Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Patient Impact and Coverage Implications for New Therapies - Episode 2

Challenges Regarding Coverage for New SPMS Therapies

September 11, 2020

The managed care challenges associated with the MS care spectrum have become increasingly complicated with the influx of new therapies, particularly in relation to determining a benefits design for SPMS that balances patient access to the right treatment while accounting for high treatment costs — which are growing more rapidly than those of most other disease states. Prior to 2009, many health plans’ formularies included all MS therapies with adequate accessibility. When several new drugs were introduced to the market after 2009, pharmacy and therapeutics committees (groups responsible for determining which drugs to include in the formularies) became more selective. Agents are now chosen based on clinical trial data regarding safety, efficacy and cost/value. (4) Designated efficacy outcomes, which have evolved over time, must be evaluated against the safety of the agent. Short- and long-term safety are particularly important for consideration; however, long-term safety in newer therapies has not yet been established. Health plans must also make accommodations, as some of these therapies are associated with serious safety concerns that necessitate monitoring with administration. (25)

Regarding the increasing costs of SPMS therapy, in addition to selecting SPMS agents with a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio, health plans may offset the costs by developing formulary tiers that incentivize providers to prescribe the most affordable therapies, using generic medication, establishing arrangements with drug manufacturers to fix costs or offer discounts in exchange for a top placement in the formulary and requiring that therapy initiation or switching is preceded by authorization. (25)

Recent labeling inconsistencies among newer, approved treatments have also contributed to the complexities experienced by health plans when determining appropriate patient access. As discussed earlier, the active and nonactive designations for SPMS were established in 2013. (5) They were first included in FDA-approved indications in 2019 when siponimod, cladribine and other disease-modifying therapies entered the market. All therapies for MS have since adopted this terminology for their labeling and all are now indicated for the treatment of active SPMS. A treatment for nonactive SPMS has not yet been developed. (25) Including the active/nonactive terminology in labels can be useful for treatment selection, but standardized definitions do not exist; regulatory authorities have established differing definitions. Although U.S. regulators defined activity based on clinical relapses, European regulators required inclusion of imaging results, indicating inflammation. In addition, product labels have not been required to include a time frame within which patients experienced disease activity. Because all patients with SPMS have experienced activity at some point, any could receive an active status. This challenge may be alleviated if U.S. labels for approved MS therapies included the full definition of activity. (26)


Substantial personal and economic burdens are associated with MS. (6,10) As the second most common and debilitating form of MS, 2 SPMS necessitates attention and collaboration from health plans, healthcare providers and the health community to establish tailored, standardized management strategies and evidence-based treatment options. (4) Emerging biomarkers and screening tools may improve clinicians’ abilities to promptly and accurately diagnose SPMS, and newer therapies approved for SPMS may offer a more tailored treatment approach for patients with this condition. There are still opportunities, however, for improvement regarding SPMS diagnosis and treatment. (2,18,19) As health plans navigate an increasingly complex and costly treatment landscape, individualized care approaches and shared decision-making should be prioritized.


