Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 13, 2013 - Issue 2
Submit an article Journal homepage
189
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Drug Profile

Cost–effectiveness of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis: an updated systematic review

Leonardo Koeser Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, PO24 David Goldberg Centre, Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK
&
Paul McCrone Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, PO24 David Goldberg Centre, Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. [email protected]
Pages 171-182 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Yaldizli O, Putzki N. Natalizumab in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 2(2), 115–128 (2009).
  • Vosoughi R, Freedman MS. Therapy of MS. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 112(5), 365–385 (2010).
  • Siegert RJ, Abernethy DA. Depression in multiple sclerosis: a review. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. 76(4), 469–475 (2005).
  • Wynia K, Middel B, van Dijk JP, De Keyser JH, Reijneveld SA. The impact of disabilities on quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 14(7), 972–980 (2008).
  • Polman CH, O’Connor PW, Havrdova E et al.; AFFIRM Investigators. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 354(9), 899–910 (2006).
  • Peninsula Technology Assessment Group. The Effectiveness and Cost–effectiveness of Natalizumab for Multiple Sclerosis: An Evidence Review of the Submission from Biogen Idec. Peninsula Medical School, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK (2007).
  • Kappos L, Bates D, Edan G et al. Natalizumab treatment for multiple sclerosis: updated recommendations for patient selection and monitoring. Lancet Neurol. 10(8), 745–758 (2011).
  • Kobelt G. Health economic issues in MS. Int. MS J. 13(1), 17–26, 16 (2006).
  • Naci H, Fleurence R, Birt J, Duhig A. Economic burden of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 28(5), 363–379 (2010).
  • Holmoy T, Celius EG. Cost–effectiveness of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 8(1), 11–21 (2008).
  • Brown BA. Natalizumab in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 5(3), 585–594 (2009).
  • Pucci E, Giuliani G, Solari A et al. Natalizumab for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 10, CD007621 (2011).
  • Svendsen B, Myhr KM, Nyland H, Aarseth JH. The cost of multiple sclerosis in Norway. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13(1), 81–91 (2012).
  • Biogen Idec, Heron Evidence Development. Natalizumab (Tysabri®) for the Treatment of Adults with Highly Active Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Biogen Idec Single Technology Appraisal (STA) Submission to The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE London, UK (2006).
  • Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, Jonsson B, Stawiarz L, Hillert J. Modeling the cost–effectiveness of a new treatment for MS (natalizumab) compared with current standard practice in Sweden. Mult. Scler. 14(5), 679–690 (2008).
  • Earnshaw SR, Graham J, Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Johnson K. Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 7(2), 91–108 (2009).
  • Chiao E, Meyer K. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 25(6), 1445–1454 (2009).
  • Bakhshai J, Bleu-Lainé R, Jung M et al. The cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab for formulary inclusion. J. Med. Econ. 13(1), 63–69 (2010).
  • O’Day K, Meyer K, Miller RM, Agarwal S, Franklin M. Cost–effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J. Med. Econ. 14(5), 617–627 (2011).
  • Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P et al.; Cost Effectiveness of Multiple Sclerosis Therapies Study Group. Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Commentary: evaluating disease modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis. BMJ 326(7388), 522; discussion 522 (2003).
  • Raftery J. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: a costly failure. BMJ 340, c1672 (2010).
  • NICE. Natalizumab for the Treatment of Adults With Highly Active Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. NICE technology appraisal guidance 127. London, UK (2007).
  • Gani R, Giovannoni G, Bates D, Kemball B, Hughes S, Kerrigan J. 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 26(7), 617–627 (2008).
  • Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA et al. Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a Phase III multicenter, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. The Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology 45(7), 1268–1276 (1995).
  • Ford CC, Johnson KP, Lisak RP, Panitch HS, Shifronis G, Wolinsky JS; Copaxone Study Group. A prospective open-label study of glatiramer acetate: over a decade of continuous use in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult. Scler. 12(3), 309–320 (2006).
  • La Mantia L, Munari LM, Lovati R. Glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 5, CD004678 (2010).
  • Kobelt G, Berg J, Atherly D, Hadjimichael O. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in the United States. Neurology 66(11), 1696–1702 (2006).
  • Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Cost–effectiveness of interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Value Health 7(5), 554–568 (2004).
  • Naci H, Fleurence R, Birt J, Duhig A. The impact of increasing neurological disability of multiple sclerosis on health utilities: a systematic review of the literature. J. Med. Econ. 13(1), 78–89 (2010).
  • Bell C, Graham J, Earnshaw S, Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Johnson K. Cost–effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on long-term clinical data. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 13(3), 245–261 (2007).
  • Papshev D, Bennett R, Al-Sabbagh A. Comparative analysis of multiple sclerosis cost–effectiveness models: focus on the United States managed care perspective. Value Health 10(6), A383 (2007).
  • Ebers GC. Natural history of multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. 71(Suppl. 2), ii16–ii19 (2001).
  • Tremlett H, Paty D, Devonshire V. Disability progression in multiple sclerosis is slower than previously reported. Neurology 66(2), 172–177 (2006).
  • Shirani A, Zhao Y, Kingwell E, Rieckmann P, Tremlett H. Temporal trends of disability progression in multiple sclerosis: findings from British Columbia, Canada (1975–2009). Mult. Scler. 18(4), 442–450 (2012).
  • Boggild M, Palace J, Barton P et al. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: two year results of clinical cohort study with historical comparator. BMJ 339, b4677 (2009).
  • Compston A. Commentary: scheme has benefited patients. BMJ 340, c2707 (2010).
  • Rice G, Ebers G. Interferons in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: do they prevent the progression of the disease? Arch. Neurol. 55(12), 1578–1580 (1998).
  • Ebers GC, Heigenhauser L, Daumer M, Lederer C, Noseworthy JH. Disability as an outcome in MS clinical trials. Neurology 71(9), 624–631 (2008).
  • 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).
  • Rudick RA, Kappos L. Measuring disability in relapsing–remitting MS. Neurology 75(4), 296–297 (2010).
  • Tremlett H, Zhu F, Petkau J, Oger J, Zhao Y; BC MS Clinic Neurologists. Natural, innate improvements in multiple sclerosis disability. Mult. Scler. 18(10), 1412–1421 (2012).
  • Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA, Crainiceanu CM. Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models: A Modern Perspective. (2nd Edition). Taylor & Francis, Oxford, UK (2006).
  • Satten GA, Longini IM Jr. Markov chains with measurement error: estimating the ‘true’ course of a marker of the progression of human immunodeficiency virus disease. J. Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) 45(3), 275–309 (1996).
  • Bell CF. The pursuit of transparency and quality improvement in cost–effectiveness analysis – a case study in disease-modifying drugs for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 17(6), 463–468 (2011).
  • Phillips CJ, Humphreys I. Assessing cost–effectiveness in the management of multiple sclerosis. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 1, 61–78 (2009).
  • Wolinsky JS, Beck CA. The long march to surrogates of meaningful clinical outcomes in MS trials: are we there yet? Neurology 77(18), 1658–1659 (2011).
  • Hemmett L, Holmes J, Barnes M, Russell N. What drives quality of life in multiple sclerosis? QJM 97(10), 671–676 (2004).
  • Ziemssen T, Hoffman J, Apfel R, Kern S. Effects of glatiramer acetate on fatigue and days of absence from work in first-time treated relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 6, 67 (2008).
  • Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, Metz LM, Murray TJ, Stadnyk KJ. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. 76(1), 58–63 (2005).
  • 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).
  • Noyes K, Bajorska A, Chappel A et al. Cost–effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Neurology 77(4), 355–363 (2011).
  • Curtiss FR. Pharmacoeconomic modeling of drug therapies for multiple sclerosis – are we building houses on sand? J. Manag. Care Pharm. 13(3), 287–289 (2007).
  • Olofsson S, Wickström A, Häger Glenngård A, Persson U, Svenningsson A. Effect of treatment with natalizumab on ability to work in people with multiple sclerosis: productivity gain based on direct measurement of work capacity before and after 1 year of treatment. BioDrugs 25(5), 299–306 (2011).
  • Rudick RA. MS clinical trials: what can subgroup analyses teach us? Lancet Neurol. 11(5), 386–388 (2012).
  • Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost–effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 26(9), 799–806 (2008).
  • Ethgen O, Standaert B. Population- versus cohort-based modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 30(3), 171–181 (2012).
  • Goodin DS, Bates D. Treatment of early multiple sclerosis: the value of treatment initiation after a first clinical episode. Mult. Scler. 15(10), 1175–1182 (2009).
  • Hutchinson M, Kappos L, Calabresi PA et al.; AFFIRM and SENTINEL Investigators. The efficacy of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: subgroup analyses of AFFIRM and SENTINEL. J. Neurol. 256(3), 405–415 (2009).
  • Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat. Med. 21(19), 2917–2930 (2002).
  • Jackson CH, Sharples LD, Thompson SG, Duffy SW, Couto E. Multistate Markov models for disease progression with classification error. J. Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician) 52, 193–209 (2003).
  • Jackson CH, Bojke L, Thompson SG, Claxton K, Sharples LD. A framework for addressing structural uncertainty in decision models. Med. Decis. Making 31(4), 662–674 (2011).
  • Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, Jit M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models. Med. Decis. Making 31(4), 675–692 (2011).
  • Schafer JA, Gunderson BW, Gleason PP. Price increases and new drugs drive increased expenditures for multiple sclerosis. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 16(9), 713–717 (2010).
  • Kunze AM, Gunderson BW, Gleason PP, Heaton AH, Johnson SV. Utilization, cost trends, and member cost-share for self-injectable multiple sclerosis drugs – pharmacy and medical benefit spending from 2004 through 2007. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 13(9), 799–806 (2007).
  • Hoyle M. Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost–effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 29(1), 1–15 (2011).
  • Tappenden P, Chilcott JB, Eggington S, Oakley J, McCabe C. Methods for expected value of information analysis in complex health economic models: developments on the health economics of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol. Assess. 8(27), 1–78 (2004).
  • Basu A. Individualization at the heart of comparative effectiveness research: the time for I-CER has come. Med. Decis. Making 29(6), NP9–NP11 (2009).
  • Paget MA, Chuang-Stein C, Fletcher C, Reid C. Subgroup analyses of clinical effectiveness to support health technology assessments. Pharm. Stat. 10(6), 532–538 (2011).
  • Healy BC, Engler D. Modeling disease-state transition heterogeneity through Bayesian variable selection. Stat. Med. 28(9), 1353–1368 (2009).
  • Mandel M, Betensky RA. Estimating time-to-event from longitudinal ordinal data using random-effects Markov models: application to multiple sclerosis progression. Biostatistics 9(4), 750–764 (2008).
  • Guo S, Bozkaya D, Ward A et al. Treating relapsing multiple sclerosis with subcutaneous versus intramuscular interferon-beta-1a: modelling the clinical and economic implications. Pharmacoeconomics 27(1), 39–53 (2009).
  • Comabella M, Vandenbroeck K. Pharmacogenomics and multiple sclerosis: moving toward individualized medicine. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 11(5), 484–491 (2011).
  • Derfuss T. Personalized medicine in multiple sclerosis: hope or reality? BMC Med. 10, 116 (2012).
  • Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation. Med. Decis. Making 32(5), 733–743 (2012).
  • Conway D, Cohen JA. Combination therapy in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 9(3), 299–308 (2010).

Websites

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.