Strategies for assessing health economic and quality of life outcomes in multiple sclerosis

References

• Rudick RA, Cohen JA, Weinstock- Guttman B, Kinkel RP Ransohoff RM. Management of multiple sclerosis. N Engl Med. 337(22), 1604–1611 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP etal. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. I. Clinical course and disability. Brain 112(1), 133–146 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Sadovnick AD, Eisen K, Ebers GC, Paty DIN. Cause of death in patients attending multiple sclerosis clinics. Neurology 41 (8), 1193–1196 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadovnick AD, Ebers GC. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: a critical overview. Can. Neurol Sc]. 20(1), 17–29 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson DVV, ELlenberg JH, Leventhal CM, Reingold SC, Rodriguez M, Silberberg DH. Revised estimate of the prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Ann. Ai.urol 31(3), 333–336 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Williams R, Rigby AS, Airey M, Robinson M, Ford H. Multiple sclerosis: its epidemiological, genetic, and health care impact. J. Epidemiol Community Health 49(6), 563–569 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Rosati G, Aiello I, Pirastru MI et at Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in northwestern Sardinia: further evidence for higher frequency in Sardinians compared to other Italians. Neurvepidemiology15(1), 10–19 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bunn E, Mesa R, Galan I, Dean G. Prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the region of Osona, Catalonia, northern Spain. j Neurol Neurosurg. PTchiatry 58(5), 577–581 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Wynn DR, Rodriguez M, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT A reappraisal of the epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Neurology 40(5), 780–786 (1990).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Asche CV, Ho E, Chan B, Coyte PC. Economic consequences of multiple sclerosis for Canadians. Acta. Neurol Land. 95(5), 268–274 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Canadian Burden of Illness Study Group. Burden of illness of multiple sclerosis: Part I: cost of illness. Can. J. Neurol Li. 25(1), 23–30 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Whetten-Goldstein K, Sloan FA, Goldstein LB, Kulas ED. A comprehensive assessment of the cost of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Mult. Scler. 4(5), 419–425 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Grima DT, Torrance GVV, Francis G, Rice G, Rosner AJ, Lafortune L. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 6 (2), 91–98 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Parkin D et a/. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in the United Kingdom. EFI Research Report 398. Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Smala A eta]. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. An observational study in Germany. Health Econ. Prey Care 2(2), 60–68 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Amato MP, Battaglia MA, Caputo D eta]. The costs of multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional, multicenter cost-of-illness study in Italy. J. Neurol. 249(2), 152–163 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Blumhardt LD, Wood C. The economics of multiple sclerosis. Br. Med Econ. 10 (2), 99–118 (1996)
   Google Scholar
• Holmes BA, Madgwick T, Bates MA. The cost of multiple sclerosis. BE J. Med. Econ. 8(4), 181–193 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Masterman T, Jönsson B. Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in Sweden. FIR: j Neurol 8(1), 27–35 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Good example of a cross-sectional study to assess economic and QoL outcomes.
   Google Scholar
• Pope GC, Urato CJ, Kulas ED, Kronick R, Gilmer T Prevalence, expenditures, utilization, and payment for persons with MS in insured populations. Neurology 58(1), 37–43 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzke JE Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33(11), 1444–1452 (1983).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murphy N, Confavreux C, Haas J etal. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Cost of Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. J. Neurol Neurosurg. PTchiatry 65(4), 460–466 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Rudick RA, Miller D, Qough JD, Gragg LA, Farmer RG. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Comparison with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Arrh. Neuml. 49(12), 1237–1242 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• The Canadian Burden of Illness Study Group. Burden of illness of multiple sclerosis: Part II: quality of life. Can. J. Neurol Sc]. 25(1), 31–38 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Fischer JS, Larocca NG, Miller DM, Ritvo PG, Andrews H, Paty D. Recent developments in the assessment of quality of life in multiple sclerosis (MS). Mutt. Scler. 5(4), 251–259 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Describes the development and validation of the MSQLI.
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M etal. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Ritvo PG, Fischer JS, Miller DM, Andrew H, Paty DVV, LaRocca NG. Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory MISQLB: A user's manual. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New York, NY, USA (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Harooni R, Myers LW Ellison GW. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual. Life Res. 4(3), 187–206 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• •Describes the development and validation of the MSQOL-54.
   Google Scholar
• Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Genovese BJ, Myers LW Ellison GW. Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. J. Clin. 431demiol. 50(5), 557–569 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Cella DF, Dineen K, Arnason B eta]. Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology 47 (1), 129–139 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• •Describes the development and validation of the FAMS.
   Google Scholar
• Rotstein Z, Barak Y, Noy S, Achiron A. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: development and validation of the 'RAYS' Scale and comparison with the SF-36. Lit. J. Quail Health Cate 12(6), 511–517 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Lankhorst GJ, Jelles F, Smits RCF eta]. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: the disability and impact profile (DIP). J. Neurol. 243(6), 469–474 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Brunet DG, Hopman WM, Singer MA, Edgar CM, MacKenzie TA. Measurement of health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. Can. J. Neurol. Sc]. 23(2), 99–103 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Nortvedt MW, Ruse T, Myhr KM, Nyland HI. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: measuring the disease effects more broadly. Neurology53(5), 1098–1103 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman JA, Hobart JC, Langdon DVV, Thompson AJ. Clinical appropriateness: a key factor in outcome measure selection: the 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. flychiatry68(2), 150–156 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Rothwell PM, McDowell Z, Wong CK, Dorman PJ. Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. Br. Med. 314(7094), 1580–1583 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Di Fabio RP, Choi T, Soderberg J, Hansen CR Health-related quality of life for patients with progressive multiple sclerosis: influence of rehabilitation. Phys. Ther. 77(12), 1704–1716 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rice GP, Oger J, Duquette P etal. Treatment with interferon beta-lb improves quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Can. J. Ai.utol Sc]. 26(4), 276–282 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz CE, Vollmer T, Lee H, the North American Research Consortium on Multiple Sclerosis Outcomes Study Group. Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of impairment and disability for MS. Neurology52(1), 63–70 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfennings L, Cohen L, Miller D eta]. Using the short form-36 with multiple sclerosis patients in five countries: A cross-cultural comparison. Psychological Reports 85(1), 19–31 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J. Measuring the value of program outcomes: a review of multiattribute utility measures. Expert Rev Phannacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 1 (2), 215–228 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• ••Comprehensive review of utility measures.
   Google Scholar
• Parkin D, Jacoby A, McNamee P, Miller P, Thomas S, Bates D. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon 13: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J. Neuml. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 68(2), 144–149 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Miltenburger C, Jonsson B. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-lb in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using natural history disease data. Int. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 18(1), 127–138 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• ••Well-conducted economic evaluation of anMS therapy.
   Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, Klein R, Klein BE. Predicting Quality of Well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med. Deck Making17 (1), 1–9 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Shmueli A. The SF-36 profile and health- related quality of life: an interpretative analysis. Qual. Life Res. 7(3), 187–195 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Nichol MB, Sengupta N, Globe DR Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the Health Utility Index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med. Deck Making 21(2), 105–112 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21(2), 271–292 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• •Recently-published methodology for transforming QoL data into utilities.
   Google Scholar
• The European Study Group on Interferon Beta-1 in Secondary Progressive MS. Placebo-controlled multicentre randomised trial of interferon beta-lb in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Lancet 352(9139), 1491–1497 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Henriksson F, Fredrikson 5, Jonsson B. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-lb in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 16(3), 768–780 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Tappenden P, Chilcott J, O'Hagan T et al. Cost effectiveness of beta interferons and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Final report to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, Miller P, Thomas S, Bates D. A cost-utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol. Assessment 2(4), iii-54 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC. Ptychometrk Theoty. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA (1978).
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE. Methodological considerations in the selection of health status assessment procedures. In: Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Bids of Catyliovascular Therapies. Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, Elinson J, (Fds) Le Jacq Inc., NY, USA (1984).
   Google Scholar
• Brown MG, Murray TJ, Sketris IS etal Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-lb in slowing multiple sclerosis disability progression. hit. .j Technol. Assess. Healthcare 16(3), 751–767 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Kendrick M, Johnson KI. Long term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-13 may be cost effective. PharmacoEconomics18(1), 45–53 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Phillips CJ, Gilmour L, Gale R, Palmer M. A cost utility model of interferon beta-lb in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Med. Econ. 4,35–50 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Nuijten MJC, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health 5(1), 44–54 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar