Top

Published in:

01-12-2015 | Commentary

Cost-Effectiveness Modeling in Multiple Sclerosis: Playing Around with Non-Healthcare Costs?

Authors: Livio Garattini, Francesca Ghislandi, Milene Rangel Da Costa

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 12/2015

Excerpt

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disabling neurological disorder that affects more than two million people worldwide [1]. Accounting for more than half of the total population diagnosed with MS in the world, Europe is considered a high-prevalence region [1]. Patients with MS experience a wide range of signs and symptoms [2], which impair their capacity to perform day-to-day activities and thus quality of life [2, 3]. The onset of MS at an early age implies a substantial burden in terms of both healthcare and societal costs [2]. …

For the search, we used the MeSH terms ‘multiple sclerosis’ and ‘costs and cost analysis’. We retrieved 202 articles and 174 were discarded, being: (1) epidemiological or clinical articles (101); (2) partial economic evaluations and literature reviews (61); and (3) editorials, letters, and comments (12). Because 21 studies did not concern the EU setting, we finally selected seven articles and screened them to assess their main methodologic features, using a common checklist based on the one used to abstract studies in the EURONHEED database.

Frequently, MS begins with isolated neurologic episodes, defined as CIS, which last at least 24 h and are caused by inflammation and demyelization in focal sites of the central nervous system. CIS can be either monofocal or multifocal and people who experience CIS will not necessarily develop MS.

Kingwell E, Marriott JJ, Jetté N, Pringsheim T, Makhani N, Morrow S, et al. Incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Europe: a systematic review. BMC Neurol. 2013;13:128.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Zwibel HL. Contribution to impaired mobility and general symptoms to the burden of multiple sclerosis. Adv Ther. 2009;26:1043–57.CrossRefPubMed

Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2002;359(9313):1221–31.CrossRefPubMed

National Health Service (NHS). Multiple sclerosis, overview. Available from: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Multiple-Sclerosis/Pages/Introduction.aspx. Accessed 5 Aug 2015.

Hutchinson M. In the coming year we should abandon interferons and glatiramer acetate as first line therapy for MS: commentary. Mult Scler. 2012;19(1):29–30.CrossRef

Hawton A, Shearer J, Goodwin E, Green C. Squinting through layers of fog: assessing the cost effectiveness of treatments for multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):331–41.CrossRefPubMed

Thompson JP, Abdolahi A, Noyes K. Modelling the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(6):455–69.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Manouchehrinia A, Constantinescu CS. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2012;12(5):592–600.CrossRefPubMed

Guo S, Pelligra C, Saint-Laurent Thibault C, Hernandez L, Kansal A. Cost-effectiveness analyses in multiple sclerosis: a review of modelling approaches. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(6):559–72.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Fredrikson S, McLeod E, Henry N, Pitcher A, Lowin J, Cuche M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a 44 mcg 3-times a week vs no treatment for patients with clinically isolated syndrome in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2013;16(6):756–62.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Caloyeras JP, Zhang B, Wang C, Eriksson M, Fredrikson S, Beckmann K, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta-1b for the treatment of patients with a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2012;34(5):1132–44.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lazzaro C, Bianchi C, Peracino L, Zacchetti P, Uccelli A. Economic evaluation of treating clinically isolated syndrome and subsequent multiple sclerosis with interferonbeta-1b. Neurol Sci. 2009;30(1):21–31.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Dembek C, White LA, Quach J, Szkurhan A, Rashid N, Blasco MR. Cost-effectiveness of injectable disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in Spain. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(4):353–62.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Darbà J, Kaskens L, Sánchez-de la Rosa R. Cost-effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and interferon beta-1a for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, based on the CombiRx study. J Med Econ. 2014;17(3):215–22.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sánchez-de la Rosa R, Sabater E, Casado MA, Arroyo R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of disease modifying drugs (interferons and glatiramer acetate) as first line treatments in remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis patients. J Med Econ. 2012;15(3):424–33.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Nuijten M, Mittendorf T. A health-economic evaluation of disease-modifying drugs for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis from the German societal perspective. Clin Ther. 2010;32(4):717–28.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Drummond M. Cost-of-illness studies: a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;2(1):1–4.CrossRefPubMed

18.

NICE technology appraisal guidance 32. Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate for the treatment of multiples clerosis. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2002. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta32. Accessed 6 Aug 2015.

19.

NICE technology appraisal guidance 254. Fingolimod for the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2012. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta254. Accessed 6 Aug 2015.

20.

NICE technology appraisal guidance 320. Dimethyl fumarate for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta320. Accessed 6 Aug 2015.

21.

NICE technology appraisal guidance 303. Teriflunomide for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2014. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta303. Accessed 6 Aug 2015.

22.

Garattini L, van de Vooren K. Budget impact analysis in economic evaluation: a proposal for a clearer definition. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:499–502.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Cost-Effectiveness Modeling in Multiple Sclerosis: Playing Around with Non-Healthcare Costs?
Authors: Livio Garattini
Francesca Ghislandi
Milene Rangel Da Costa
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: PharmacoEconomics / Issue 12/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0322-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Cost-Effectiveness Modeling in Multiple Sclerosis: Playing Around with Non-Healthcare Costs?

Excerpt

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Excerpt

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2015

Cost-Value Analysis and the SAVE: A Work in Progress, But an Option for Localised Decision Making?

Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice

Cost Effectiveness of Falls and Injury Prevention Strategies for Older Adults Living in Residential Aged Care Facilities

Economic and Quality-of-Life Implications of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Cost Effectiveness of Sucroferric Oxyhydroxide Compared with Sevelamer Carbonate in the Treatment of Hyperphosphataemia in Patients Receiving Dialysis, from the Perspective of the National Health Service in Scotland

Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment