Incorporating patients’ preferences in the value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a narrative review

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Despite the increasing role of patients in the US healthcare system, patients have yet been engaged in the value assessment of their treatments, including disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). The objectives of this review were therefore to summarize existing studies on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and patients’ preferences of DMTs for MS, and to discuss how to incorporate patients’ preferences into the value assessment of DMTs.

Area covered: We reviewed previous systematic reviews and conducted further search until November 2020 for studies on CEA with QALYs and patients’ preferences of DMTs for MS. We identified the outcomes that were assessed or valued in the CEA studies and the DMT attributes that were important to patients with MS.

Expert opinion: Our literature review showed that the studies using CEA with QALYs failed to capture some important DMT attributes, e.g., route and frequency of administration, identified in the studies on the patients’ preferences. Various approaches were available for incorporating the patients’ preferences in the value assessment of DMTs for MS. We supported this incorporation, which subsequently would increase patient access to preferred DMTs.

KEYWORDS:

• Cost-effectiveness analysis
• disease-modifying therapies
• multiple sclerosis
• patients’ preferences
• value assessment

Article highlights

• Study reviews on CEA with QALYs and patients’ preferences of DMTs for MS were updated.

• Studies using CEA with QALYs failed to capture some important DMT attributes, e.g., route and frequency of administration, identified in studies on patients’ preferences of DMTs for MS.

• Various approaches were proposed to incorporate patients’ preferences into the value assessment of DMTs for MS.

Declaration of interest

Surachat Ngorsuraches has previously received a research grant from Bristol Meyers Squibb. The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.