Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 4, 2004 - Issue 5
Submit an article Journal homepage
25
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Cost-effectiveness lessons from disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Jeffrey S Hoch University of Western Ontario, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London, Ontario, N6A 5C1, Canada. [email protected]
Pages 537-547 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Clegg A, Bryant J, Milne R. Disease- modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review. Health TechnoL Assess. 4(9), 1–101 (2000).
  • •Early, thorough review of the cost and effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis.
  • Markovic-Plese S, Pinilla C, Martin R. The initiation of the autoimmune response in multiple sclerosis. Clin. NeuroL Neurosurg. 106(3), 218–222 (2004).
  • National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Multiple sclerosis — Management of multiple sclerosis in primary and secondary care. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 8. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London, UK (2003).
  • Richards RG, Sampson FC, Beard SM, Tappenden P A review of the natural history and epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: implications for resource allocation and health economic models. Health TechnoL Assess. 6(10), 1–73 (2002).
  • Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet359 1221–1231 (2002).
  • •Succinct, detailed review.
  • Victor M, Rapper AH. Multiple sclerosis and allied demyelinative diseases. In: Adams and Victor's Principles of Neurology Seventh Edition. McGraw-Hill, NY, USA, 954–982 (2001).
  • Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P et aL Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Br. Med. J 326(7388), 522–525 (2003).
  • ••Definitive economic evaluation ofmultiple sclerosis drugs in the UK.
  • Vukusic S, Confavreux C. The natural history of multiple sclerosis. In: Handbook of Multiple Sclerosis. Third Edition. Cook SD (Ed.). Marcel Dekker, MY, USA, 433–447 (2001).
  • Paty DW, Noseworthy J, Ebers GC. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. In: Multiple Sclerosis. Paty DW, Ebers GC (Eds). FA Davis, PA, USA, 48–134 (1997).
  • Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Masterman T, Jonsson B. Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in Sweden. Eur. j Neurol. 8(1), 27–35 (2001).
  • Flachenecker P, Rieckmann P Early intervention in multiple sclerosis: better outcomes for patients and society? Drugs 63(15), 1525–1533 (2003).
  • Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP et aL The natural history of multiple sclerosis — a geographically based study. Brain 112, 133–146 (1989).
  • O'Connor P, Arnold DL, Bouchard JP et al. Key issues in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis: an overview. Neurology 59(6 Suppl. 3), S1—S33 (2002).
  • •Review with over 160 references.
  • 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. Psych. 70(5), 574–579 (2001). Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2(4), 305–307 (2002).
  • Poser CM, Brinar VV. The nature of multiple sclerosis. Clin. NeuroL Neurosurg 106(3), 159–171 (2004).
  • Filippini G, Munari L, Incorvaia B et al. Interferons in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Lancet 361(9357), 545–552 (2003).
  • Keegan BM, Noseworthy JH. Multiple sclerosis. Ann. Rev Med. 53,285–302 (2002).
  • Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, Weinshenker BG. Medical progress: multiple sclerosis. N Engl. J. Med. 343(13), 938–952 (2000).
  • Duquette P, Girard M, Despault L et al. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. IFN-ot- lb is effective in relapsing—remitting multiple-sclerosis, I: clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 43(4), 655–661 (1993).
  • Duquette P, Despault L, Knobler RL et al. IFN-ct- lb in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: final outcome of the randomized controlled trial. Neurology 45(7), 1277–1285 (1995).
  • Jacobs LD, Cookfair DL, Rudick RA et aL Intramuscular interferon I3-1-ct for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 39(3), 285–294 (1996). Erratum in: Ann. NeuroL 40(3), 480 (1996).
  • Ebers GC, Rice G, Lesaux J et al. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon-I3-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. Lancet 352(9139), 1498–1504 (1998). Erratum in: Lancet 353 (9153), 678 (1999).
  • Kappos L, Polman C, Pozzilli C et al. Placebo-controlled multicentre randomised trial of interferon-I3- lb in treatment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Lancet352 (9139), 1491–1497 (1998).
  • Richards RG. Interferon-I3 in multiple sclerosis. Br. Med. J. 313 (7066), 1159 (1996).
  • Tolley KH, Whynes DK. Interferon-I3 in multiple sclerosis — can we control its costs? PharmacoEconomics11 (3), 210–215 (1997).
  • Dowie J. Why cost-effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant. Health Econ. 13(5), 453–459 (2004).
  • Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Torrance GW, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1997).
  • Goodacre S, McCabe C. Being economical with the truth: how to make your idea appear cost effective. Emerg. Med. J. 19(4), 301–304 (2002).
  • Drummond MF. Method without madness. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2(4), 305–307 (2002).
  • Sturm R, Wells KB. How can care for depression become more cost-effective? JAMA 273(1), 51–58 (1995).
  • Gold MR, Stevenson D, Fryback DG. HALYS and QALYS and DALYS, oh my: similarities and differences in summary measures of population health. Ann. Rev. Pub. Health 23, 115–134 (2002).
  • Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc. Sci. Med. 45(11), 1641–1652 (1997).
  • Arnesen T, Trommald M. Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method. J Health Serv. Res. Policy 9(1), 43–50 (2004).
  • Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler 9(3), 311–319 (2003).
  • Shumway M. Preference weights for cost-outcome analyses of schizophrenia treatments: comparison of four stakeholder groups. Sch. Bull. 29(2), 257–266 (2003).
  • Heller JG. Will public health survive QALYs? Can. J Clin. Pharmacol. 9(1), 5–6 (2002).
  • •Questions the use of quality-adjusted life years in studying the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis.
  • Lepen C, Coyle P, Vollner T, Blumhardt L, Lilliu H, Beresniak A. Long-term cost effectiveness of interferon-3-la in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. An econometric model. Clin. Drug Invest. 23(9), 571–581 (2003).
  • •A recent cost-effectiveness analysis using an econometric model and area under the curve measures of effect with the Expanded Disability Status Scale.
  • Bose U, Ladkani D, Burrell A, Sharief M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J. Med. Econ. 4,207–219 (2001).
  • •Decision analytic model based on patient-level data over 6 and 8 years.
  • Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, Miller P, Thomas S, Bates D. A cost-utility analysis of interferon-I3 for multiple sclerosis. Health TechnoL Assess. 2(4), 3–54 (1998).
  • •Models based on disease progression and number of relapses.
  • McNamee P, Parkin D. Cost-effectiveness of interferon 13 for multiple sclerosis: the implications of new information on clinical effectiveness. Health TechnoL Amen 2(4), 59–66 (1999).
  • •Updated data used to estimate cost-effectiveness using the decision analytic approach in reference [39].
  • Phillips CJ, Gilmour L, Gale R, Palmer M. A cost utility model of interferon 13-interferon in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J. Med. Econ. 4,35-50 (2001).
  • •Thorough cost-effectiveness analysis.
  • Kendrick M, Johnson KI. Long term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-I3 may be cost effective. PharmacoEconomics 18(1), 45–53 (2000).
  • •Linear regression used to model disease progression.
  • Nuijten MJ, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon 13 in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health 5(1), 44–54 (2002).
  • •Lifetime Markov model.
  • Brown MG, Murray TJ, Sketris IS et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon 13-lb in slowing multiple sclerosis disability progression: first estimation. Int. J. TechnoL Assess. Health Care 16(3), 751–767 (2000).
  • •Treatment program costs and health outcomes are modeled for cohorts of 1000 females and 1000 males followed 40 years from onset. Overall, 15 scenarios model multiple sclerosis natural history progression, treatment efficacy, direct treatment costs and multiple sclerosis healthcare costs. Over 70 references.
  • Nicholson T, Milne R. Copolymer 1 in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Southampton.Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, Development and Evaluation Committee Report No. 63 (1996).
  • •Very early cost-effectiveness analysis.
  • Nicholson T, Milne R. 13 interferons (la and lb) in relapsing—remitting and secondary multiple sclerosis. Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, Development and Evaluation Committee, Southampton, UK. Report No. 98 (1999).
  • •Early cost-effectiveness analysis.
  • Otten N. Comparison of drug treatments for multiple sclerosis. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Ottawa, Canada (1998).
  • •Early cost-effectiveness analysis focusing on avoided costs and delay in disease progression over 2 years.
  • Forbes RB, Lees A, Waugh N, Swingler RJ. Population based cost utility study of interferon 13-lb in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Br. Med. J. 319 (7224), 1529–1533 (1999).
  • •Cost-effectiveness analysis reporting very high costs per quality-adjusted life year using time to wheelchair dependence and time if treated in neurology service.
  • Touchette DR, Durgin TL, Wanke LA, Goodkin DE. A cost-utility analysis of mitoxantrone hydrochloride and interferon 3-lb in the treatment of patients with secondary progressive or progressive relapsing multiple sclerosis. Clin. Ther 25(2), 611–634 (2003).
  • •Only published cost-effectiveness study of mitoxantrone hydrochloride therapy for progressive multiple sclerosis. Excellent discussion of the results in relation to reference [51].
  • Rubio-Terres C, Aristegui R, I, Medina RF, Izquierdo AG. Cost-utility analysis of multiple sclerosis treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon 13 in Spain. Farm. Hosp. 27(3), 159–165 (2003).
  • •Article from Spain showing a different ranking for glatiramer acetate versus interferon 13 from [7].
  • Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Jonsson B. Cost-utility analysis of interferon-13-lb in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Int. J 7echnol. Assess. Health Care. 16(3) 768–780 (2000).
  • •Swedish study using 3 years of clinical trial data and then extrapolating over 10 years.
  • Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Miltenburger C, Jonsson B. Cost-utility analysis of interferon-13-lb in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using natural history disease data. Int. J Technol. Assess. Health Care. 18(1), 127–138 (2002).
  • •Swedish study using 3 years of clinical trial data and then natural history data.
  • Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Fredrikson S. Cost-utility of interferon-13-lb in the treatment of patients with active relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Eur. J. Health Econ. 4,50-59(2003).
  • •Study builds on references [51] and [52].
  • Parkin D, Jacoby A, McNamee P, Miller P, Thomas S, Bates D. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon b: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 68(2), 144–149 (2000).
  • •Early journal review article on the cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis drugs.
  • Clegg A, Bryant J. Immunomodulatory drugs for multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of clinical and cost effectiveness. Expert Opinion Pharmacotherapy2 (4), 623–639 (2001).
  • Pryse-Phillips W. Newer long-term treatments for multiple sclerosis. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg 104(3), 265–271 (2002).
  • Newhouse JP. US and UK health economics: two disciplines separated by a common language? Health Econ. 7, S79—S92 (1998).
  • Flachenecker P, Rieckmann P. Health outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin. Neurol. 17(3), 257–261 (2004).
  • •Review of cost-of-illness and cost-utility studies in multiple sclerosis published in 2002 and 2003.
  • Phillips CJ. The cost of multiple sclerosis and the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying agents in its treatment. CNS Drugs 18(9), 561–574 (2004).
  • •• Required reading for anyone interested in the cost of multiple sclerosis and the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying multiple scerosis drugs.
  • Bronnum-Hansen H, Koch-Henriksen N, Hyllested K. Survival of patients with multiple sclerosis in Denmark: a nationwide, long-term epidemiologic survey. Neurology 44(10), 1901–1907 (1994).
  • Blumhardt LD, Wood C. The economics of multiple sclerosis: a cost of illness study. Br. J Med. Economics. 10,99–118 (1996).
  • The Canadian Burden of Illness Study Group. Burden of illness of multiple sclerosis. Part I: cost of illness. Can. J Neurol. Sci. 25(1), 23–30 (1998).
  • Henriksson F, Jonsson B. The economic cost of multiple sclerosis in Sweden in 1994. PharmacoEconomics 13 (5), 597–606 (1998).
  • Holmes J, Madgwick T, Bates D. The cost of multiple sclerosis. Br. J Med. Economics 8,181–193 (1995).
  • Murphy N, Confayreux C, Haas J et al. Economic evaluation of multiple sclerosis in the UK, Germany and France. PharmacoEconomics 13(5), 607–622 (1998).
  • O'Brien BJ. Multiple Sclerosis. Office of Health Economics, London, UK (1987).
  • Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 11(5), 415–430 (2002).
  • •Moderately entertaining title and clearly a favorite of Hoch.
  • Naylor CD, Williams JI, Basinski A, Goel V. Technology assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis: misguided guidelines? CMAJ148(6), 921–924 (1993).
  • •Important critique of reference [69].
  • Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization — tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 146(4), 473–481 (1992).
  • •Classic article on willingness to pay in healthcare.
  • Laupacis A. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones? CMAJ166(1), 44–47 (2002).
  • Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med. Dec:is. Making 20 (3), 332–342 (2000).
  • Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a DALY. Health Econ. 12(12), 1049–1060 (2003).
  • George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making — evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). PharmacoEconomics 19(11), 1103–1109 (2001).
  • Towse A. What is NICE's threshold? An external view. In: Cost Effectiveness Thresholds: Economic and Ethical Issues. Devlin N, Towse A (Eds). King's Fund/Office for Health Economics, London, UK (2002).
  • Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 13(5), 437–452 (2004).
  • Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. CM4J148(6), 913–917 (1993).
  • •Important critique of reference [69].
  • Donaldson C, Currie G, Mitton C. Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contraindications. Br. Med. J. 325(7369) 891–894 (2002).
  • Gafni A, Birch S. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: Should "reasonable decisions" lead to uncontrolled growth in expenditures? CMAJ168(7), 849–851 (2003).
  • Devlin N, Appleby J, Parkin D. Patients' views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decision-making? J Health Serv. Res. Policy 8(3) 183–186 (2003).
  • Lie RK. Research ethics and evidence based medicine. J Med. Ethics 30,122–125 (2004).
  • Banta HD, Thacker SB. The case for reassessment of health care technology: once is not enough. JAMA 264(2), 235–240 (1990).
  • Leese B, Hutton J, Maynard A. A comparison of the costs and benefits of recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) in the treatment of chronic renal failure in five European countries. PharmacoEconomics 1 (5), 346–356 (1992).
  • Remak E. Hutton J, Jones MM, Zagari M. Changes in cost-effectiveness over time: the case of epoetin a for renal replacement therapy patients in the UK. Eur. J Health Econ. 4,115-121 (2003).
  • Sudlow CLM, Counsell CE. Problems with UK government's risk sharing scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis. Br. Mm'. j 326(7385), 388–392 (2003).
  • Zaric G, Hoch JS. Pharmaceutical risk sharing based on net monetary benefits. (2004) (In Press).
  • Herndon RM, Jacobs L. Interferons should be used to treat most patients with MS. Arch. Neurol. 55(12), 1581–1583 (1998).
  • Petrou S, Wolstenholme J. A review of alternative approaches to healthcare resource allocation. PharmacoEconomics 18(1), 33–43 (2000).
  • Anell A. Priority setting for pharmaceuticals: the use of health economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees. Eur. J. Health Econ. 5,28–35 (2004).
  • Laupacis A, Paterson JM, Mamdani M, Rostom A, Anderson GM. Gaps in the evaluation and monitoring of new pharmaceuticals: proposal for a different
  • Pittock SJ, Mayr WT, McClelland RL et a] Disability profile of MS did not change over 10 years in a population-based prevalence cohort. Neurology 62(4), 601–606 (2004).
  • Meyer CM, Phipps R, Cooper D, Wright A. Pharmacy benefit forecast for a new interferon-13- la for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: development of a first-line decision tool for pharmacy-budget planning using administrative claims data. J Manag. Cam Pharm. 9(2), 168–174 (2003).

Websites

  • WebMD, Inc. Geographic location and multiple sclerosis http://my.webmd.comThw/ health_guide_atoz/hw188100.asp?z = 1827_00000_0000_wk_03 (Accessed September 2004)
  • Rapid responses (the first by Ellis SJ and the last by Fertl http://bmibmijournals.com/cgi/eletters/ 319/7224/1529 (1999–2000) a(Accessed September 2004)
  • Postnote. MS treatments and NICE www.parliament.uk/post/pn168.pdf (Accessed September 2004)
  • National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Minutes of the technology appraisals committee meeting 13 Dec, 2000 www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o = 16091 (Accessed September 2004)
  • Rapid responses http://bmibmijournals.com/cgi/content/ fulY326/7385/388 (Accessed September 2004)
  • Sudlow C, Counsell CE. Effectiveness and cost effectivess of beta inferon and glatiramer for multiple sclerosis http://bmibmijournals.com/cgi/eletters/ 326/7388/522#30405 (Accessed September 2004)

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.