How have Economic Evaluations in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Evolved Over Time? A Systematic Literature Review.
Disease-modifying therapy
Economic evaluation
Health economics
Multiple sclerosis
Relapsing multiple sclerosis
Systematic review
Journal
Neurology and therapy
ISSN: 2193-8253
Titre abrégé: Neurol Ther
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101637818
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
02
06
2021
accepted:
06
07
2021
pubmed:
20
7
2021
medline:
20
7
2021
entrez:
19
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) over the last two decades has prompted the economic assessments of these treatments by reimbursement authorities. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the modeling approach and data sources used in economic evaluations of DMTs for RMS, identify differences and similarities, and explore how economic evaluation models have evolved over time. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and EBM Reviews databases were searched using Ovid® Platform from database inception on 25 December 2019 and subsequently updated on 17 February 2021. In addition, health technology assessment agency websites, key conference proceedings, and gray literature from relevant websites were screened. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Drummond and Philips checklists. A total 155 publications and 30 Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were included. Most of these were cost-utility analysis (73 studies and 25 HTA reports) and funded by medicines manufacturers (n = 65). The top three countries where studies were conducted were the USA (n = 29), the UK (n = 16), and Spain (n = 10). Studies predominantly used Markov cohort models (94 studies; 25 HTAs) structured based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) with 21 health states (20 studies; 12 HTA reports). The London Ontario and British Columbia data sets were commonly used sources for natural history data (n = 33; n = 13). Twelve studies and ten HTAs from the UK assumed a waning of DMT effect over the long term, while this was uncommon in studies from other countries. Nineteen studies adjusted for multiple sclerosis (MS)-specific mortality estimates, while 18 studies used data from the national life table without adjustment. Studies prominently referred to mortality data that were about two decades old. The data on treatment effect was generally obtained from randomized controlled trials (43 studies; 7 HTAs) or from published evidence synthesis (23 studies; 24 HTAs). Utility estimates were derived from either published studies and/or supplemented with data from RCTs. Most of the models used the lifetime horizon (n = 37) with a 1-year cycle length (n = 63). As expected, similarities as well as differences were observed across the different economic models. Available evidence suggests models should continue using the Markov cohort model with 21 EDSS-based states, however, allowing the transition to a lower EDSS state and assuming a sustained treatment effect. With reference to the data sources, models should consider using a contemporary MS-specific mortality data, recent natural history data, and country-specific utility data if available. In case of data unavailability, a sensitivity analysis using multiple sources of data should be conducted. In addition, future models should incorporate other clinically relevant outcomes, such as the cognition, vision, and psychological aspects of RMS, to be able to present the comprehensive value of DMTs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34279847
doi: 10.1007/s40120-021-00264-1
pii: 10.1007/s40120-021-00264-1
pmc: PMC8571458
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
557-583Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2014;83(3):278. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560 .
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560
pubmed: 24871874
pmcid: 4117366
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mitoxantrone (novantrone) prescribing information. 2012. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/019297s035lbl.pdf . Accessed 24 June 2021.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. OCREVUS (ocrelizumab) prescribing information. 2017. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/761053lbl.pdf . Accessed 24 June 2021.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MAYZENT® (siponimod) Prescribing Information. 2019. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/209884s000lbl.pdf . Accessed 24 June 2021.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vumerity (diroximel fumarate) prescribing information. 2019. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/211855s000lbl.pdf . Accessed 24 June 2021.
Iannazzo SA-O, Iliza AC, Perrault L. Disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(1179–2027):189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0577-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0577-2
pubmed: 29032493
Yamamoto D, Campbell JD. Cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: a systematic review of the literature. Autoimmune Dis. 2012;2012:784364. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/784364 .
doi: 10.1155/2012/784364
pubmed: 23304459
pmcid: 3523130
Allen F, Montgomery S, Maruszczak M, Kusel J, Adlard N. Convergence yet continued complexity: a systematic review and critique of health economic models of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2015;18(6):925–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.05.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.05.006
pubmed: 26409621
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0150-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0150-1
pubmed: 24643323
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0034-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0034-0
pubmed: 23637055
Koeser L, McCrone P. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis: an updated systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13(2):171–82. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.13.14 .
doi: 10.1586/erp.13.14
pubmed: 23570427
Thompson JP, Abdolahi A, Noyes K. Modelling the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(6):455–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0063-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0063-4
pubmed: 23640103
pmcid: 3697004
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Single technology appraisal: user guide for company evidence submission template. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg24/chapter/instructions-for-companies . Accessed 16 Nov 2020.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 .
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
pubmed: 19622511
Drummond M, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Br Med J. 1996;313(7052):275–83. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275
Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(36):1–158. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8360 .
doi: 10.3310/hta8360
pubmed: 15248937
Mantovani LG, Furneri G, Cortesi PA, Santoni L, Prosperini L, Cardillo A. PND42—Cost-effectiveness of dimethyl-fumarate compared to teriflunomide for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients in Italy. Value Health. 2020;23:S630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.1367 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.1367
Ayati N, Fleifel L, Sharifi S, Sahraian MA, Nikfar S. Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective and cost-saving treatment strategy for high disease activity relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in Iran. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;37: 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2019.11.052 .
