Fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in Iran

References

• Heisen M, Treur MJ, Hel WS, et al. Fingolimod reduces direct medical costs compared to natalizumab in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1149–1158.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mao P, Reddy PH. Is multiple sclerosis a mitochondrial disease? Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1802(1):66–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso A, Jick SS, Olek MJ, et al. Incidence of multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom: findings from a population-based cohort. J Neurol. 2007;254(12):1736–1741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley W, Daroff R, Fenichel G, et al. Neurology in clinical pratice: Principles of diagnosis and management. 4th ed. New York (NY): Butterworth & Heinemann; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• O'Day K, Meyer K, Miller RM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2011;14(5):617–627.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Milo R, Miller A. Revised diagnostic criteria of multiple sclerosis. Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13(4–5):518–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pittock SJ, McClelland RL, Mayr WT, et al. Clinical implications of benign multiple sclerosis: a 20-year population-based follow-up study. Ann Neurol. 2004;56(2):303–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 J Pharm Sci. 2013;21(1):50–63.
   Google Scholar
• Saraste M, Atula S, Hedman K, et al. Humoral response to John Cunningham virus during pregnancy in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;21:11–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilokthornsakul P, Valuck RJ, Nair KV, et al. Multiple sclerosis prevalence in the United States commercially insured population. Neurology. 2016;86(11):1014–1021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch-Henriksen N, Sorensen P. The changing demographic pattern of multiple sclerosis epidemiology. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(5):520–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pugliatti M, Rosatia G, Carton H, et al. The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Eur J Neurol. 2006;13(7):700–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etemadifar M, Izadi S, Nikseresht A, et al. Estimated prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis in Iran. Eur Neurol. 2014;72(5–6):370–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Izadi S, Nikseresht AR, Poursadeghfard M, et al. Prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis in Fars province, Southern Iran. Iran J Med Sci. 2015;40(5):390–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trisolini M, Honeycutt M, Wiener J, et al. Global economic impact of multiple sclerosis. London: Multiple Sclerosis International Federation. 2010. Available from: www.msif.org/en/…/global_economic_impact_of_ms/index.html/. Last accessed on 2016.9.12
   Google Scholar
• Adelman G, Rane SG, Villa KF. The cost burden of multiple sclerosis in the United States: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Econ. 2013;16(5):639–647.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kobelt G, Thompson A, Berg J, et al. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Mult Scler J. 2017;23(8):1123–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imani A, Rasekh HA, Asefzadeh A, et al. Cost analysis of disease-modifying drugs therapy for patients with multiple sclerosis in Iran. Am J Sci Res. 2012(67):95–102. ISSN 2301-2005 Issue 67 (2012), pp. 95–102 . Available from: http://kmu.ac.ir/Images/Archive/cost%20analysis%20in%20MS_1.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Thompson JP, Abdolahi A, Noyes K. Modelling the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(6):455–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gajofatto A, Benedetti MD. Treatment strategies for multiple sclerosis: when to start, when to change, when to stop? World J Clin Cases. 2015;3(7):545–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auerbach P. Natalizumab for multiple sclerosis. Harvard Health Publication. Drugs.com. 2016. Available from: http://www.drugs.com/cdi/natalizumab.html. Last accessed on 2016.4.20.
   Google Scholar
• Scott LJ. Fingolimod: a review of its use in the management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2011;25(8):673–698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warnke C, Stüve O, Hartung HP, et al. Critical appraisal of the role of fingolimod in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2011;7(1):519–527.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bozkaya D, Livingston T, Migliaccio-Walle K, et al. The cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2016;20(3):297–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Day K, Meyer K, Stafkey-Mailey D, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crespo C, Izquierdo G, García-Ruiz A, et al. Cost minimisation analysis of fingolimod vs. natalizumab as a second line of treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurologia. 2014;29(4):210–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gani R, Giovannoni G, Kemball DB, et al. 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):617–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee S, Baxter DC, Limone B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1088–1096.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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):355–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an extended disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohol M, Orav E, Weiner H. Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: a simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology. 1995;45(2):251–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dembek C, White LA, Quach J, et al. 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):353–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdoli G. Estimation social discount rate for Iran. Econ Res Rev. 2009;10(3):135–156.
   Google Scholar
• Robberstad B. Estimation of private and social time preferences for health in northern Tanzania. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(7):1597–1607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun X, Faunce T. Decision-analytical modelling in health-care economic evaluations. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9(4):313–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scalfari A, Neuhaus A, Degenhardt A, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study 10: relapses and long-term disability. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1914–1929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runmarker B, Andersen O. Prognostic factors in a multiple sclerosis incidence cohort with twenty-five years of follow-up. Brain. 1993;116(Pt1):117–134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoyert DL, Xu J. Deaths: preliminary data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012;61(6):1–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen JA, Barkhof F, Comi G, et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):402–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(1):1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasoumi M, Nasehi M, Khakian M, et al. Cost of illness of tuberculosis in Tehran in the year 2011. Mater Sociomed. 2014;26(5):339–342.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lopez-Bastida J, Oliva-Moreno J, Perestelo-Perez L, et al. The economic costs and health-related quality of life of people with HIV/AIDS in the Canary Islands, Spain. BioMed Central Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Exchange rate. 2016. Available from: http://www.cbi.ir/default_en.aspx. Last accessed on 2016.9.17
   Google Scholar
• Roskell NS, Zimovetz EA, Rycroft CE, et al. Annualized relapse rate of first-line treatments for multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis, including indirect comparisons versus fingolimod. CMRO. 2012;28(5):767–780.
   Google Scholar
• Inusah S, Sormani MP, Cofield SS, et al. Assessing changes in relapse rates in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010;16(12):1414–1421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touboul C, Amate P, Ballester M, et al. Quality of life assessment using EuroQOL EQ-5D questionnaire in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis: the relation with symptoms and locations. Int J Chron Dis. 2013;2013:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of healthcare technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 1994;3(2):95–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The World Bank. GDP per capita, PPP (current international $). 2016. World Bank Group. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP. Last accessed on 2016.9.17
   Google Scholar
• Cohen BA. Identification, causation, alleviation, and prevention of complications (ICAP): an approach to symptom and disability management in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2008;71(24):14–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achiron A, Gabbay U, Gilad R, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in multiple sclerosis. Effect on relapses. Neurology. 1998;50(2):398–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Hay JW, Niu X. Cost effectiveness of fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate and intramuscular interferon-beta1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2015;29(1):71–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery SM, Maruszczak MJ, Slater D, et al. 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):474–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar