Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying drugs of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Cost-utility analysis
Disease-modifying drugs
Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis
Journal
Health economics review
ISSN: 2191-1991
Titre abrégé: Health Econ Rev
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101583209
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Feb 2024
16 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
25
03
2023
accepted:
11
01
2024
medline:
16
2
2024
pubmed:
16
2
2024
entrez:
16
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, autoimmune, and inflammatory disease. The economic burden of MS is substantial, and the high cost of Disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) prices are the main drivers of healthcare expenditures. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of DMDs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. The search covered articles published between May 2001 and May 2023. Studies that were written in English and Persian and examined the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of DMDs in patients with MS were included in our review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, and the quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the Quality of Health Economics Studies Instrument (QHES). All costs were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars using Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). The search yielded 1589 studies, and 49 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were mainly based on a European setting. Most studies employed Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness. The lowest and highest numerical value of outcome measures were -1,623,918 and 2,297,141.53, respectively. Furthermore, the lowest and highest numerical value of the cost of DMDs of RRMS were $180.67, and $1474840.19, respectively. Based on the results of all studies, it can be concluded that for the treatment of patients with MS, care-oriented strategies should be preferred to drug strategies. Also, among the drug strategies with different prescribing methods, oral disease-modifying drugs of RRMS should be preferred to injectable drugs and intravenous infusions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, autoimmune, and inflammatory disease. The economic burden of MS is substantial, and the high cost of Disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) prices are the main drivers of healthcare expenditures. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of DMDs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).
MATERIALS AND METHOD
METHODS
Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. The search covered articles published between May 2001 and May 2023. Studies that were written in English and Persian and examined the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of DMDs in patients with MS were included in our review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, and the quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the Quality of Health Economics Studies Instrument (QHES). All costs were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars using Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The search yielded 1589 studies, and 49 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were mainly based on a European setting. Most studies employed Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness. The lowest and highest numerical value of outcome measures were -1,623,918 and 2,297,141.53, respectively. Furthermore, the lowest and highest numerical value of the cost of DMDs of RRMS were $180.67, and $1474840.19, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of all studies, it can be concluded that for the treatment of patients with MS, care-oriented strategies should be preferred to drug strategies. Also, among the drug strategies with different prescribing methods, oral disease-modifying drugs of RRMS should be preferred to injectable drugs and intravenous infusions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38363408
doi: 10.1186/s13561-024-00478-7
pii: 10.1186/s13561-024-00478-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
12Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sperandeo K, Nogrady L, Moreo K, Prostko CR. Managed approaches to multiple sclerosis in special populations. J Managed Care Pharm. 2011;17(9 Supp C):1–215.
doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2011.17.s9-c.1
Chilcott J, Miller DH, McCabe C, Tappenden P, O’Hagan A, Cooper NJ, 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.
pubmed: 12623909
pmcid: 150460
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7388.522
Tullman MJ. Overview of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and disease progression associated with multiple sclerosis. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(2 Suppl):S15-20.
pubmed: 23544716
Walton C, King R, Rechtman L, Kaye W, Leray E, Marrie RA, et al. Rising prevalence of multiple sclerosis worldwide: insights from the atlas of MS. Mult Scler J. 2020;26(14):1816–21.
doi: 10.1177/1352458520970841
Etemadifar M, Nikanpour Y, Neshatfar A, Mansourian M, Fitzgerald S. Incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Persian gulf area: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multiple Scleros Related Disord. 2020;40:101959.
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.101959
Solaro C, Gamberini G, Masuccio FG. Depression in multiple sclerosis: epidemiology, aetiology, diagnosis and treatment. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(2):117–33.
pubmed: 29417493
doi: 10.1007/s40263-018-0489-5
Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. Neurology. 1996;46(4):907–11.
pubmed: 8780061
doi: 10.1212/WNL.46.4.907
Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Sørensen PS, Thompson AJ, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83(3):278–86.
pubmed: 24871874
pmcid: 4117366
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560
Markowitz CE. Identifying and addressing unmet therapeutic needs in MS. J Clin Psych. 2015;76(3):0.
Soini E, Joutseno J, Sumelahti M-L. Cost-utility of first-line disease-modifying treatments for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Clin Therapeut. 2017;39(3):537–57 e10.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.01.028
Huygens S, Versteegh M. Modeling the cost-utility of treatment sequences for multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2021;24(11):1612–9.
pubmed: 34711361
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.05.020
Thompson AJ, Baranzini SE, Geurts J, Hemmer B, Ciccarelli O. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet (London, England). 2018;391(10130):1622–36.
pubmed: 29576504
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30481-1
Baharnoori M, Bhan V, Clift F, Thomas K, Mouallif S, Adlard N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ofatumumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada. PharmacoEconomics-Open. 2022;6(6):859–70.
pubmed: 36107307
pmcid: 9596641
doi: 10.1007/s41669-022-00363-1
Kim Y, Krause TM, Blum P, Freeman L. Disease modifying therapies continue to drive up health care cost among individuals with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Scleros Relat Disord. 2019;30:69–75.
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2019.02.006
Weng W, Liang Y, Kimball E, Hobbs T, Kong S, Sakurada B, et al. Drug usage patterns and treatment costs in newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus cases, 2007 vs 2012: findings from a large US healthcare claims database analysis. J Med Econ. 2016;19(7):655–62.
pubmed: 26855139
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2016.1151795
Fernández O, Calleja-Hernández MA, Meca-Lallana J, Oreja-Guevara C, Polanco A, Pérez-Alcántara F. Estimate of the cost of multiple sclerosis in Spain by literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(4):321–33.
pubmed: 28726515
doi: 10.1080/14737167.2017.1358617
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.
pubmed: 26987055
pmcid: 4795754
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150703
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.
pubmed: 26947984
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2016.1157080
Versteegh MM, Huygens SA, Wokke BW, Smolders J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 360 disease-modifying treatment escalation sequences in multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2022;25(6):984–91.
pubmed: 35667786
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1363
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)–EXPLANATION and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–50.
pubmed: 23538175
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002
Chiou C-F, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41(1):32–44.
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.
pubmed: 18563952
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826070-00008
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.
pubmed: 27822961
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1258366
Alsaqa’aby MF, Vaidya V, Khreis N, Al Khairallah T, 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.
pubmed: 29229891
pmcid: 6074120
doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2017.433
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.
pubmed: 27730845
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1247712
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. Iranian J Neurol. 2018;17(3):123.
Dembek C, White LA, Quach J, Szkurhan A, Rashid N, Blasco M. Cost-effectiveness of injectable disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in Spain. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:353–62.
pubmed: 23615954
doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0478-z
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):1–9.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4264-1
Rezaee M, Morowvat MH, Poursadeghfard M, Radgoudarzi A, Keshavarz K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of rituximab versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):118.
pubmed: 35090438
pmcid: 8796500
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07495-4
Schur N, Gudala K, Vudumula U, Vadapalle S, Bhadhuri A, Casanova A, et al. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of siponimod compared to interferon beta-1a in the treatment of adult patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis with active disease in Switzerland. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:563–77.
pubmed: 33791945
pmcid: 8079303
doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01023-8
Janković SM, Kostić M, Radosavljević M, Tešić D, Stefanović-Stoimenov N, Stevanović I, et al. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on data a Balkan country in socioeconomic transition. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2009;66(7):556–62.
pubmed: 19678581
doi: 10.2298/VSP0907556J
Michels RE, de Fransesco M, Mahajan K, Hengstman GJ, Schiffers KM, Budhia S, 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.
pubmed: 31444659
pmcid: 6885501
doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00500-8
Martins P, Vandewalle B, Félix J, Capela CM, Cerqueira JJ, Salgado AV, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Ocrelizumab for the treatment of relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis in Portugal. PharmacoEconomics-Open. 2023;7(2):229–41.
pubmed: 36454397
doi: 10.1007/s41669-022-00381-z
Stanisic S, Bertolotto A, Berto P, Di Procolo P, Morawski J. The cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab in the management of relapse-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. Glob Region Health Technol Assess. 2019;2019:2284240319838524.
Chanatittarat C, Prayoonwiwat N, Siritho S, Pasogpakdee P, Apiwattanakul M, Riewpaiboon A, et al. Cost-utility analysis of multiple sclerosis treatment in Thailand. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(6):584–92.
pubmed: 30560761
doi: 10.1017/S0266462318003604
Imani A, Golestani M, Tabrizi J, Janati A. Cost-utility analysis of disease-modifying drugs in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Iran. Value Health. 2013;16(7):A624.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.1833
Zimmermann M, Brouwer E, Tice JA, Seidner M, Loos AM, Liu S, et al. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing–remitting and primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a cost-utility analysis. CNS Drugs. 2018;32:1145–57.
pubmed: 30141001
doi: 10.1007/s40263-018-0566-9
Espinoza MA, Rojas R, Zaupa A, Balmaceda C. A model-based economic evaluation of cladribine versus alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab and natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in Chile. PharmacoEconomics-Open. 2021;5:635–47.
pubmed: 34224114
pmcid: 8611154
doi: 10.1007/s41669-021-00282-7
Poveda J, Trillo J, 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. 2020;20(3):295–303.
pubmed: 31220959
doi: 10.1080/14737167.2019.1635014
Lazzaro C, Bergamaschi R, Zaffaroni M, Totaro R, Paolicelli D. Cost-utility analysis of teriflunomide in naïve vs. previously treated patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy. Neurol Sci. 2022;43(8):4933–44.
pubmed: 35420360
pmcid: 9349140
doi: 10.1007/s10072-022-06022-x
Maruszczak MJ, Montgomery SM, Griffiths MJ, 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.
pubmed: 26055952
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1056794
Mantovani LG, Furneri G, Bitonti R, Cortesi P, Puma E, Santoni L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dimethyl fumarate in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: an Italian societal perspective. Farmecon Health Econ Therapeut Pathways. 2019;20(1). https://doi.org/10.7175/fe.v20i1.1437 .
Ayati N, Taheri S, Sahraian MA, Nikfar S. Cost-effectiveness of ocrelizumab for treatment of Iranian patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr J Neurol. 2021;20(3):154.
pubmed: 38011445
pmcid: 8984785
Ayati N, Fleifel L, Sharifi S, Sahraian MA, Nikfar S. Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective strategy in high-disease activity relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in Iran. Curr J Neurol. 2021;20(3):146.
pubmed: 38011415
pmcid: 8984780
Pinheiro B, Guerreiro R, Costa J, Miguel LS. Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets versus fingolimod in patients with highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Portugal. J Med Econ. 2020;23(5):484–91.
pubmed: 31951777
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1717499
Nuijten MJ, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health. 2002;5(1):44–54.
pubmed: 11873383
doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2002.51052.x
Becker RV III, Dembek C. Effects of cohort selection on the results of cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying drugs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17(5):377–81.
pubmed: 21657808
Kantor D, Pham T, Patterson-Lomba O, Swallow E, Dua A, Gupte-Singh K. Cost per relapse avoided for Ozanimod versus other selected disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. Neurol Ther. 2023;12(3):849–61.
pubmed: 37000386
pmcid: 10195930
doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00463-y
AlRuthia Y, Balkhi B, Alkhalifah SA, Aljarallah S, Almutairi L, Alanazi M, et al. Real-world comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of different classes of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Saudi Arabia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13261.
pubmed: 34948876
pmcid: 8702157
doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413261
Najafi B, Ghaderi H, Jafari M, Najafi S, Kiadaliri AA. Cost effectiveness analysis of avonex and cinnovex in relapsing remitting MS. Global J Health Sci. 2015;7(2):139.
Zhang X, Hay JW. Cost-effectiveness of Fingolimod, Teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate and intramuscular interferon beta-1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2014;17(3):A59–60.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.351
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(03):751–67.
pubmed: 11028131
doi: 10.1017/S026646230010203X
Smets I, Versteegh M, Huygens S, Corsten C, Wokke B, Smolders J. Health-economic benefits of anti-CD20 treatments in relapsing multiple sclerosis estimated using a treatment-sequence model. Multiple Scleros J-Exper Transl Clin. 2023;9(3):20552173231189400.
doi: 10.1177/20552173231189398
Matni M, Yamout B, Koussa S, Khamis C, Fleifel L, Sharifi S, et al. Economic evaluation of cladribine tablets in high disease activity (HDA) relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) patients in Lebanon. Multiple Scleros Related Disord. 2022;67:104169.
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.104169
Spelman T, Herring WL, Zhang Y, Tempest M, Pearson I, Freudensprung U, et al. 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. PharmacoEconomics. 2022;40:1–17.
Bohlega S, Elboghdady A, Al-Johani A, Mahajan K, Mughari MK, Al-Saqa’aby M, et al. Economic evaluation of Cladribine tablets in patients with high disease activity–relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Value Health Regional Issues. 2021;25:189–95.
doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2021.03.007
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 Regional Issues. 2020;23:13–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.481
Montgomery S, Woodhouse F, Vudumula U, Gudala K, Duddy M, Kroes M. Stick or twist? Cost-effectiveness of siponimod compared with continuing existing disease-modifying therapies in the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in the UK. J Med Econ. 2022;25(1):669–78.
pubmed: 35575251
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2078103
Nakhaipour HR, Vudumula U, Khurana V, Sébire G, Mah JK, Pohl D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon-β1a for the treatment of pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis in Canada. J Med Econ. 2020;23(12):1525–33.
pubmed: 33079578
doi: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1840138
Cortesi PA, Antonazzo IC, Gasperini C, Nica M, Ritrovato D, Mantovani LG. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of siponimod in the treatment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in Italy. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(3):e0264123.
pubmed: 35259168
pmcid: 8903273
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264123
Ginestal R, Rubio-Terrés C, Morán OD, Rubio-Rodríguez D, Los Santos HD, Ordoñez C, et al. Cost–effectiveness of cladribine tablets and dimethyl fumarate in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain. J Compar Effect Res. 2022;12(2):e220193.
Alharbi MA, Aldosari F, Althobaiti AH, Abdullah FM, Aljarallah S, Alkhawajah NM, et al. Clinical and economic evaluations of natalizumab, rituximab, and ocrelizumab for the management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Saudi Arabia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):552.
pubmed: 37237257
pmcid: 10223862
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09462-z
Sawad AB, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Turkistani F. Cost–effectiveness of different strategies for treatment relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Compar Effect Res. 2017;6(2):97–108.
doi: 10.2217/cer-2016-0056
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.
pubmed: 27080475
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2016.1164174
Siddiqui MK, Khurana IS, Budhia S, Hettle R, Harty G, Wong SL. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of cladribine tablets versus alternative disease-modifying treatments for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(8):1361–71.
pubmed: 29149804
doi: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1407303
Nabizadeh F, Mohamadi M, Rahmani S, Rajabi R, Afrashteh F, Najdaghi S, et al. Safety and efficacy of cladribine in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol Sci. 2023;44:1–13.
Hawton A, Green C. Multiple sclerosis: relapses, resource use, and costs. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17:875–84.
pubmed: 26438399
doi: 10.1007/s10198-015-0728-3
McCool R, Wilson K, Arber M, Fleetwood K, Toupin S, Thom H, et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing ocrelizumab with other treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Multiple Scleros Related Disord. 2019;29:55–61.
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.12.040
Chisari CG, Sgarlata E, Arena S, Toscano S, Luca M, Patti F. Rituximab for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a review. J Neurol. 2021;269:159–83.
Gajofatto A, Benedetti MD. Treatment strategies for multiple sclerosis: when to start, when to change, when to stop? World J Clin Cases: WJCC. 2015;3(7):545.
pubmed: 26244148
pmcid: 4517331
doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i7.545
Bergvall N, Petrilla AA, Karkare SU, Lahoz R, Agashivala N, Pradhan A, et al. Persistence with and adherence to fingolimod compared with other disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a retrospective US claims database analysis. J Med Econ. 2014;17(10):696–707.
pubmed: 25019581
doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.940422
Katsarava Z, Ehlken B, Limmroth V, Taipale K, Patel SN, Niemczyk G, et al. Adherence and cost in multiple sclerosis patients treated with IM IFN beta-1a: impact of the CARE patient management program. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:1–10.
doi: 10.1186/s12883-015-0426-x
Fabbri A, Lai A, Grundy Q, Bero LA. The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: a scoping review. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(11):e9–16.
pubmed: 30252531
pmcid: 6187765
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304677