Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Multiple Sclerosis: a Review of Modelling Approaches

Overview

Journal Pharmacoeconomics

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2014 Mar 20

PMID 24643323

Citations 13

Authors

Shien Guo

Christopher Pelligra

Catherine Saint-Laurent Thibault

Luis Hernandez

Anuraag Kansal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The growing number of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and the high acquisition costs of these DMTs are likely to increase the demand for information on their cost effectiveness. To improve the comparability and applicability of the findings from future cost-effectiveness analyses, it would be useful to have a clear understanding of the methodological challenges of modelling the cost effectiveness of DMTs in MS and the different approaches taken by such studies to date. In contrast to previous review studies, this review focuses on long-term time horizon (≥10 years) simulation-based cost-effectiveness analyses with homogeneous contexts of analysis (i.e. those with similar study objectives, comparators, and target populations) published over the past decade. By doing so, it provides a clearer picture of how modelling approaches taken in the existing studies truly differ across studies, and reveals major areas for improvement in conducting future cost-effectiveness analyses of DMTs for patients with MS.

Citing Articles

Estimation of Transition Probabilities from a Large Cohort (> 6000) of Australians Living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) for Changing Disability Severity Classifications, MS Phenotype, and Disease-Modifying Therapy Classifications.

Campbell J, Henson G, Ngwa V, Ahmad H, Taylor B, van der Mei I Pharmacoeconomics. 2024; 43(2):223-239.

PMID: 39095665 PMC: 11782298. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01417-4.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ocrelizumab for the Treatment of Relapsing and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis in Portugal.

Martins P, Vandewalle B, Felix J, Capela C, Cerqueira J, Salgado A Pharmacoecon Open. 2022; 7(2):229-241.

PMID: 36454397 PMC: 10043078. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-022-00381-z.

Societal economic burden of multiple sclerosis and cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies.

Simoens S Front Neurol. 2022; 13:1015256.

PMID: 36341111 PMC: 9631775. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.1015256.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Natalizumab and Fingolimod in Patients with Inadequate Response to Disease-Modifying Therapies in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the United Kingdom.

Spelman T, Herring W, Zhang Y, Tempest M, Pearson I, Freudensprung U Pharmacoeconomics. 2021; 40(3):323-339.

PMID: 34921350 PMC: 8866337. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01106-6.

How have Economic Evaluations in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Evolved Over Time? A Systematic Literature Review.

Wiyani A, Badgujar L, Khurana V, Adlard N Neurol Ther. 2021; 10(2):557-583.

PMID: 34279847 PMC: 8571458. DOI: 10.1007/s40120-021-00264-1.

References

Minden S, Frankel D, Hadden L, Perloffp J, Srinath K, Hoaglin D . The Sonya Slifka Longitudinal Multiple Sclerosis Study: methods and sample characteristics. Mult Scler. 2006; 12(1):24-38. DOI: 10.1191/135248506ms1262oa. View

Tappenden P, McCabe C, Chilcott J, Simpson E, Nixon R, Madan J . Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the Medicare population. Value Health. 2009; 12(5):657-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00485.x. View

Thompson J, Abdolahi A, Noyes K . Modelling the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013; 31(6):455-69. PMC: 3697004. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0063-4. View

Goldberg L, Edwards N, Fincher C, Doan Q, Al-Sabbagh A, Meletiche D . Comparing the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs for the first-line treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009; 15(7):543-55. PMC: 10437839. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.7.543. View

Agashivala N, Kim E . Cost-effectiveness of early initiation of fingolimod versus delayed initiation after 1 year of intramuscular interferon beta-1a in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2012; 34(7):1583-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.06.012. View

Sutton A, Ades A, Cooper N, Abrams K . Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(9):753-67. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00006. View

Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro J, Mar J, Moller J . Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--4. Value Health. 2012; 15(6):821-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.013. View

Touchette D, Durgin T, Wanke L, Goodkin D . A cost-utility analysis of mitoxantrone hydrochloride and interferon beta-1b in the treatment of patients with secondary progressive or progressive relapsing multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2003; 25(2):611-34. DOI: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80100-5. View

Pickin M, Cooper C, Chater T, OHagan A, Abrams K, Cooper N . The Multiple Sclerosis Risk Sharing Scheme Monitoring Study--early results and lessons for the future. BMC Neurol. 2009; 9:1. PMC: 2631506. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-9-1. View

10.

Noyes K, Bajorska A, Chappel A, Schwid S, Mehta L, Weinstock-Guttman B . Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Neurology. 2011; 77(4):355-63. PMC: 3140799. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182270402. View

11.

Iskedjian M, Walker J, Gray T, Vicente C, Einarson T, Gehshan A . Economic evaluation of Avonex (interferon beta-Ia) in patients following a single demyelinating event. Mult Scler. 2005; 11(5):542-51. DOI: 10.1191/1352458505ms1211oa. View

12.

Reuss R . PEGylated interferon beta-1a in the treatment of multiple sclerosis - an update. Biologics. 2013; 7:131-8. PMC: 3686537. DOI: 10.2147/BTT.S29948. View

13.

Signorovitch J, Wu E, Betts K, Parikh K, Kantor E, Guo A . Comparative efficacy of nilotinib and dasatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011; 27(6):1263-71. DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2011.576238. View

14.

Yamamoto D, Campbell J . Cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: a systematic review of the literature. Autoimmune Dis. 2013; 2012:784364. PMC: 3523130. DOI: 10.1155/2012/784364. View

15.

Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, Jonsson B, Stawiarz L, Hillert J . Modeling the cost-effectiveness of a new treatment for MS (natalizumab) compared with current standard practice in Sweden. Mult Scler. 2008; 14(5):679-90. DOI: 10.1177/1352458507086667. View

16.

Lee S, Baxter D, Limone B, Roberts M, Coleman C . Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. J Med Econ. 2012; 15(6):1088-96. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2012.693553. View

17.

Lazzaro C, Bianchi C, Peracino L, Zacchetti P, Uccelli A . Economic evaluation of treating clinically isolated syndrome and subsequent multiple sclerosis with interferon beta-1b. Neurol Sci. 2009; 30(1):21-31. DOI: 10.1007/s10072-009-0015-0. View

18.

Prosser L, M Kuntz K, Bar-Or A, Weinstein M . Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2004; 7(5):554-68. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75007.x. View

19.

Gani R, Giovannoni G, Bates D, Kemball B, Hughes S, Kerrigan J . Cost-effectiveness analyses of natalizumab (Tysabri) compared with other disease-modifying therapies for people with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(7):617-27. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826070-00008. View

20.

Kousin-Ezewu O, Coles A . Alemtuzumab in multiple sclerosis: latest evidence and clinical prospects. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2013; 4(3):97-103. PMC: 3629751. DOI: 10.1177/2040622313479137. View