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2019.11.052
Mantovani LG, Furneri G, Cortesi PA, Puma E, Santoni L, Prosperini L. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dimethyl fumarate in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. Value Health. 2019;22:S740.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1794
Ayati N, Fleifel L, Sharifi S, Sahraian MA, Nikfar S. PND47—Cladribine tablet, as a dominant comparator to natalizumab in high-disease activity relapsing multiple sclerosis patients, in the context of a developing country. Value Health. 2019;22:S745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1817 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1817
Dort T, Kotsopoulos N, Connolly MP, Lundqvist T, Kavaliunas A. The fiscal consequences of public health investments in disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Sweden. Stockholm: ECTRIMS 2019; 2019. Abstract P454. https://onlinelibrary.ectrims-congress.eu/ectrims/2019/stockholm/278814/thomas.lundqvist.the.fiscal.consequences.of.public.health.investments.in.html?f=menu%3D6%2Abrowseby%3D8%2Asortby%3D2%2Amedia%3D3%2Ace_id%3D1603%2Aot_id%3D21663 . Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
Kotsopoulos N, Connolly MP, Dort T, Kavaliunas A. The fiscal consequences of public health investments in disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2020;23(8):831–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2020.1757457 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1757457
pubmed: 32400258
Bergvall N, Tambour M, Henriksson F, Fredrikson S. Cost-minimization analysis of fingolimod compared with natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2013;16(3):349–57. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.755537 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.755537
pubmed: 23211038
Crespo C, Izquierdo G, García-Ruiz A, Granell M, Brosa M. Cost minimisation analysis of fingolimod vs natalizumab as a second line of treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurologia. 2014;29(4):210–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2013.04.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2013.04.003
pubmed: 24161412
Heisen M, Treur MJ, van der Hel WS, Frequin STFM, Groot MT, Verheggen BG. Fingolimod reduces direct medical costs compared to natalizumab in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1149–58. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.707631 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.707631
pubmed: 22737996
Piena MA, Heisen M, Wormhoudt LW, Wingerden JV, Frequin S, Uitdehaag BMJ. Cost-minimization analysis of alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab for the treatment of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands. J Med Econ. 2018;21(10):968–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1489255 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1489255
pubmed: 29911917
Stanisic S, Bergamaschi R, Berto P, Di Procolo P, Marocco A, Morawski J. PND72—Cost-minimization analysis of teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate for treatment of relapsing-remitting forms of multiple sclerosis in Italy. Value Health. 2018;21:S341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2038 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2038
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH common drug review. Pharmacoeconomic review report for Peginterferon beta-1a (Plegridy–subcutaneous injection). 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/SR0440_Plegridy_PE_Report.pdf . Accessed 18 Jan 2021.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SNC). Fingolimod, 0.5mg, hard capsules (Gilenya®). SMC No. (992/14). 2014. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/1734/fingolimod_gilenya_final_august_2014_amended_030914_for_website.pdf . Accessed 15 Dec 2020.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Teriflunomide, 14mg, film-coated tablets (Aubagio®). SMC No. (940/14). 2014. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/2382/teriflunomide_aubagio_final_january_2014_amended_030314_for_website.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Dee A, Hutchinson M, De La Harpe D. A budget impact analysis of natalizumab use in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci. 2012;181(2):199–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-011-0773-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s11845-011-0773-6
pubmed: 22012552
Holownia-Voloskova M, Ermolaeva T, Klabukova D, et al. PND56—Budget impact analysis of inclusion in the public financing ocrelizumab therapy for primary-progredient and highly active remitting forms of multiple scelerosis in the Russian federation. Value Health. 2019;22:S747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1826 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1826
Ristun C, Bjørnstad B, Hestvik ALK, Myhr KM, Mikkelsen Y. PND43—Budget impact of the introduction of alemtuzumab in Norway; a real world evidence analysis using data from the Norwegian patient registry, the Norwegian prescription database, and IMS sales data. Value Health. 2019;22:S744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1813 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1813
Londono S, Gomez N. PND19—Budget impact modelling for alemtuzumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients in Colombia. Value Health. 2020;23:S625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.1344 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.1344
Moreno M, Arce J, Cruz A, Carpio FR. PND37—Budget impact analysis of alemtuzumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in healthcare social security (ESSALUD) in Peru. Value Health. 2020;23:S265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.930 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.930
Bohlega SA, Al-Mudaiheem H, Alhowimel M, Mahajan K, Mohamed O, Boghdady AE. Budget impact analysis of cladribine tablets in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;37:101545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2019.11.020 .
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2019.11.020
Bose U, Ladkani D, Burrell A, Sharief M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2001;4(1–4):207–19. https://doi.org/10.3111/200104207219 .
doi: 10.3111/200104207219
Chiao E, Meyer K. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1445–54. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990902876040 .
doi: 10.1185/03007990902876040
pubmed: 19422279
Metni M, Yamout B, Koussa S, Khamis C, Fleifel L, Sharifi S, et al. PND53—Economic evaluation of cladribine tablets in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) patients with high disease activity (HDA) in Lebanon. Value Health. 2019;22:S746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1823 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1823
Noyes K, Bajorska A, Chappel A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Neurology. 2011;77(4):355–63. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182270402 .
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182270402
pubmed: 21775734
pmcid: 3140799
Pan F, Goh JW, Cutter G, Su W, Pleimes D, Wang C. Long-term cost-effectiveness model of interferon beta-1b in the early treatment of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Clin Ther. 2012;34(9):1966–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.07.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.07.010
pubmed: 22906738
Ravangard R, Rezaee M, Keshavarz K, Borhanihaghighi A, Izadi S. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of CinnoVex versus ReciGen in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Iran. Shiraz E-Med J. 2018;19(11): e67363. https://doi.org/10.5812/semj.67363 .
doi: 10.5812/semj.67363
Rezaee M, Izadi S, Keshavarz K, Borhanihaghighi A, Ravangard R. Fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in Iran. J Med Econ. 2019;22(4):297–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1560750 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1560750
pubmed: 30561242
Djambazov S, Slavchev G, Dineva T, Panayotov P, Vekov T. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cladribine tablets for treatment of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Bulgaria. Value Health. 2018;21:S206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1403 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1403
Harty G, Treharne C, Budhia S, Wong SL. PND28—A budget impact analysis of cladribine tablets versus alternative high efficacy treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018;21:S333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.1995 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.1995
Yang H, Duchesneau E, Foster R, Guerin A, Ma E, Thomas NP. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ocrelizumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2017;20(10):1056–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1355310 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1355310
pubmed: 28703659
Espinola N, Palacios A, Saenz V, et al. PND1—Cost-effectiveness analysis of cladribine in high disease activity relapse remitting multiple sclerosis in Argentina. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;19:S58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.331 .
doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.331
Espinoza MA, Balmaceda C, Rojas R. PND7—Cost-effectiveness of cladribine compared to natalizumab, ocrelizumab and alemtuzumab for the treatment of patients with highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Chile. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;19:S60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.337 .
doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.337
Rog D, Guo JD, Nucit A, Le Bagousse-Bego G, Chevli M, Chung L. PND31—Alemtuzumab is the most cost-effective option in comparison to available therapies in the treatment of RRMS from the UK NHS perspective. Value Health. 2017;20:A723.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1945
Sánchez-de la Rosa R, Sabater E, Casado MA, Arroyo R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of disease modifiying drugs (interferons and glatiramer acetate) as first line treatments in remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis patients. J Med Econ. 2012;15(3):424–33. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.654868 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.654868
pubmed: 22217249
Su W, Kansal A, Vicente C, Deniz B, Sarda S. The cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada. J Med Econ. 2016;19(7):718–27. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2016.1164174 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2016.1164174
pubmed: 27080475
Hammes F, Ruiz L, Gitlin M, Snyder S. PND34—Payer and societal benefit of peginterferon beta-1a versus glatiramer acetate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain. Value Health. 2018;21:S334–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2001
Hammes F, Wakeford C, Gitlin M, Snyder S. PND33—Payer and societal benefit of peginterferon beta-1a versus glatiramer acetate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. Value Health. 2018;21:S334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2000 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2000
Watson C, Gitlin M, Snyder S. PND26—Cost consequence analysis of SC peginterferon beta-1a every 2 weeks versus SC interferon beta-1atiw in patients with RRMS in five European countries. Value Health. 2017;20:A192.
Watson C, Gitlin M, Snyder S. PND27—Cost consequence analysis of SC peginterferon beta-1a every 2 weeks versus SC interferon beta-1atiw in patients with RRMS in the United States. Value Health. 2017;20(5):A192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005
Bosco-Levy P, Blin P, Lignot-Maleyran S, et al. PND25—Cost-consequence analysis of dimethyl fumarate versus other disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: a French cohort study with SNDS national claims database in France. Value Health. 2020;23:S626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.1350 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.1350
Silverio N, Fonseca A. PND26—Cost implications of a novel weight dosed treatment for highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Portugal. Value Health. 2018;21:S333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.1994 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.1994
Gitlin M, Snyder S, Jhaveri M. PND40—Payer and societal benefit of peginterferon beta-1a versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain. Value Health. 2019;22:S744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1810 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1810
Gitlin M, Snyder S, Jhaveri M. PND52—Payer and societal benefit of peginterferon beta-1a versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. Value Health. 2019;22:S746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1822 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1822
Mennini FS, Marcellusi A, Casamassima G. PND76—The economic consequences of benefits of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate treatment versus beta interferons and glatiramer acetate on ability to work of multiple sclerosis patients in Italy. Value Health. 2018;21:S341–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2042 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2042
Thomas N, Ma E, Yu EB. PND23—Economic implications of replacing interferon beta-1a with ocrelizumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2017;20(5):A191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005
Brown MG, Murray TJ, Sketris IS, Fisk JD, LeBlanc JC, Schwartz CE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1b in slowing multiple sclerosis disability progression. First estimates. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(3):751–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026646230010203x .
doi: 10.1017/s026646230010203x
pubmed: 11028131
Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Commentary: evaluating disease modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 2003;326(7388):522. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7388.522 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7388.522
pubmed: 12623909
pmcid: 150460
Janković SM, Kostić M, Radosavljević M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on data a Balkan country in socioeconomic transition. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2009;66(7):556–62. https://doi.org/10.2298/vsp0907556j .
doi: 10.2298/vsp0907556j
pubmed: 19678581
Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, Miller P, Thomas S, Bates D. A cost-utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(4):iii–54.
doi: 10.3310/hta2040
Tappenden P, McCabe C, Chilcott J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the Medicare population. Value Health. 2009;12(5):657–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00485.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00485.x
pubmed: 19508662
Zimmermann M, Brouwer E, Tice JA,et al. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting and primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a cost-utility analysis. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(12):1145–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-018-0566-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s40263-018-0566-9
pubmed: 30141001
Chanatittarat C, Chaikledkaew U, Prayoonwiwat N, et al. Cost-utility analysis of multiple sclerosis treatment in Thailand. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462318003604 .
doi: 10.1017/s0266462318003604
pubmed: 30560761
Dashputre AA, Kamal KM, Pawar G. Cost-effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a and alemtuzumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(6):666–76. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.6.666 .
doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.6.666
pubmed: 28530523
Forbes RB, Lees A, Waugh N, Swingler RJ. Population based cost utility study of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1999;319(7224):1529–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7224.1529 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7224.1529
Lee S, Baxter DC, Limone B, Roberts MS, Coleman CI. 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. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.693553 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.693553
pubmed: 22583065
Sawad AB, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Turkistani F. Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for treatment relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Comp Eff Res. 2017;6(2):97–108. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0056 .
doi: 10.2217/cer-2016-0056
pubmed: 28118731
Zhang X, Hay JW, Niu X. Cost effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate and intramuscular interferon-β1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2015;29(1):71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-014-0207-x .
doi: 10.1007/s40263-014-0207-x
pubmed: 25326785
Kremer IEH, Hiligsmann M, Carlson J, et al. Exploring the cost effectiveness of shared decision making for choosing between disease-modifying drugs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands: a state transition model. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(8):1003–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x20961091 .
doi: 10.1177/0272989x20961091
pubmed: 33174513
pmcid: 7672783
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. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2014.890936 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.890936
pubmed: 24494728
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0478-z .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0478-z
pubmed: 23615954
Herring W, Gould IG, Ruiz L, Dort T, Zhang Y, Acosta C, et al. PND56—A cost-effectiveness analysis using real-world data from the MSBase registry: comparing natalizumab to fingolimod in patients with inadequate response to disease-modifying therapies in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain. Value Health. 2018;21:S338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2022 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2022
Poveda JL, Trillo JL, Rubio-Terrés C, Rubio-Rodríguez D, Polanco A, Torres C. Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets and fingolimod in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in Spain. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2019.1635014 .
doi: 10.1080/14737167.2019.1635014
pubmed: 31220959
Ruiz L, Machado M, Toro-Diaz H, Cele C, Hernandez L, Harrington A. PND39−Cost effectiveness analysis of dimethyl fumarate versus teriflunomide for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2017;20(9):A724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1952 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1952
Ruiz L, Toro-Diaz H, Cele C, Hernandez L, Harrington A. PND35—Cost-effectiveness analysis of peginterferon beta-1a vs. first-line injectable disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain. Value Health. 2017;20(9):A723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1948 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1948
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Natalizumab 300mg concentrate for solution for infusion (Tysabri®) (No. 329/06). 2006. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/medicines-advice/natalizumab-300mg-concentrate-for-solution-for-infusion-tysabri-fullsubmission-32906/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Resubmission natalizumab 300mg concentrate for solution for infusion (Tysabri®) No. (329/06). 2007. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/2028/natalizumab_300mg_concentrate_for_solution_for_infusion__tysabri__resubmission_final_august_2007_for_website.pdf . Accessed 13 Jan 2021.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Dimethyl fumarate 120mg, 240mg gastro-resistant hard capsules (Tecfidera®) SMC No. (886/13). 2013. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/1570/dimethyl_fumarate__tecifidera__final_july_2013_amended_030414_for_website.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Resubmission fingolimod (as hydrochloride), 0.5mg hard capsules (Gilenya®) SMC No. (763/12). 2012. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/1733/fingolimod_gilenya_resubmission_final_august_2012_amended_300812.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Peginterferon-beta-1a 63, 94 and 125 microgram solution for injection in pre-filled syringe (Plegridy®) SMC No. (1018/14). 2014. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/2127/peginterferon_beta_1a__plegridy__final_dec_2014_for_website.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Scottish Medicine Consortium. Alemtuzumab, 12mg, concentrate for solution for infusion (Lemtrada®) SMC No. (959/14). 2014. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/1224/alemtuzumab_lemtrada_final_april_2014_amended_240414_020714_for_website.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Fingolimod 0.5mg hard capsules (Gilenya®) SMC No. (1038/15). 2015. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/1732/fingolimod__gilenya__final_march_2015_amended_070415_for_website.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Cladribine 10mg tablet (Mavenclad®) SMC No (1300/18). 2018. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/3097/cladribine_mavenclad_final_jan_2018_amended_070218_for_website.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC). Ocrelizumab 300mg concentrate for solution for infusion (Ocrevus®). 2018. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/3966/ocrelizumab-ocrevus-rrms-resub-final-nov-2018-amended-051218-for-website.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Natalizumab for the treatment of adults with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (TA127). NICE; 2007. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta127 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Fingolimod for the treatment of highly active relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (TA254). NICE; 2012. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta254/documents/manufacturer-submission-from-novartis2 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Dimethyl fumarate for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. NICE; 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta320/documents/multiple-sclerosis-relapsingremitting-dimethyl-fumarate-evaluation-report2 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Alemtuzumab for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (TA312). NICE; 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta312 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Teriflunomide for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (TA303). NICE; 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta303 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (TA527). NICE; 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA527 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ocrelizumab for treating relapsing multiple sclerosis. NICE; 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta533/documents/committee-papers . Accessed 18 Jan 2021.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Cladribine for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis technology appraisal guidance (TA616). NICE; 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta616 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH therapeutic review. Comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. 2013. https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/TR0004_RRMS_ScienceReport_e.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH common drug review. Pharmacoeconomic review report for teriflunomide (Aubagio) (14 mg film-coated tablet). 2014. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/SR0350_Aubagio_PE_Report_e.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH common drug review. Pharmacoeconomic review report for alemtuzumab (Lemtrada, intravenous). 2014. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/SR0405_Lemtrada_RRMS_PE_Report.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH common drug review. Pharmacoeconomic review report Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) version 1.0. 2017. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/SR0519_Ocrevus_RMS%20_PE_Report.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH common drug review. Pharmacoeconomic review report for daclizumab (Zinbryta). 2017. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/SR0508_Zinbryta_PE_Report.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH common drug review. Pharmacoeconomic review report for cladribine (Mavenclad). 2018. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/SR0546_Mavenclad_PE_Report.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.06.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.06.012
pubmed: 22749258
Brandes DW, Raimundo K, Agashivala N, Kim E. Implications of real-world adherence on cost-effectiveness analysis in multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2013;16(4):547–51. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2013.774281 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2013.774281
pubmed: 23391123
Goldberg LD, Edwards NC, Fincher C, Doan QV, Al-Sabbagh A, Meletiche DM. 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. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.7.543 .
doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.7.543
pubmed: 19739877
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.03.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.03.019
pubmed: 20435242
O’Day K, Meyer K, Miller RM, Agarwal S, Franklin M. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2011;14(5):617–27. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2011.602444 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2011.602444
pubmed: 21777161
O’Day K, Meyer K, Stafkey-Mailey D, Watson C. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: analyses in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2015;18(4):295–302. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2014.991786 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.991786
pubmed: 25422991
All Wales Therapeutics and Toxicology Centre. AWMSG Secretariat Assessment Report. Fingolimod (Gilenya®) 0.5 mg hard capsules. Reference number: 3135. 2016. https://awmsg.nhs.wales/files/appraisals-asar-far/appraisal-report-fingolimod-gilenya-3135/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Guo S, Bozkaya D, Ward A, et al. Treating relapsing multiple sclerosis with subcutaneous versus intramuscular interferon-beta-1a: modelling the clinical and economic implications. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(1):39–53. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200927010-00005 .
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200927010-00005
pubmed: 19178123
Montgomery SM, Kusel J, Nicholas R, Adlard N. Costs and effectiveness of fingolimod versus alemtuzumab in the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK: re-treatment, discount, and disutility. J Med Econ. 2017;20(9):962–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1345748 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1345748
pubmed: 28635362
Montgomery SM, Maruszczak MJ, Slater D, Kusel J, Nicholas R, Adlard N. A discrete event simulation to model the cost-utility of fingolimod and natalizumab in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK. J Med Econ. 2017;20(5):474–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1276070 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1276070
pubmed: 28008769
Brett McQueen R, Nair KV, Vollmer TL, Campbell JD. Incorporating real-world clinical practice in multiple sclerosis economic evaluations. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(6):869–72. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2015.1081060 .
doi: 10.1586/14737167.2015.1081060
pubmed: 26295727
Silverio N, Fonseca A. PND65—Cost-effectiveness analysis of drugs used for the treatment of highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Portugal. Value Health. 2018;21:S340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2031 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2031
Rosim R, Rigolon J, Fahham L. PND3—Cost-utility analysis of natalizumab as first line therapy for highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis from a Brazilian private payer perspective. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;19:S59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.333 .
doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.333
Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15(12):1295–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1148 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.1148
pubmed: 16941543
Salleh S, Thokala P, Brennan A, Hughes R, Booth A. Simulation modelling in healthcare: an umbrella review of systematic literature reviews. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(9):937–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0523-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0523-3
pubmed: 28560492
Chirikov V, Ma I, Joshi N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab in the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Value Health. 2019;22(2):168–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.011
pubmed: 30711061
Frasco MA, Shih T, Incerti D, Diaz Espinosa O, Vania DK, Thomas N. Incremental net monetary benefit of ocrelizumab relative to subcutaneous interferon β-1a. J Med Econ. 2017;20(10):1074–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1357564 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1357564
pubmed: 28726530
Hettle R, Harty G, Wong SL. Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets, alemtuzumab, and natalizumab in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in England. J Med Econ. 2018;21(7):676–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1461630 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1461630
pubmed: 29618273
Rock M, Dort T, Snyder S, Gitlin M. PND18—Clinical and economic impact of initiating dimethyl fumarate versus other disease modyfing therapies in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Germany. Value Health. 2019;22:S273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1292 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1292
Rock M, Rosim RP, Rigolon J, Dort T, Snyder S, Gitlin M. PND11—Economic impact of initiating dimethyl fumarate versus other disease modifying therapies in publicly insured Brazilian patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;19:S61.
doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.341
Xu Y, Mao N, Chirikov V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of teriflunomide compared to interferon beta-1b for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in China. Clin Drug Investig. 2019;39(3):331–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-019-00750-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40261-019-00750-3
pubmed: 30684251
pmcid: 6400872
Gaitova K, Tamabekov Y. PND7—cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in Kazakhstan. Value Health Reg Issues. 2020;22:S75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2020.07.395 .
doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2020.07.395
School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR). Cost effectiveness of beta interferons and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research; 2001. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta32/documents/assessment-report-on-the-use-of-beta-interferon-and-glatiramer-acetate-for-multiple-sclerosis-scharr-report2 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of natalizumab for multiple sclerosis: an evidence review of the submission from biogen. NICE; 2007. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta127/documents/multiple-sclerosis-natalizumab-evaluation-report-evidence-review-group-report2 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
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. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826070-00008 .
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826070-00008
pubmed: 18563952
Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Masterman T, Jönsson B. Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in Sweden. Eur J Neurol. 2001;8(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-1331.2001.00169.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2001.00169.x
pubmed: 11509078
Kobelt G, Jönsson L, Fredrikson S. Cost-utility of interferon beta in the treatment of patients with active relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4(1):50–9.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-002-0163-0
Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Smala A, et al. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: an observational study in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2001;2(2):60–8.
doi: 10.1007/s101980100057
Kobelt G, Jönsson L, Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Jönsson B. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(03):768–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300102041 .
doi: 10.1017/S0266462300102041
pubmed: 11028132
Palace J, Bregenzer T, Tremlett H, Oger J, Zhu F, Boggild M, et al. UK multiple sclerosis risk-sharing scheme: a new natural history dataset and an improved Markov model. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1): e004073. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004073 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004073
pubmed: 24441054
pmcid: 3902459
Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Parkin D, Francis DA, Johnson M, Bates D et al. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in the UK. 2000. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/hastef/0398.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75007.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75007.x
pubmed: 15367251
Ebers GC, Koopman WJ, Hader W, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study: 8: familial multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2000;123(3):641–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.3.641 .
doi: 10.1093/brain/123.3.641
pubmed: 10686184
Bell C, Graham J, Earnshaw S, Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Johnson K. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on long-term clinical data. J Manag Care Pharm. 2007;13(3):245–61. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2007.13.3.245 .
doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2007.13.3.245
pubmed: 17407391
Hashemi-Meshkini A, Zekri HS, Karimi-Yazdi H, Zaboli P, Sahraian MA, Nikfar S. Pegylated versus non-pegylated interferon beta 1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Iran J Neurol. 2018;17(3):123–8.
pubmed: 30886679
pmcid: 6420694
Bozkaya D, Livingston T, Migliaccio-Walle K, Odom T. The cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2017;20(3):297–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1258366 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1258366
pubmed: 27822961
Chevalier J, Chamoux C, Hammès F, Chicoye A. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a French societal perspective. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3): e0150703. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150703 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150703
pubmed: 26987055
pmcid: 4795754
Hernandez L, Guo S, Kinter E, Fay M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of peginterferon beta-1a compared with interferon beta-1a and glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. J Med Econ. 2016;19(7):684–95. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2016.1157080 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2016.1157080
pubmed: 26947984
Kobelt G, Jönsson L, Miltenburger C, Jönsson B. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1B in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using natural history disease data. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(1):127–38.
pubmed: 11987436
Mauskopf J, Fay M, Iyer R, Sarda S, Livingston T. Cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. J Med Econ. 2016;19(4):432–42. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2015.1135805 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1135805
pubmed: 26707273
Taheri S, Sahraian MA, Yousefi N. Cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab and natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Iran: decision analysis based on an indirect comparison. J Med Econ. 2019;22(1):71–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1543189 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1543189
pubmed: 30380350
Walter E, Berger T, Bajer-Kornek B, Deisenhammer F. Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta, fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria. J Med Econ. 2019;22(3):226–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1556668 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1556668
pubmed: 30522373
Phillips CJ, Gilmour L, Gale R, Palmer M. A cost utility model of interferon beta-1b in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2001;4(1–4):35–50. https://doi.org/10.3111/200104035050 .
doi: 10.3111/200104035050
Centonze D, Iannazzo S, Santoni L, et al. The economic profile of peginterferon beta-1a in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. Mult Scler Demyelinating Disord. 2017;2(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40893-017-0030-6 .
doi: 10.1186/s40893-017-0030-6
Smith A, Hashemi L, Wandstrat T. PND34—Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: US payer perspective. Value Health. 2017;20(5):A193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005
Touchette DR, Durgin TL, Wanke LA, Goodkin DE. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80100-5 .
doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80100-5
pubmed: 12749517
Lasalvia P, Hernández F, Castañeda-Cardona C, Cuestas JA, Rosselli D. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab compared with fingolimod for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Colombia. Value Health Reg Issues. 2020;23:13–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.481 .
doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.481
pubmed: 31999987
Giovannoni G, Brex PA, Dhiraj D, et al. Glatiramer acetate as a clinically and cost-effective treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis over 10 years of use within the National Health Service: final results from the UK Risk Sharing Scheme. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2019;5(4):2055217319893103. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055217319893103 .
doi: 10.1177/2055217319893103
pubmed: 31839981
pmcid: 6896140
Nikfar S, Kebriaeezadeh A, Dinarvand R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of different interferon beta products for relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: Decision analysis based on long-term clinical data and switchable treatments. Daru. 2013;21(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1186/2008-2231-21-50 .
doi: 10.1186/2008-2231-21-50
pubmed: 23800250
pmcid: 3698128
Phelps H, Treharne C, Ramirez Guevara G, Bertranou E. PND73—The impact of modelling subsequent treatment on estimates of cost-effectiveness: an analysis of disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018;21:S341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2039 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2039
Pinheiro BA, Guerreiro R, Costa J, Silva ML. PND62—Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets in the treatment of patients with highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Portugal. Value Health. 2018;21:S339.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2028
Earnshaw SR, Graham J, Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Johnson K. Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03256144 .
doi: 10.1007/bf03256144
pubmed: 19731967
Imani A, Golestani M. Cost-utility analysis of disease-modifying drugs in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Iran. Iran J Neurol. 2012;11(3):87–90.
pubmed: 24250871
pmcid: 3829258
Furneri G, Santoni L, Ricella C, Prosperini L. Cost-effectiveness analysis of escalating to natalizumab or switching among immunomodulators in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):436. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4264-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4264-1
pubmed: 31253138
pmcid: 6599237
Soini E, Joutseno J, Sumelahti ML. Cost-utility of first-line disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2017;39(3):537-57.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.01.028 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.01.028
pubmed: 28209373
All Wales Therapeutics and Toxicology Centre. AWMSG Secretariat Assessment Report. Peginterferon beta-1a (Plegridy®) 63 micrograms, 94 micrograms and 125 micrograms solution for injection in pre-filled pen. Reference number: 2013. 2015. http://www.awmsg.org/awmsgonline/app/appraisalinfo/2013 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Haute Autorité de Santé. Tecfidera® (dimethyl fumarate) efficacy opinion. 2014. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_1743058/fr/tecfidera-dimethyl-fumarate-traitement-de-fond-de-la-sclerose-en-plaques . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Couto E, Hamidi V, Ringerike T, Odgaard-Jensen J, Harboe I, Klemp M. Medicines used for multiple sclerosis: a Health Technology Assessment. Report from Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of Public Health; 2016.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: effectiveness and value. 2017. http://icerorg.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CTAF_MS_Final_Report_030617.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Alsaqa’aby MF, Vaidya V, Khreis N, Khairallah TA, Al-Jedai AH. Cost-effectiveness of oral agents in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis compared to interferon-based therapy in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2017;37(6):433–43. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2017.433 .
doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2017.433
pubmed: 29229891
pmcid: 6074120
Djambazov S, Vekov T. PND31—Cost-effectiveness analysis of alemtuzumab for the treatment of multiple sclerosis in Bulgaria, 2016. Value Health. 2017;20(5):A193.
Hua LH, Hersh CM, Morten P, et al. The impact of price reductions after loss of exclusivity in a cost-effectiveness analysis: fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(4):490–8. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.4.490 .
doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.4.490
pubmed: 30917079
Maruszczak MJ, Montgomery SM, Griffiths MJS, Bergvall N, Adlard N. Cost-utility of fingolimod compared with dimethyl fumarate in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in England. J Med Econ. 2015;18(11):874–85. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2015.1056794 .
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1056794
pubmed: 26055952
Michels RE, de Fransesco M, Mahajan K, et al. Cost effectiveness of cladribine tablets for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(6):857–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00500-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00500-8
pubmed: 31444659
pmcid: 6885501
Ayati N, Sahraian MA, Taheri S, Nikfar S. PND45—Ocrelizumab is a cost-effective option for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients, in Iran. Value Health. 2019;22:S744–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1815 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1815
Nuijten MJC, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: a markov process analysis. Value Health. 2002;5(1):44–54. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4733.2002.51052.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2002.51052.x
pubmed: 11873383
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458507086667 .
doi: 10.1177/1352458507086667
pubmed: 18566030
Kourkoulas N, Athanasakis K, Theodorou M, Kyriopoulos J. PND66—Cost effectiveness analysis of alemtuzumab as a treatment option for patients with multiple sclerosis in Cyprus. Value Health. 2018;21:S340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2032 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2032
Orme M, Kerrigan J, Tyas D, Russell N, Nixon R. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health. 2007;10(1):54–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00144.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00144.x
pubmed: 17261116
Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2003;9(3):311–9. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458503ms903oa .
doi: 10.1191/1352458503ms903oa
Hernandez L, Guo S, Toro-Diaz H, Carroll S, Syed Farooq SF. Peginterferon beta-1a versus other self-injectable disease-modifying therapies in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Scotland: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Econ. 2017;20(3):228–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1247712 .
