Pharmacoeconomics of synthetic therapies for multiple sclerosis

References

• Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2008;372(9648):1502–1517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico E, Patti F, Zanghi A, et al. Late onset and young onset relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Evidence from a retrospective long-term follow-up study. Eur J Neurol. 2018 Dec;25(12):1425–1431.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koch-Henriksen N, Thygesen LC, Stenager E, et al. Incidence of MS has increased markedly over six decades in Denmark particularly with late onset and in women. Neurology. 2018;90(22):e1954–e63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz Sand I. Classification, diagnosis, and differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28(3):193–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trojano M, Paolicelli D. The differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: classification and clinical features of relapsing and progressive neurological syndromes. Neurol Sci. 2001;22(Suppl 2):S98–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cotsapas C, Mitrovic M, Hafler D. Multiple sclerosis. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;148:723–730.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83(3):278–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ontaneda D, Fox RJ. Progressive multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28(3):237–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico E, Patti F, Zanghì A, et al. A personalized approach in progressive multiple sclerosis: the current status of disease modifying therapies (DMTs) and future perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(10):1725.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremlett H, Zhao Y, Rieckmann P, et al. New perspectives in the natural history of multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2010;74(24):2004–2015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu G, Beadnall HN, Barton J, et al. The evolution of “no evidence of disease activity” in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;20:231–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solaro C, Trabucco E, Signori A, et al. Depressive symptoms correlate with disability and disease course in multiple sclerosis patients: an italian multi-center study using the beck depression inventory. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0160261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tortorella C, Ruggieri M, Di Monte E, et al. Serum and CSF N-acetyl aspartate levels differ in multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82(12):1355–1359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico E, Leone C, Caserta C, et al. Oral drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: an overview and a critical appraisal. Expert Rev Neurother. 2015;15(7):803–824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzke JF. Epidemiology and etiology of multiple sclerosis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005;16(2):327–349.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gitto L. Living with multiple sclerosis in Europe: pharmacological treatments, cost of illness, and health-related quality of life across countries. In: Zagon IS, McLaughlin PJ, editors. Source multiple sclerosis: perspectives in treatment and pathogenesis [Internet]. Brisbane (AU): Codon Publications;2017 Nov. Chapter 2.
   Google Scholar
• Niedziela N, Adamczyk-Sowa M, Pierzchala K. Epidemiology and clinical record of multiple sclerosis in selected countries: a systematic review. Int J Neurosci. 2014;124(5):322–330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch-Henriksen N, Sorensen PS. The changing demographic pattern of multiple sclerosis epidemiology. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(5):520–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson LM, Wallin MT, Marrie RA, et al. A new way to estimate neurologic disease prevalence in the United States: illustrated with MS. Neurology. 2019;92(10):469–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin DS. The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: insights to disease pathogenesis. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;122:231–266.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ernstsson O, Gyllensten H, Alexanderson K, et al. Cost of illness of multiple sclerosis – a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birnbaum HG, Ivanova JI, Samuels S, et al. Economic impact of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying drugs in an employed population: direct and indirect costs. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(4):869–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patti F, Amato MP, Trojano M, et al. Multiple sclerosis in Italy: cost-of-illness study. Neurol Sci. 2011;32(5):787–794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castrop F, Haslinger B, Hemmer B, et al. Review of the pharmacoeconomics of early treatment of multiple sclerosis using interferon beta. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2013;9:1339–1349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karampampa K, Gustavsson A, Miltenburger C, et al. Treatment experience, burden and unmet needs (TRIBUNE) in MS study: results from five European countries. Mult Scler. 2012;18(2 Suppl):7–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-De la Rosa R, Sabater E, Ma C. Budget impact analysis of the first-line treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain. Rev Neurol. 2011;53(3):129–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karampampa K, Gustavsson A, Miltenburger C, et al. Treatment experience, burden and unmet needs (TRIBUNE) in MS study: results from Italy. Mult Scler. 2012;18(2 Suppl):29–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazzaro C, Bianchi C, Peracino L, et al. Economic evaluation of treating clinically isolated syndrome and subsequent multiple sclerosis with interferon beta-1b. Neurol Sci. 2009;30(1):21–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobelt G, Thompson A, Berg J, et al. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Mult Scler. 2017;23(8):1123–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobelt G, Berg J, Atherly D, et al. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in the United States. Neurology. 2006;66(11):1696–1702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Masterman T, et al. Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in Sweden. Eur J Neurol. 2001;8(1):27–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, et al. Costs and quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis in Europe. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77(8):918–926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(2):93–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamidi V, Couto E, Ringerike T, et al. A multiple treatment comparison of eleven disease-modifying drugs used for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(2):88–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jakubiak-Lasocka J, Jakubczyk M. Cost-effectiveness versus cost-utility analyses: what are the motives behind using each and how do their results differ? – A polish example. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;4:66–74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iannazzo S, Iliza AC, Perrault L. Disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(2):189–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown MG. Cost of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2015;84(21):e181–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toosy A, Ciccarelli O, Thompson A. Symptomatic treatment and management of multiple sclerosis. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;122:513–562.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Curkendall SM, Wang C, Johnson BH, et al. Potential health care cost savings associated with early treatment of multiple sclerosis using disease-modifying therapy. Clin Ther. 2011;33(7):914–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan F, Goh JW, Cutter G, et al. 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):1966–1976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naci H, Fleurence R, Birt J, et al. Economic burden of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(5):363–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, et al. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2000;6(2):91–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriksson F, Jonsson B. The economic cost of multiple sclerosis in Sweden in 1994. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(5 Pt 2):597–606.
   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
• Wim Goettsch. EUnetHTA JA3 an update and future initiatives. European network for Health Technology Assessment. Available from: www.eunethta.eu. Brussel, February 15, 2018. Accessed on Febrauary 28, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Financial Planning for a Life with Multiple Sclerosis©. 2017 National Multiple Sclerosis Society, January 2017. Accessed on Febrauary 28, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Fogarty E, Schmitz S, Tubridy N, et al. Comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies for patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;9:23–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico E, Leone C, Zanghi A, et al. Lateral and escalation therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a comparative study. J Neurol. 2016;263(9):1802–1809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garattini L, Ghislandi F, Da Costa MR. Cost-effectiveness modeling in multiple sclerosis: playing around with non-healthcare costs? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(12):1241–1244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):1223–1252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo S, Pelligra C, Saint-Laurent Thibault C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses in multiple sclerosis: a review of modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(6):559–572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manouchehrinia A, Constantinescu CS. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2012;12(5):592–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawton A, Shearer J, Goodwin E, et al. Squinting through layers of fog: assessing the cost effectiveness of treatments for multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):331–341.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Bell C, Graham J, Earnshaw S, et al. 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):245–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jankovic SM, Kostic M, Radosavljevic 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):556–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gani R, Giovannoni G, Bates D, 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
• Earnshaw SR, Graham J, Oleen-Burkey M, et al. Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(2):91–108.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Montalban X, Gold R, Thompson AJ, et al. ECTRIMS/EAN Guideline on the pharmacological treatment of people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2018;24(2):96–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rae-Grant A, Gs D, Ra M, et al. Practice guideline recommendations summary: disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: report of the guideline development, dissemination, and implementation subcommittee of the american academy of neurology. Neurology. 2018;90(17):777–788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico E, Zanghi A, Patti F. Can new chemical therapies improve the management of multiple sclerosis in children? Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2017;18(1):45–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Page E, Edan G. Induction or escalation therapy for patients with multiple sclerosis? Rev Neurol (Paris). 2018;174(6):449–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacchini D, Virdis A, Refolo P, et al. Health technology assessment (HTA): ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos. 2009;12(4):453–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Technology Assessment (HTA). European patients forum. [ cited 2019 Feb 28]. Available from: http://www.eu-patient.eu/globalassets/library/factsheets/health_technology_assessment_final.pdf 2007
   Google Scholar
• Analysis Finds LJ Alemtuzumab most cost-effective treatment for multiple sclerosis. [ cited 2019 Feb 28]. Available from: https://wwwajmccom/newsroom/analysis-finds-alemtuzumab-most-cost-effective-treatment-for-multiple-sclerosis
   Google Scholar
• Bryant J, Clegg A, Milne R. Systematic review of immunomodulatory drugs for the treatment of people with multiple sclerosis: is there good quality evidence on effectiveness and cost? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;70(5):574–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch JS. Cost-effectiveness lessons from disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2004;4(5):537–547.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Giammanco MD, Polimeni G, Spadaro L, et al. An initial validation of the italian mishel uncertainty illness scale (MUIS) for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(9):1447–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuspinar A, Finch L, Pickard S, et al. Using existing data to identify candidate items for a health state classification system in multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(5):1445–1457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin E, Green C, Spencer A. Estimating a preference-based index for an eight-dimensional health state classification system for multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2015;18(8):1025–1036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilden DM, Kubisiak J, Zbrozek AS. The economic burden of Medicare-eligible patients by multiple sclerosis type. Value Health. 2011;14(1):61–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen AY, Chonghasawat AO, Leadholm KL. Multiple sclerosis: frequency, cost, and economic burden in the United States. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;45:180–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartung DM, Bourdette DN, Ahmed SM, et al. The cost of multiple sclerosis drugs in the US and the pharmaceutical industry: too big to fail? Neurology. 2015;84(21):2185–2192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilsdon TBA, Mitchell Heggs A. Access to medicines for multiple sclerosis: challenges and opportunities. Charles River Associates Project No D19380. 2014. Available from: https://wwwcraicom/sites/default/files/publications/CRA-Biogen-Access-to-MS- Treatment-Final-Reportpdf
   Google Scholar
• Kobelt GKF Access to innovative treatments in multiple sclerosis in Europe. Report prepared for the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). 2009. Available from: http://wwwcomparatorreportsse/Access%20to%20MS%20treatments%20-%20October%202009pdf 2009
   Google Scholar
• Bowen JD, Kozma CM, Grosso MM, et al. A real-world comparison of relapse rates, healthcare costs and resource use among patients with multiple sclerosis newly initiating subcutaneous interferon beta-1a versus oral disease-modifying drugs. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2018;4(4):2055217318819031.
   Google Scholar
• Melendez-Torres GJ, Auguste P, Armoiry X, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta-interferon and glatiramer acetate for treating multiple sclerosis: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(52):1–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bargiela D, Bianchi MT, Westover MB, et al. Selection of first-line therapy in multiple sclerosis using risk-benefit decision analysis. Neurology. 2017;88(7):677–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen F, Montgomery S, Maruszczak M, et al. 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):925–938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier J, Chamoux C, Hammes F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a french societal perspective. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez L, Guo S, Toro-Diaz H, et al. 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):228–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su W, Kansal A, Vicente C, et al. The cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada. J Med Econ. 2016;19(7):718–727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdette D, Hartung D. Equivalence of glatiramer acetate generics with branded glatiramer acetate in efficacy and cost for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72(12):1411–1413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter E, Berger T, Bajer-Kornek B, et al. 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 Mar;22(3):226–237.
   Google Scholar
• Kalincik T, Brown JWL, Robertson N, et al. Treatment effectiveness of alemtuzumab compared with natalizumab, fingolimod, and interferon beta in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(4):271–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang H, Duchesneau E, Foster R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ocrelizumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2017;20(10):1056–1065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing Remitting and Primary-Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Effectiveness and Value Final Evidence Report. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER); March 6, 2017. Prepared for California technology assessment forum. Accessed on Febraury 28, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Piena MA, Heisen M, Wormhoudt LW, et al. 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):968–976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):1145–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):676–686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phan YHL, De Abreu Lourenco R, Haas M. van der Linden N. Key considerations in reimbursement decision-making for multiple sclerosis drugs in Australia. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;25:144–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer AJ, van der Mei I, Taylor BV, et al. Modelling the impact of multiple sclerosis on life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years and total lifetime costs: evidence from Australia. Mult Scler. 2019 Feb 26:1352458519831213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Measuring the global burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(5):448–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bin Sawad A, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, et al. Price analysis of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies marketed in the United States. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(11):1783–1788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang G, Marrie RA, Salter AR, et al. Health insurance affects the use of disease-modifying therapy in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2016;87(4):365–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdette D, Patti F. US health insurance is an obstacle to disease-modifying treatments in MS. Neurology. 2016;87(4):346–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar