering clinical trials at a rapid pace. These new DMT agents may offer increased efficacy, improvements in AE profiles, and the possibility of increased medication adherence—but often at a higher cost. The utilization of CFU and formulary management provides the ability to ensure the safe and appropriate use of medications by veterans, with a secondary outcome of controlling pharmacy expenditures.

The VHA had expenditures of $142,135,938 for DMT use in FY 2018. As the VHA sees the new contract prices for DMT in January 2020, we are reminded that costs will continue to rise with some pharmaceutical manufacturers implementing prices 8% to 11% higher than 2019 prices, when the consumer price index defines an increase of 1.0% for 2020 and 1.4% in 2021.²⁸ It is imperative that the VHA formulary be managed judiciously and the necessary measures be in place for VHA practitioners to enable effective, safe and value-based care to the veteran population.

Prior to the first approved disease modifying therapy (DMT) in the 1990s, treatment approaches for multiple sclerosis (MS) were not well understood. The discovery that MS was an immune mediated inflammatory disease paved the way for the treatments we know today. In 1993, interferon β‐1b became the first DMT for MS approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approvals for interferon β‐1a as well as glatiramer acetate (GA) soon followed. Today, we consider these the mildest immunosuppressant DMTs; however, their success verified that suppressing the immune system had a positive effect on the MS disease process.

Following these approvals, the disease process in MS is now better understood. Recently approved therapies include monoclonal antibodies, which affect other immune pathways. Today, there are 14 approved DMTs (Table 1). Although the advent of these newer DMTs has revolutionized care for patients with MS, it has been accompanied by increasing costs for the agents. Direct medical costs associated with MS management, coupled with indirect costs from lost productivity, have been estimated to be $24.2 billion annually in the US.¹ These increases have been seen across many levels of insurance coverage—private payer, Medicare, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).^2,3

The Figure demonstrates the cost increase that have been seen across VHA between 2004 and 2019 for the DMTs identified in Table 1. Indeed, this compound annual growth rate may be an underestimate because infusion therapies (eg, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and alemtuzumab) are difficult to track as they may be dispensed directly via a Risk Evaluation Medication Strategy (REMS) program. According to the VHA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM), in September 2019, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) had the 13th highest total outpatient drug cost for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), interferon β‐1a ranked 62nd and 83rd (prefilled pen and syringe, respectively), and GA 40 mg ranked 89th.

Factors Impacting DMT Use

Recent changes to MS typing have impacted utilization of DMTs. Traditionally, there were 4 subtypes of MS: relapsing remitting (RRMS), secondary progressive (SPMS), progressive relapsing (PRMS), and primary progressive (PPMS). These subtypes are now viewed more broadly and grouped as either relapsing or progressive. The traditional subtypes fall under these broader definitions. Additionally, SPMS has been broken into active SPMS, characterized by continued worsening of disability unrelated to acute relapses, superimposed with activity that can be seen on magnetic resonance images (MRIs), and nonactive SPMS, which has the same disability progression as active SPMS but without MRI-visible activity.^4-6 In 2019, these supplementary designations to SPMS made their first appearance in FDA-approved indications. All existing DMTs now include this terminology in their labelling and are indicated in active SPMS. There remain no DMTs that treat nonactive SPMS.

The current landscape of DMTs is highly varied in method of administration, risks, and benefits. As efficacy of these medications often is marked by how well they can prevent the immune system from attacking myelin, an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy results. The standard treatment outcomes in MS have evolved over time. The following are the commonly used primary outcomes in clinical trials: relapse reduction; increased time between relapses; decreased severity of relapses; prevention or extend time to disability milestones as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and other disability measures; prevention or extension of time to onset of secondary progressive disease; prevention or reduction of the number and size of new and enhancing lesions on MRI; and limitation of overall MRI lesion burden in the central nervous system (CNS).

Newer treatment outcomes employed in more recent trials include: measures of axonal damage, CNS atrophy, evidence of microscopic disease via conventional MRI and advanced imaging modalities, biomarkers associated with inflammatory disease activity and neurodegeneration in MS, and the use of no evidence of disease activity (NEDA). These outcomes also must be evaluated by the safety concerns of each agent. Short- and long-term safety are critical factors in the selection of DMTs for MS. The injectable therapies for MS (interferon β‐1a, interferon β‐1b, and GA) have established long-term safety profiles from > 20 years of continuous use. The long-term safety profiles of oral immunomodulatory agents and monoclonal antibodies for these drugs in MS have yet to be determined. Safety concerns associated with some therapies and added requirements for safety monitoring may increase the complexity of a therapeutic selection.

Current cost minimization strategies for DMT include limiting DMT agents on formularies, tier systems that incentivize patients/prescribers to select the lowest priced agents on the formulary, negotiating arrangements with manufacturers to freeze prices or provide discounts in exchange for a priority position in the formulary, and requiring prior authorization to initiate or switch therapy. The use of generic medications and interchange to these agents from a brand name formulation can help reduce expense. Several of these strategies have been implemented in VHA.

Disease-Modifying Therapies

In 2019, 18,645 veterans with MS had either a MS-specific DMT or ≥ 1 annual encounters with a primary diagnosis of MS. Of this population, 4,720 were female and 13,357 were service connected according to VA data. About 50% of veterans with MS take a DMT. This percentage has remained stable over the past decade (Table 2). Although it appears the number of unique veterans prescribed an outpatient DMT is decreasing, this does not include the growing use of infused DMTs or DMTs obtained through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP)/Community Care (CC).

The overall outpatient pharmacy costs for veterans have remained constant despite the reduction in outpatient pharmacy prescription numbers. This may be due to increases in DMT cost to the VHA and the use of more expensive oral agents over the previously used platform injection DMTs.

Generic Conversion

GA is available in 20 mg daily and 40 mg3 times weekly subcutaneous injection dosing. The first evidence of clinical efficacy for a generic formulation for GA was evaluated by the GATE trial.⁷ This trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Eligible participants were randomized to receive daily SC injection for 9 months of 20 mg generic GA (n = 5,353), 20 mg brand GA (n = 5,357), or placebo (n = 584). The primary endpoint was the mean number of gadolinium (Gd1) lesions visible on MRIs during months 7, 8, and 9, which were significantly reduced in the combined GA-treated group and in each GA group individually when compared with the placebo group, confirming the study sensitivity (ie, GA was effective under the conditions of the study). Tolerability (including injection site reactions) and safety (incidence, spectrum, and severity of adverse events [AEs]) were similar in the generic and brand GA groups. These results demonstrated that generic and brand GA had equivalent efficacy, tolerability, and safety over a 9-month period.⁷

Results of a 15-month extension of the study were presented in 2015 and showed similar efficacy, safety, and tolerability in participants treated with generic GA for 2 years and patients switched from brand to generic GA.⁸ Multiple shifts for GA occurred, most notably the conversion from branded Copaxone (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries) to generic Glatopa (Sandoz). Subsequently, Sandoz released a generic 40 mg 3 times weekly formulation. Additionally, Mylan entered the generic GA market. With 3 competing manufacturers, internal data from the VHA indicated that it was able to negotiate a single source contract for this medication that provided a savings of $32,088,904.69 between September 2016 and May 2019.

The impact of generic conversions is just being realized. Soon, patents will begin to expire for oral DMTs, leading to an expected growth of generic alternatives. Already the FDA has approved 4 generic alternatives for teriflunomide, 3 for fingolimod (with 13 tentative approvals), and 15 generic alternatives for dimethyl fumarate (DMF). Implementation of therapeutic interchanges will be pursued by VHA as clinically supported by evidence.

Criteria for Use

PBM supports utilizing criteria to help guide providers on DMT options and promote safe, effective, and value-based selection of a DMT. The PBM creates monographs and criteria for use (CFU) for new medications. The monograph contains a literature evaluation of all studies available to date that concern both safety and efficacy of the new medication. Therapeutic alternatives also are presented and assessed for key elements that may determine the most safe and effective use. Additional safety areas for the new medications such as look-alike, sound-alike potential, special populations use (ie, those who are pregnant, the elderly, and those with liver or renal dysfunction), and drug-drug interactions are presented. Lastly, and possibly most importantly in an ever-growing growing world of DMTs, the monograph describes a reasonable place in therapy for the new DMT.

CFU are additional guidance for some DMTs. The development of CFU are based on several questions that arise during the monograph development for a DMT. These include, but are not limited to:

• Are there safety concerns that require the drug to receive a review to ensure safe prescribing (eg, agents with REMS programs, or safety concerns in specific populations)?
• Does the drug require a specialty provider type with knowledge and experience in those disease states to ensure appropriate and safe prescribing (eg restricted to infectious diseases)?
• Do VHA or non-VHA guidelines suggest alternative therapy be used prior to the agent?
• Is a review deemed necessary to ensure the preferred agent is used first (eg, second-line therapy)?

The CFU defines parameters of drug use consistent with high quality and evidence-based patient care. CFUs also serve as a basis for monitoring local, regional, and national patterns of pharmacologic care and help guide health care providers (HCPs) on appropriate use of medication.

CFUs are designed to ensure the HCP is safely starting a medication that has evidence for efficacy for their patient. For example, alemtuzumab is a high-risk, high-efficacy DMT. The alemtuzumab CFU acknowledges this by having exclusion criteria that prevent a veteran at high risk (ie, on another immunosuppressant) from being exposed to severe AEs (ie, severe leukopenia) that are associated with the medication. On the other hand, the inclusion criteria recognize the benefits of alemtuzumab and allows those with highly active MS who have failed other DMTs to receive the medication.

The drug monograph and CFU process is an important part of VHA efforts to optimize patient care. After a draft version is developed, HCPs can provide feedback on the exclusion/inclusion criteria and describe how they anticipate using the medication in their practice. This insight can be beneficial for MS treatment as diverse HCPs may have distinct viewpoints on how DMTs should be started. Pharmacists and physicians on a national level then discuss and decide together what to include in the final drafts of the drug monograph and CFU. Final documents are disseminated to all sites, which encourages consistent practices across the VHA.⁹ These documents are reviewed on a regular basis and updated as needed based on available literature evidence.

It is well accepted that early use of DMT correlates with lower accumulated long-term disability.¹⁰ However, discontinuation of DMT should be treated with equal importance. This benefits the patient by reducing their risk of AEs from DMTs and provides cost savings. Age and disease stability are factors to consider for DMT discontinuation. In a study with patients aged > 45 years and another with patients aged > 60 years, discontinuing DMT rarely had a negative impact and improved quality of life.^11,12 A retrospective meta-analysis of age-dependent efficacy of current DMTs predicted that DMT loses efficacy at age 53 years. In addition, higher efficacy DMT only outperforms lower efficacy DMT in patients aged < 40.5 years.¹³ Stability of disease and lack of relapses for ≥ 2 years also may be a positive predictor to safely discontinue DMT.^14,15 The growing literature to support safe discontinuation of DMT makes this a more convincing strategy to avoid unnecessary costs associated with current DMTs. With an average age of 59 years for veterans with MS, this may be one of the largest areas of cost avoidance to consider.

Off-Label Use

Other potential ways to reduce DMT costs is to consider off-label treatments. The OLYMPUS trial studied off-label use of rituximab, an anti-CD20 antibody like ocrelizumab. It did not meet statistical significance for its primary endpoint; however, in a subgroup analysis, off-label use was found to be more effective in a population aged < 51 years.¹⁶ Other case reports and smaller scale studies also describe rituximab’s efficacy in MS.^17,18 In 2018, the FDA approved the first rituximab biosimilar.¹⁹ Further competition from biosimilars likely will make rituximab an even more cost-effective choice when compared with ocrelizumab.

Alternate Dosing Regimens

Extended interval dosing of natalizumab has been studied, extending the standard infusion interval from every 4 weeks to 5- to 8-week intervals. One recent article compared these interval extensions and found that all extended intervals of up to 56 days did not increase new or enhancing lesions on MRI when compared with standard interval dosing.²⁰ Another larger randomized trial is underway to evaluate efficacy and safety of extended interval dosing of natalizumab (NCT03689972). Utilization of this dosing may reduce natalizumab annual costs by up to 50%.

Safety Monitoring

DMF is an oral DMT on the VHA formulary with CFU. Since leukopenia is a known AE, baseline and quarterly monitoring of the complete blood count (CBC) is recommended for patients taking DMF. Additionally, DMF should be held if white blood cell count (WBC) falls below 2,000/mm³.²¹ There have been recent reports of death secondary to progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) among European patients taking DMF.^22-24 This has raised concerns about adherence to recommended CBC monitoring in veterans taking DMF. The association of DMF and leukopenia has been evident since early clinical trials.²⁵ Leukopenia in immunocompromised patients increases the risk of PML.

In the long-term extension study ENDORSE, 6% to 7% of patients continuing DMF had WBC counts of 3.0×10⁹/L compared with 7% to 10% in the new to DMF group.²⁶ In addition 6% to 8% of patients continuing DMF had lymphocyte counts of 0.5×10⁹/L, compared with 5% to 9% in the new to DMF group. The cases of PML occurred in patients who had low lymphocyte counts over an extended period with no adjustment to DMF therapy, such as holding the drug until WBC counts returned to normal levels or stopping the drug. Discussion and review within VHA resulted in the recommendation for quarterly WBC monitoring criteria.

PBM and VA Center for Medication Safety (MedSafe) conducted a medication usage evaluation (MUE) on adherence to the WBC monitoring set forth in the CFU. Data collection began in fourth quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2015 with the most recent reporting period of fourth quarter of FY 2017. The Medication Utilization Evaluation Tool tracks patients with no reported WBC in 90 days and WBC < 2,000/mm³. Over the reporting period, 20% to 23% of patients have not received appropriate quarterly monitoring. Additionally, there have been 4 cases where the WBC decreased below the threshold limit. To ensure safe and effective use of DMF, it is important to adhere to the monitoring requirements set forth in the CFU.

Impact of REMS and Special Distribution

As DMTs increase in efficacy, there are often more risks associated with them. Some of these high-risk medications, including natalizumab and alemtuzumab, have REMS programs and/or have special distribution procedures. Although REMS are imperative for patient safety, the complexity of these programs can be difficult to navigate, which can create a barrier to access. The PBM helps to assist all sites with navigating and adhering to required actions to dispense and administer these medications through a national Special Handling Drugs Microsoft SharePoint site, which provides access to REMS forms and procurement information when drugs are dispensed from specialty pharmacies. Easing this process nationwide empowers more sites to be confident they can dispense specialty medications appropriately.

Clinical Pharmacists

The VHA is unique in its utilization of pharmacists in outpatient clinic settings. Utilization of an interdisciplinary team for medication management has been highly used in VHA for areas like primary care; however, pharmacist involvement in specialty areas is on the rise and MS is no exception. Pharmacists stationed in clinics, such as neurology or spinal cord injury, can impact care for veterans with MS. Interdisciplinary teams that include a pharmacist have been shown to increase patient adherence to DMTs.²⁷ However, pharmacists often assist with medication education and monitoring, which adds an additional layer of safety to DMT treatment. At the VHA, pharmacists also can obtain a scope of practice that allows them to prescribe medications and increase access to care for veterans with MS.

Education

The VHA demonstrates how education on a disease state like MS can be distributed on a large, national scale through drug monographs, CFU, and Microsoft SharePoint sites. In addition, VHA has created the MS Centers of Excellence (MSCoE) that serve as a hub of specialized health care providers in all aspects of MS care.

A core function of the MSCoE is to provide education to both HCPs and patients. The MSCoE and its regional hubs support sites that may not have an HCP who specializes in MS by providing advice on DMT selection, how to obtain specialty medications, and monitoring that needs to be completed to ensure veterans’ safety. The MSCoE also has partnered with the National MS Society to hold a lecture series on topics in MS. This free series is available online to all HCPs who interact with patients who have MS and is a way that VA is extending its best practices and expertise beyond its own health care system. There also is a quarterly newsletter for veterans with MS that highlights new information on DMTs that can affect their care.

Conclusion

It is an exciting and challenging period in MS treatment. New DMTs are being approved and entering clinical trials at a rapid pace. These new DMT agents may offer increased efficacy, improvements in AE profiles, and the possibility of increased medication adherence—but often at a higher cost. The utilization of CFU and formulary management provides the ability to ensure the safe and appropriate use of medications by veterans, with a secondary outcome of controlling pharmacy expenditures.

The VHA had expenditures of $142,135,938 for DMT use in FY 2018. As the VHA sees the new contract prices for DMT in January 2020, we are reminded that costs will continue to rise with some pharmaceutical manufacturers implementing prices 8% to 11% higher than 2019 prices, when the consumer price index defines an increase of 1.0% for 2020 and 1.4% in 2021.²⁸ It is imperative that the VHA formulary be managed judiciously and the necessary measures be in place for VHA practitioners to enable effective, safe and value-based care to the veteran population.

Prior to the first approved disease modifying therapy (DMT) in the 1990s, treatment approaches for multiple sclerosis (MS) were not well understood. The discovery that MS was an immune mediated inflammatory disease paved the way for the treatments we know today. In 1993, interferon β‐1b became the first DMT for MS approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approvals for interferon β‐1a as well as glatiramer acetate (GA) soon followed. Today, we consider these the mildest immunosuppressant DMTs; however, their success verified that suppressing the immune system had a positive effect on the MS disease process.

Following these approvals, the disease process in MS is now better understood. Recently approved therapies include monoclonal antibodies, which affect other immune pathways. Today, there are 14 approved DMTs (Table 1). Although the advent of these newer DMTs has revolutionized care for patients with MS, it has been accompanied by increasing costs for the agents. Direct medical costs associated with MS management, coupled with indirect costs from lost productivity, have been estimated to be $24.2 billion annually in the US.¹ These increases have been seen across many levels of insurance coverage—private payer, Medicare, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).^2,3

The Figure demonstrates the cost increase that have been seen across VHA between 2004 and 2019 for the DMTs identified in Table 1. Indeed, this compound annual growth rate may be an underestimate because infusion therapies (eg, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and alemtuzumab) are difficult to track as they may be dispensed directly via a Risk Evaluation Medication Strategy (REMS) program. According to the VHA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM), in September 2019, dimethyl fumarate (DMF) had the 13th highest total outpatient drug cost for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), interferon β‐1a ranked 62nd and 83rd (prefilled pen and syringe, respectively), and GA 40 mg ranked 89th.

Factors Impacting DMT Use

Recent changes to MS typing have impacted utilization of DMTs. Traditionally, there were 4 subtypes of MS: relapsing remitting (RRMS), secondary progressive (SPMS), progressive relapsing (PRMS), and primary progressive (PPMS). These subtypes are now viewed more broadly and grouped as either relapsing or progressive. The traditional subtypes fall under these broader definitions. Additionally, SPMS has been broken into active SPMS, characterized by continued worsening of disability unrelated to acute relapses, superimposed with activity that can be seen on magnetic resonance images (MRIs), and nonactive SPMS, which has the same disability progression as active SPMS but without MRI-visible activity.^4-6 In 2019, these supplementary designations to SPMS made their first appearance in FDA-approved indications. All existing DMTs now include this terminology in their labelling and are indicated in active SPMS. There remain no DMTs that treat nonactive SPMS.

The current landscape of DMTs is highly varied in method of administration, risks, and benefits. As efficacy of these medications often is marked by how well they can prevent the immune system from attacking myelin, an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy results. The standard treatment outcomes in MS have evolved over time. The following are the commonly used primary outcomes in clinical trials: relapse reduction; increased time between relapses; decreased severity of relapses; prevention or extend time to disability milestones as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and other disability measures; prevention or extension of time to onset of secondary progressive disease; prevention or reduction of the number and size of new and enhancing lesions on MRI; and limitation of overall MRI lesion burden in the central nervous system (CNS).

Newer treatment outcomes employed in more recent trials include: measures of axonal damage, CNS atrophy, evidence of microscopic disease via conventional MRI and advanced imaging modalities, biomarkers associated with inflammatory disease activity and neurodegeneration in MS, and the use of no evidence of disease activity (NEDA). These outcomes also must be evaluated by the safety concerns of each agent. Short- and long-term safety are critical factors in the selection of DMTs for MS. The injectable therapies for MS (interferon β‐1a, interferon β‐1b, and GA) have established long-term safety profiles from > 20 years of continuous use. The long-term safety profiles of oral immunomodulatory agents and monoclonal antibodies for these drugs in MS have yet to be determined. Safety concerns associated with some therapies and added requirements for safety monitoring may increase the complexity of a therapeutic selection.

Current cost minimization strategies for DMT include limiting DMT agents on formularies, tier systems that incentivize patients/prescribers to select the lowest priced agents on the formulary, negotiating arrangements with manufacturers to freeze prices or provide discounts in exchange for a priority position in the formulary, and requiring prior authorization to initiate or switch therapy. The use of generic medications and interchange to these agents from a brand name formulation can help reduce expense. Several of these strategies have been implemented in VHA.

Disease-Modifying Therapies

In 2019, 18,645 veterans with MS had either a MS-specific DMT or ≥ 1 annual encounters with a primary diagnosis of MS. Of this population, 4,720 were female and 13,357 were service connected according to VA data. About 50% of veterans with MS take a DMT. This percentage has remained stable over the past decade (Table 2). Although it appears the number of unique veterans prescribed an outpatient DMT is decreasing, this does not include the growing use of infused DMTs or DMTs obtained through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP)/Community Care (CC).

The overall outpatient pharmacy costs for veterans have remained constant despite the reduction in outpatient pharmacy prescription numbers. This may be due to increases in DMT cost to the VHA and the use of more expensive oral agents over the previously used platform injection DMTs.

Generic Conversion

GA is available in 20 mg daily and 40 mg3 times weekly subcutaneous injection dosing. The first evidence of clinical efficacy for a generic formulation for GA was evaluated by the GATE trial.⁷ This trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Eligible participants were randomized to receive daily SC injection for 9 months of 20 mg generic GA (n = 5,353), 20 mg brand GA (n = 5,357), or placebo (n = 584). The primary endpoint was the mean number of gadolinium (Gd1) lesions visible on MRIs during months 7, 8, and 9, which were significantly reduced in the combined GA-treated group and in each GA group individually when compared with the placebo group, confirming the study sensitivity (ie, GA was effective under the conditions of the study). Tolerability (including injection site reactions) and safety (incidence, spectrum, and severity of adverse events [AEs]) were similar in the generic and brand GA groups. These results demonstrated that generic and brand GA had equivalent efficacy, tolerability, and safety over a 9-month period.⁷

Results of a 15-month extension of the study were presented in 2015 and showed similar efficacy, safety, and tolerability in participants treated with generic GA for 2 years and patients switched from brand to generic GA.⁸ Multiple shifts for GA occurred, most notably the conversion from branded Copaxone (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries) to generic Glatopa (Sandoz). Subsequently, Sandoz released a generic 40 mg 3 times weekly formulation. Additionally, Mylan entered the generic GA market. With 3 competing manufacturers, internal data from the VHA indicated that it was able to negotiate a single source contract for this medication that provided a savings of $32,088,904.69 between September 2016 and May 2019.

The impact of generic conversions is just being realized. Soon, patents will begin to expire for oral DMTs, leading to an expected growth of generic alternatives. Already the FDA has approved 4 generic alternatives for teriflunomide, 3 for fingolimod (with 13 tentative approvals), and 15 generic alternatives for dimethyl fumarate (DMF). Implementation of therapeutic interchanges will be pursued by VHA as clinically supported by evidence.

Criteria for Use

PBM supports utilizing criteria to help guide providers on DMT options and promote safe, effective, and value-based selection of a DMT. The PBM creates monographs and criteria for use (CFU) for new medications. The monograph contains a literature evaluation of all studies available to date that concern both safety and efficacy of the new medication. Therapeutic alternatives also are presented and assessed for key elements that may determine the most safe and effective use. Additional safety areas for the new medications such as look-alike, sound-alike potential, special populations use (ie, those who are pregnant, the elderly, and those with liver or renal dysfunction), and drug-drug interactions are presented. Lastly, and possibly most importantly in an ever-growing growing world of DMTs, the monograph describes a reasonable place in therapy for the new DMT.

CFU are additional guidance for some DMTs. The development of CFU are based on several questions that arise during the monograph development for a DMT. These include, but are not limited to:

• Are there safety concerns that require the drug to receive a review to ensure safe prescribing (eg, agents with REMS programs, or safety concerns in specific populations)?
• Does the drug require a specialty provider type with knowledge and experience in those disease states to ensure appropriate and safe prescribing (eg restricted to infectious diseases)?
• Do VHA or non-VHA guidelines suggest alternative therapy be used prior to the agent?
• Is a review deemed necessary to ensure the preferred agent is used first (eg, second-line therapy)?

The CFU defines parameters of drug use consistent with high quality and evidence-based patient care. CFUs also serve as a basis for monitoring local, regional, and national patterns of pharmacologic care and help guide health care providers (HCPs) on appropriate use of medication.

CFUs are designed to ensure the HCP is safely starting a medication that has evidence for efficacy for their patient. For example, alemtuzumab is a high-risk, high-efficacy DMT. The alemtuzumab CFU acknowledges this by having exclusion criteria that prevent a veteran at high risk (ie, on another immunosuppressant) from being exposed to severe AEs (ie, severe leukopenia) that are associated with the medication. On the other hand, the inclusion criteria recognize the benefits of alemtuzumab and allows those with highly active MS who have failed other DMTs to receive the medication.

The drug monograph and CFU process is an important part of VHA efforts to optimize patient care. After a draft version is developed, HCPs can provide feedback on the exclusion/inclusion criteria and describe how they anticipate using the medication in their practice. This insight can be beneficial for MS treatment as diverse HCPs may have distinct viewpoints on how DMTs should be started. Pharmacists and physicians on a national level then discuss and decide together what to include in the final drafts of the drug monograph and CFU. Final documents are disseminated to all sites, which encourages consistent practices across the VHA.⁹ These documents are reviewed on a regular basis and updated as needed based on available literature evidence.

It is well accepted that early use of DMT correlates with lower accumulated long-term disability.¹⁰ However, discontinuation of DMT should be treated with equal importance. This benefits the patient by reducing their risk of AEs from DMTs and provides cost savings. Age and disease stability are factors to consider for DMT discontinuation. In a study with patients aged > 45 years and another with patients aged > 60 years, discontinuing DMT rarely had a negative impact and improved quality of life.^11,12 A retrospective meta-analysis of age-dependent efficacy of current DMTs predicted that DMT loses efficacy at age 53 years. In addition, higher efficacy DMT only outperforms lower efficacy DMT in patients aged < 40.5 years.¹³ Stability of disease and lack of relapses for ≥ 2 years also may be a positive predictor to safely discontinue DMT.^14,15 The growing literature to support safe discontinuation of DMT makes this a more convincing strategy to avoid unnecessary costs associated with current DMTs. With an average age of 59 years for veterans with MS, this may be one of the largest areas of cost avoidance to consider.

Off-Label Use

Other potential ways to reduce DMT costs is to consider off-label treatments. The OLYMPUS trial studied off-label use of rituximab, an anti-CD20 antibody like ocrelizumab. It did not meet statistical significance for its primary endpoint; however, in a subgroup analysis, off-label use was found to be more effective in a population aged < 51 years.¹⁶ Other case reports and smaller scale studies also describe rituximab’s efficacy in MS.^17,18 In 2018, the FDA approved the first rituximab biosimilar.¹⁹ Further competition from biosimilars likely will make rituximab an even more cost-effective choice when compared with ocrelizumab.

Alternate Dosing Regimens

Extended interval dosing of natalizumab has been studied, extending the standard infusion interval from every 4 weeks to 5- to 8-week intervals. One recent article compared these interval extensions and found that all extended intervals of up to 56 days did not increase new or enhancing lesions on MRI when compared with standard interval dosing.²⁰ Another larger randomized trial is underway to evaluate efficacy and safety of extended interval dosing of natalizumab (NCT03689972). Utilization of this dosing may reduce natalizumab annual costs by up to 50%.

Safety Monitoring

DMF is an oral DMT on the VHA formulary with CFU. Since leukopenia is a known AE, baseline and quarterly monitoring of the complete blood count (CBC) is recommended for patients taking DMF. Additionally, DMF should be held if white blood cell count (WBC) falls below 2,000/mm³.²¹ There have been recent reports of death secondary to progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) among European patients taking DMF.^22-24 This has raised concerns about adherence to recommended CBC monitoring in veterans taking DMF. The association of DMF and leukopenia has been evident since early clinical trials.²⁵ Leukopenia in immunocompromised patients increases the risk of PML.

In the long-term extension study ENDORSE, 6% to 7% of patients continuing DMF had WBC counts of 3.0×10⁹/L compared with 7% to 10% in the new to DMF group.²⁶ In addition 6% to 8% of patients continuing DMF had lymphocyte counts of 0.5×10⁹/L, compared with 5% to 9% in the new to DMF group. The cases of PML occurred in patients who had low lymphocyte counts over an extended period with no adjustment to DMF therapy, such as holding the drug until WBC counts returned to normal levels or stopping the drug. Discussion and review within VHA resulted in the recommendation for quarterly WBC monitoring criteria.

PBM and VA Center for Medication Safety (MedSafe) conducted a medication usage evaluation (MUE) on adherence to the WBC monitoring set forth in the CFU. Data collection began in fourth quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2015 with the most recent reporting period of fourth quarter of FY 2017. The Medication Utilization Evaluation Tool tracks patients with no reported WBC in 90 days and WBC < 2,000/mm³. Over the reporting period, 20% to 23% of patients have not received appropriate quarterly monitoring. Additionally, there have been 4 cases where the WBC decreased below the threshold limit. To ensure safe and effective use of DMF, it is important to adhere to the monitoring requirements set forth in the CFU.

Impact of REMS and Special Distribution

As DMTs increase in efficacy, there are often more risks associated with them. Some of these high-risk medications, including natalizumab and alemtuzumab, have REMS programs and/or have special distribution procedures. Although REMS are imperative for patient safety, the complexity of these programs can be difficult to navigate, which can create a barrier to access. The PBM helps to assist all sites with navigating and adhering to required actions to dispense and administer these medications through a national Special Handling Drugs Microsoft SharePoint site, which provides access to REMS forms and procurement information when drugs are dispensed from specialty pharmacies. Easing this process nationwide empowers more sites to be confident they can dispense specialty medications appropriately.

Clinical Pharmacists

The VHA is unique in its utilization of pharmacists in outpatient clinic settings. Utilization of an interdisciplinary team for medication management has been highly used in VHA for areas like primary care; however, pharmacist involvement in specialty areas is on the rise and MS is no exception. Pharmacists stationed in clinics, such as neurology or spinal cord injury, can impact care for veterans with MS. Interdisciplinary teams that include a pharmacist have been shown to increase patient adherence to DMTs.²⁷ However, pharmacists often assist with medication education and monitoring, which adds an additional layer of safety to DMT treatment. At the VHA, pharmacists also can obtain a scope of practice that allows them to prescribe medications and increase access to care for veterans with MS.

Education

The VHA demonstrates how education on a disease state like MS can be distributed on a large, national scale through drug monographs, CFU, and Microsoft SharePoint sites. In addition, VHA has created the MS Centers of Excellence (MSCoE) that serve as a hub of specialized health care providers in all aspects of MS care.

A core function of the MSCoE is to provide education to both HCPs and patients. The MSCoE and its regional hubs support sites that may not have an HCP who specializes in MS by providing advice on DMT selection, how to obtain specialty medications, and monitoring that needs to be completed to ensure veterans’ safety. The MSCoE also has partnered with the National MS Society to hold a lecture series on topics in MS. This free series is available online to all HCPs who interact with patients who have MS and is a way that VA is extending its best practices and expertise beyond its own health care system. There also is a quarterly newsletter for veterans with MS that highlights new information on DMTs that can affect their care.

Conclusion

It is an exciting and challenging period in MS treatment. New DMTs are being approved and entering clinical trials at a rapid pace. These new DMT agents may offer increased efficacy, improvements in AE profiles, and the possibility of increased medication adherence—but often at a higher cost. The utilization of CFU and formulary management provides the ability to ensure the safe and appropriate use of medications by veterans, with a secondary outcome of controlling pharmacy expenditures.

The VHA had expenditures of $142,135,938 for DMT use in FY 2018. As the VHA sees the new contract prices for DMT in January 2020, we are reminded that costs will continue to rise with some pharmaceutical manufacturers implementing prices 8% to 11% higher than 2019 prices, when the consumer price index defines an increase of 1.0% for 2020 and 1.4% in 2021.²⁸ It is imperative that the VHA formulary be managed judiciously and the necessary measures be in place for VHA practitioners to enable effective, safe and value-based care to the veteran population.