1. Oh J, Alikhani K, Bruno T, et al. Diagnosis and management of secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis: time for change. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2019;9(6):301-317. doi:10.2217/nmt-2019-0024
2. Inojosa H, Proschmann U, Akgün K, Ziemssen T. A focus on secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS): challenges in diagnosis and definition. J Neurol. Published online July 30, 2019. doi:10.1007/s00415-019-09489-5
3. Correale J, Gaitán MI, Ysrraelit MC, Fiol MP. Progressive multiple sclerosis: from pathogenic mechanisms to treatment. Brain. 2017;140(3):527-546. doi:10.1093/brain/aww258
4. Owens GM, Olvey EL, Skrepnek GH, Pill MW. Perspectives for managed care organizations on the burden of multiple sclerosis and the cost-benefits of disease-modifying therapies. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19(suppl 1A):S41-S53. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2013.19.s1.S41
5. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83(3):278-286. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560
6. Dubey D, Sguigna P, Stüve O. Managing disability in progressive multiple sclerosis. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016;18(6):27. doi:10.1007/s11940-016-0412-7
7. Dr Viktor von Wyl addresses the impact of MS disease duration and age on disability burden. The American Journal of Managed Care®. Published September 12, 2019. Accessed May 27, 2020.
8. Meek C, Topcu G, Moghaddam N, das Nair R. Experiences of adjustment to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: a meta-ethnographic systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. Published online March 14, 2020. doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1734105
9.Coyle P, Robinson J, Schobel V. Initial multiple sclerosis DMT recommendation: impact of comorbidities and prognostic profile in the United States. Abstract presented at: 35th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis; September 11-13, 2019; Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed July 15, 2020.
10. Adelman G, Rane SG, Villa KF. The cost burden of multiple sclerosis in the United States: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Econ. 2013;16(5):639-647. doi:10.3111/13696998.2013.778268
11. Anderson SS, Philbrick AM. Improving multiple sclerosis care: an analysis of the necessity for medication therapy management services among the patient population. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014;20(3):254-261. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2014.20.3.254
12. Naci H, Fleurence R, Birt J, Duhig A. Economic burden of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(5):363-379. doi:10.2165/11532230-000000000-00000
13. O’Connor P, Kinkel RP, Kremenchutzky M. Efficacy of intramuscular interferon beta-1a in patients with clinically isolated syndrome: analysis of subgroups based on new risk criteria. Mult Scler. 2009;15(6):728-734. doi:10.1177/1352458509103173
14. Chen J, Taylor BV, Blizzard L, Simpson S Jr, Palmer AJ, van der Mei IAF. Effects of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies on employment measures using patient-reported data. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018;89(11):1200-1207. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2018-318228
15. Ziemssen T, Derfuss T, de Stefano N, et al. Optimizing treatment success in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2016;263(6):1053-1065. doi:10.1007/s00415-015-7986-y
16. Mao-Draayer Y, Livingston T, Rammohan K, et al; NARCRMS HEOR Advisory Group. The economic impact of multiple sclerosis: a preliminary look at the North American Registry for Care and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. Abstract presented at: 35th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis; September 11-13, 2019; Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed July 15, 2020.
17. Bhatia R, Singh N. Can we treat secondary progressive multiple sclerosis now? Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2019;22(2):131-136. doi:10.4103/aian.AIAN_345_18
18. Mayzent. Prescribing information. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; 2019. Accessed May 7, 2020.
19.Mavenclad. Prescribing information. EMD Serono, Inc; 2019. Accessed May 7, 2020.
20. Giovannoni G, Comi G, Cook S, et al; CLARITY Study Group. A placebo-controlled trial of oral cladribine for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):416-426. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0902533
21. Giovannoni G, Cook S, Rammohan K, et al. Sustained disease-activity-free status in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treated with cladribine tablets in the CLARITY study: a post-hoc and subgroup analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(4):329-337. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70023-0
22. Kappos L, Bar-Or A, Cree BAC, et al. Siponimod versus placebo in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (EXPAND): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2018;391(10127):1263-1273. Published correction appears in Lancet. 2018 392(10160):2170. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30475-6
23. Gold R, Kappos L, Bar-Or A, et al. Efficacy of spiponimod in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis patients with active disease: the EXPAND study subgroup analysis. Poster presented at: 35th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis; September 12, 2019; Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed July 15, 2020.
24. Synnott PG, Bloudek LM, Sharaf R, Carlson JJ, Pearson SD. The effectiveness and value of siponimod for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020;26(3):236-239. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.3.236
25. Tortorice K, Antonovich N. Multiple sclerosis medications in the VHA: delivering specialty, high-cost, pharmacy care in a national system. Fed Pract. 2020;37(suppl 1):S36-S42.
26. Lublin FD, Coetzee T, Cohen JA, Marrie RA, Thompson AJ. The 2013 clinical course descriptors for multiple sclerosis: a clarification. Neurology. 2020;94(24):1088-1092. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000009636. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000009636