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1247712
pubmed: 27730845
Pokorski RJ. Long-term survival experience of patients with multiple sclerosis. J Insur Med. 1997;29(2):101–6.
pubmed: 10169627
Hirst C, Swingler R, Compston DA, Ben-Shlomo Y, Robertson NP. Survival and cause of death in multiple sclerosis: a prospective population-based study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(9):1016–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2007.127332 .
doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2007.127332
pubmed: 18303108
Cutter GR, Zimmerman J, Salter AR, et al. Causes of death among persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4(5):484–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2015.07.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2015.07.008
pubmed: 26346799
Sadovnick AD, Ebers GC, Wilson RW, Paty DW. Life expectancy in patients attending multiple sclerosis clinics. Neurology. 1992;42(5):991–4. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.42.5.991 .
doi: 10.1212/wnl.42.5.991
pubmed: 1579256
The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis I. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology. 1993;43(4):655–61. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.43.4.655 .
doi: 10.1212/wnl.43.4.655
The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Interferon beta-1b in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: final outcome of the randomized controlled trial. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Neurology. 1995;45(7):1277–85.
doi: 10.1212/WNL.45.7.1277
Sumelahti ML, Hakama M, Elovaara I, Pukkala E. Causes of death among patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2010;16(12):1437–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458510379244 .
doi: 10.1177/1352458510379244
pubmed: 20826526
Koch-Henriksen N. The Danish multiple sclerosis registry: a 50-year follow-up. Mult Scler J. 1999;5(4):293–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/135245859900500418 .
doi: 10.1177/135245859900500418
Leray E, Morrissey SP, Yaouanq J, Coustans M, Le Page E, Chaperon J, et al. Long-term survival of patients with multiple sclerosis in West France. Mult Scler J. 2007;13(7):865–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458507077410 .
doi: 10.1177/1352458507077410
Kingwell E, van der Kop M, Zhao Y, Shirani A, Zhu F, Oger J, et al. Relative mortality and survival in multiple sclerosis: findings from British Columbia, Canada. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012;83(1):61–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2011-300616 .
doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2011-300616
pubmed: 21865212
Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444–52. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444 .
doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444
pubmed: 6685237
Deloire MS, Bonnet MC, Salort E, Arimone Y, Boudineau M, Petry KG, et al. How to detect cognitive dysfunction at early stages of multiple sclerosis? Mult Scler. 2006;12(4):445–52. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458506ms1289oa .
doi: 10.1191/1352458506ms1289oa
pubmed: 16900758
Islas MAA, Ciampi E. Assessment and impact of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: an overview. Biomedicines. 2019;7(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines7010022 .
doi: 10.3390/biomedicines7010022
Strober L, DeLuca J, Benedict RH, et al. Symbol Digit Modalities Test: a valid clinical trial endpoint for measuring cognition in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2019;25(13):1781–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458518808204 .
doi: 10.1177/1352458518808204
pubmed: 30334474
Strauss E, Sherman EMS, Spreen O. A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms and commentary. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Hernandez L, O’Donnell M, Postma M. Modeling approaches in cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: an updated systematic review and recommendations for future economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(10):1223–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0683-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0683-9
pubmed: 29971666
Palace J, Duddy M, Lawton M, et al. Assessing the long-term effectiveness of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis: final 10-year results from the UK multiple sclerosis risk-sharing scheme. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(3):251. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2018-318360 .
doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318360
pubmed: 30242090
Weideman AM, Tapia-Maltos MA, Johnson K, Greenwood M, Bielekova B. Meta-analysis of the age-dependent efficacy of multiple sclerosis treatments. Front Neurol. 2017;8:577.
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00577
Alexander J, Beygi H, Feldman P, Ashtamker N. Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of three-times weekly dosing regimen of glatiramer acetate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients: 5-year results of the Glatiramer Acetate Low-Frequency Administration (GALA) open-label extension study (P6.378). Neurology. 2018;90(15 Suppl):6–378.
Cohen JA, Tenenbaum N, Bhatt A, Zhang Y, Kappos L. Extended treatment with fingolimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis: the 14-year LONGTERMS study results. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756286419878324 .
doi: 10.1177/1756286419878324
pubmed: 31598139
pmcid: 6763939
Hauser SL, Kappos L, Arnold DL, et al. Five years of ocrelizumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2020;95(13): e1854. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000010376 .
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010376
pubmed: 32690791
pmcid: 7682822
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE; 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.x
pubmed: 19900249
Oreja-Guevara C, Ayuso Blanco T, Brieva Ruiz L, Hernández Pérez MÁ, Meca-Lallana V, Ramió-Torrentà L. Cognitive dysfunctions and assessments in multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol. 2019;10:581. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00581 .
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00581
pubmed: 31214113
pmcid: 6558141
Harding K, Anderson V, Williams O, et al. A contemporary study of mortality in the multiple sclerosis population of south east Wales. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;25:186–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2018.08.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.08.001
pubmed: 30099203