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

References

• Reich DS, Lucchinetti CF, Calabresi PA. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):169–180.
   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
• English C, Aloi JJ. New FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2015;37(4):691–715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. 2008;372:1502–1517. (Ed.^(Eds) .
   Google Scholar
• Goodin DS, Reder AT, Ebers GC, et al. Survival in MS: a randomized cohort study 21 years after the start of the pivotal IFNβ-1b trial. Neurology. 2012;78(17):1315–1322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Multiple Sclerosis Coalition. The use of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: Principles and current evidence. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Treating MS: medications. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Feigin VL, Nichols E, Alam T, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(5):459–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallin MT, Culpepper WJ, Campbell JD, et al. The prevalence of MS in the United States: a population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1029–e1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Dieleman JL, Cao J, Chapin A, et al. US health care spending by payer and health condition, 1996–2016. JAMA. 2020;323(9):863–884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petruzzo M, Palladino R, Nardone A, et al. The impact of diagnostic criteria and treatments on the 20-year costs for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;38:101514.
   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
• Hartung DM. Economics and cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis therapies in the USA. Neurotherapeutics. 2017;14(4):1018–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menzin J, Caon C, Nichols C, et al. Narrative review of the literature on adherence to disease-modifying therapies among patients with multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19(1 Suppl A):S24–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J. The Role of Patient Preferences in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: a Conflict of Values? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):705–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moccia M, Palladino R, Russo C, et al. How many injections did you miss last month? A simple question to predict interferon β-1a adherence in multiple sclerosis. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2015;12(12):1829–1835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Overbeeke E, Janssens R, Whichello C, et al. Design, conduct, and use of patient preference studies in the medical product life cycle: a multi-method study. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:1395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huls SPI, Whichello CL, van Exel J, et al. What is next for patient preferences in health technology assessment? A systematic review of the challenges. Value Health. 2019;22(11):1318–1328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois RW, Westrich K. Value assessment frameworks: how can they meet the challenge? Health affairs blog. 2017. Doi: 10.1377/hblog20170302.058979.
   Google Scholar
• Willke RJ, Neumann PJ, Garrison LP Jr., et al. Review of recent US value frameworks-a health economics approach: an ISPOR special task force report [6]. Value Health. 2018;21(2):155–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarro CE, Ordóñez-Callamand E, Alzate JP. Disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: cost-effectiveness systematic review. Farm Hosp. 2020;44(2):68–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser LA, Louapre C, Uyl-de Groot CA, et al. Patient needs and preferences in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;39:101929.
   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
• Koeser L, McCrone P. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis: an updated systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13(2):171–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto D, Campbell JD. Cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: a systematic review of the literature. Autoimmune Dis. 2012;784364:2012.
   Google Scholar
• Lasalvia P, Hernandez F, Castaneda-Cardona C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab compared with fingolimod for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Colombia. Value Health Reg Issues. 2020;23:13–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nakhaipour HR, Vudumula U, Khurana V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon-beta1a for the treatment of pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis in Canada. J Med Econ. 2020;1–9. doi:10.1080/13696998.2020.1840138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinheiro B, Guerreiro R, Costa J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets versus fingolimod in patients with highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis in Portugal. J Med Econ. 2020;23(5):484–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poveda JL, Trillo JL, Rubio-Terres C, et al. 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 Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):168–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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):490–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):857–873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):331–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanatittarat C, Chaikledkaew U, Prayoonwiwat N, et al. Cost-utility analysis of multiple sclerosis treatment in Thailand. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;1–9. doi:10.1017/S0266462318003604.
   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
• Hashemi-Meshkini A, Zekri HS, Karimi-Yazdi H, et al. Pegylated versus non-pegylated interferon beta 1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Iran J Neurol. 2018;17(3):123–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaee M, Izadi S, Keshavarz K, et al. 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.
   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;22(3):226–237.
   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
• Alsaqa’aby MF, Vaidya V, Khreis N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of oral agents in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis compared to interferon-based therapy in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2017;37(6):433–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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. 2017;20(3):297–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):666–676.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frasco MA, Shih T, Incerti D, et al. Incremental net monetary benefit of ocrelizumab relative to subcutaneous interferon beta-1a. J Med Econ. 2017;20(10):1074–1082.
   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
• Montgomery SM, Kusel J, Nicholas R, et al. 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):962–973.
   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
• Sawad AB, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for treatment relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Comp Eff Res. 2017;6(2):97–108.
   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):537–557 e510.
   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
• 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, Kinter E, et al. 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):684–695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauskopf J, Fay M, Iyer R, et al. 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):432–442.
   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
• Maruszczak MJ, Montgomery SM, Griffiths MJ, et al. Cost-utility of fingolimod compared with dimethyl fumarate in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in England. J Med Econ. 2015;18(11):874–885.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Najafi B, Ghaderi H, Jafari M, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of Avonex and CinnoVex in Relapsing Remitting MS. Glob J Health Sci. 2014;7(2):139–147.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• 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):215–222.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• 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
• Brandes DW, Raimundo K, Agashivala N, et al. Implications of real-world adherence on cost-effectiveness analysis in multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2013;16(4):547–551.
   PubMedGoogle 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. 2013;21(1):50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• 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
• Sanchez-de la Rosa R, Sabater E, Casado MA, et al. 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):424–433.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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):1583–1590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agashivala NV, Dastani HB, Carlton R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod in treating patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Am J Pharm Benefi ts. 2011;3(6):320–328.
   Google Scholar
• Becker RV 3rd, 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):377–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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
• 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
• Bakhshai J, Bleu-Laine R, Jung M, et al. The cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab for formulary inclusion. J Med Econ. 2010;13(1):63–69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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):717–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiao E, Meyer K. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1445–1454.
   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
• Goldberg LD, Edwards NC, Fincher C, et al. 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):543–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo S, Bozkaya D, Ward A, et al. Treating relapsing multiple sclerosis with subcutaneous versus intramuscular interferon-beta-1a. PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(1):39–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):556–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):657–665.
   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
• Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, et al. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of a new treatment for MS (natalizumab) compared with current standard practice in Sweden. Mult Scler. 2008;14(5):679–690.
   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
• Iskedjian M, Walker JH, Gray T, et al. Economic evaluation of Avonex (interferon beta-Ia) in patients following a single demyelinating event. Mult Scler. 2005;11(5):542–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, et al. 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):554–568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson Y, Janssen E, Fischer R, et al. The evolving role of patient preference studies in health-care decision-making, from clinical drug development to clinical care management. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(4):383–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reen GK, Silber E, Langdon DW. Multiple sclerosis patients’ understanding and preferences for risks and benefits of disease-modifying drugs: a systematic review. J Neurol Sci. 2017;375:107–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb EJD, Meads D, Eskyte I, et al. A systematic review of discrete-choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies in people with multiple sclerosis. Patient. 2018;11(4):391–402.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bottomley C, Lloyd A, Bennett G, et al. A discrete choice experiment to determine UK patient preference for attributes of disease modifying treatments in Multiple Sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2017;20(8):863–870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynd LD, Traboulsee A, Marra CA, et al. Quantitative analysis of multiple sclerosis patients’ preferences for drug treatment: a best-worst scaling study. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2016;9(4):287–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulos C, Wakeford C, Kinter E, et al. Patient and physician preferences for multiple sclerosis treatments in Germany: a discrete-choice experiment study. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2020;6(1):2055217320910778.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer B, Brockmeier B, Devonshire V, et al. An international discrete choice experiment assessing patients’ preferences for disease-modifying therapy attributes in multiple sclerosis. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2020;10(6):369–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonker MF, Donkers B, Goossens LMA, et al. Summarizing patient preferences for the competitive landscape of multiple sclerosis treatment options. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(2):198–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb EJD, Meads D, Eskyte I, et al. The impact of reproductive issues on preferences of women with relapsing multiple sclerosis for disease-modifying treatments. Patient. 2020;13(5):583–597.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlin CS, Higuera L, Anderson S. Improving patient-centered care by assessing patient preferences for multiple sclerosis disease-modifying agents: a stated-choice experiment. Perm J. 2017;21:16–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hincapie AL, Penm J, Burns CF. Factors associated with patient preferences for disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(8):822–830.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield C, Thomas N, Gebben D, et al. Preferences for multiple sclerosis treatments: using a discrete-choice experiment to examine differences across subgroups of US patients. Int J MS Care. 2017;19(4):172–183.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sempere AP, Vera-Lopez V, Gimenez-Martinez J, et al. Using a multidimensional unfolding approach to assess multiple sclerosis patient preferences for disease-modifying therapy: a pilot study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:995–999.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arroyo R, Sempere AP, Ruiz-Beato E, et al. Conjoint analysis to understand preferences of patients with multiple sclerosis for disease-modifying therapy attributes in Spain: a cross-sectional observational study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e014433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Dominguez JM, Munoz D, Comellas M, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of multiple sclerosis with disease-modifying therapies: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1945–1956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kremer IE, Evers SM, Jongen PJ, et al. Identification and prioritization of important attributes of disease-modifying drugs in decision making among patients with multiple sclerosis: a nominal group technique and best-worst scaling. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0164862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulos C, Kinter E, Yang JC, et al. A discrete-choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injectable multiple sclerosis treatments in Germany. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2016;9(2):95–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulos C, Kinter E, Yang JC, et al. Patient preferences for injectable treatments for multiple sclerosis in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient. 2016;9(2):171–180.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wicks P, Brandes D, Park J, et al. Preferred features of oral treatments and predictors of non-adherence: two web-based choice experiments in multiple sclerosis patients. Interact J Med Res. 2015;4(1):e6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson LS, Loucks A, Gipson G, et al. Patient preferences for attributes of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: development and results of a ratings-based conjoint analysis. Int J MS Care. 2015;17(2):74–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Utz KS, Hoog J, Wentrup A, et al. Patient preferences for disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2014;7(6):263–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson L, Loucks A, Bui C, et al. Patient centered decision making: use of conjoint analysis to determine risk-benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices. J Neurol Sci. 2014;344(1–2):80–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Van Houtven G, Ozdemir S, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol. 2009;256(4):554–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rae-Grant A, Day GS, Marrie RA, et al. Practice guideline recommendations summary: disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2018;90(17):777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegen H, Adrianto I, Lessard CJ, et al. Cytokine profiles show heterogeneity of interferon-β response in multiple sclerosis patients. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2016;3(2):e202–e202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholas JA, Edwards NC, Edwards RA, et al. Real-world adherence to, and persistence with, once- and twice-daily oral disease-modifying drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol. 2020;20(1):281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moccia M, Loperto I, Lanzillo R, et al. Persistence, adherence, healthcare resource utilisation and costs for interferon Beta in multiple sclerosis: a population-based study in the Campania region (southern Italy). BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visintin E, Tinelli M, Kanavos P. Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries. Health Policy. 2019;123(2):118–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Disease-modifying therapies for relapsingremitting and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: effectiveness and value. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, et al. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(1):57–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouvy JC, Cowie L, Lovett R, et al. Use of patient preference studies in HTA decision making: a NICE perspective. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2020;13(2):145–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Overbeeke E, Forrester V, Simoens S, et al. Use of patient preferences in health technology assessment: perspectives of canadian, belgian and german HTA representatives. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2021;14:119-128.
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Rowen D, Karimi M, et al. Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(6):881–891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Johnson FR. Giving patients a meaningful voice in european health technology assessments: the role of health preference research. Patient. 2017;10(4):527–530.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making–an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med. 2017;188:137–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tinelli M, Ryan M, Bond C. What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frost N, Freeman J, Brixner D, et al. Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for disease-modifying therapies. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;35:55–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ngorsuraches S. Using patient experience data and discrete choice experiment to assess values of drugs. Am J Manag Care. 2020. [cited 2020 Nov 21]. https://www.ajmc.com/view/using-patient-experience-data-and-discrete-choice-experiment-to-assess-values-of-drugs
   Google Scholar
• Mott DJ. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: is HTA falling behind? Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2018;11(3):249–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Sadler A. The probabilistic efficiency frontier: a framework for cost-effectiveness analysis in germany put into practice for hepatitis c treatment options. Value Health. 2017;20(2):266–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh K, M IJ, Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making–emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira MD, Mataloto I, Kanavos P. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(6):891–918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar