Journal of Public Health

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 211–218 | Cite as

Pharmacoeconomics and clinical trials in multiple sclerosis: baseline data from the European Union

  • Roger Lee Mendoza
Original Article



One of the contemporary debates between science and economics is concerned with why, and to what extent, financial cost and economic efficiency considerations affect scientific inquiry into possible solutions to human illnesses. This study inquires into clinical drug trials for multiple sclerosis (MS) in the European Union to determine the validity of a prevailing claim, advanced in the medical community, that the clinical efficacy of these drugs is undermined by cost and efficiency considerations.

Subjects and methods

The first part of the study is devoted to a review of pharmacoeconomic literature (2000–2012) on clinical drug testing for MS, particularly in the member countries of the European Union. The second part presents survey results of discontinued clinical trials that we gathered from European Union registries.


The study finds that cost and efficiency considerations exist in a limited number of trials in the European Union. Specifically, about 1/5 of MS drugs do not reach the pharmaceutical markets even if there may be some supporting efficacy data, or negative safety data is absent, during testing/experimentation. Their direct and controlling impact on decisions to withdraw suspend or prematurely terminate (as well as initiate) clinical testing and efficacy data collection for MS does not appear to be consistent. However, these could extend prevailing theoretical debates about the proper scope of clinical drug efficacy in MS.


The study suggests that pharmacoeconomic approaches to clinical efficacy help broaden and enhance our understanding and choices of disease management options for MS sufferers, their families and health care providers in the European Union and elsewhere. Finally, there is some empirical evidence to indicate an inverse relationship between transaction costs and drug marketability: The higher the transaction costs of clinical testing, the lower is the drug's potential for funding and eventual marketing


Disease management Efficiency Financial cost Intervention Medical/scientific MS drug Pharmacoeconomic Risk Transaction costs 


Conflict of interest

The author declares that no conflict of interest exists.

Financial disclosure



  1. Baumhackl U, Kappos L, Radue EW, Freitag P, Guseo A, Daumer M, Mertin J (2005) A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study of oral hydrolytic enzymes in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 11:166–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryant J, Clegg A, Milne R (2001) 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 70:574–579PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CAMMS223 Trial Investigators, Coles AJ, Compston DA, Selmaj KW, Lake SL, Moran S, Margolin DH, Norris K, Tandon PK (2008) Alemtuzumab vs. interferon beta-1a in early multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 359:1786–1801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, O’Hagan A, Cooper NJ, Abrams K, Claxton K (2003) Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. BMC 326:522–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coase R (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Couzin J (2005) Drug discovery: magnificent obsession. Science 307:1712–1715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curtiss FR (2007) Pharmacoeconomic modeling of drug therapies for multiple sclerosis: are we building houses on sand? J Manag Care Pharm 13:245–261Google Scholar
  8. Dahlman CJ (1979) The problem of externality. J Law Econ 21:141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Union Clinical Trials Register, Accessed February 24, 2012
  10. Fuller GN, Bone I (2001) Disease modifying treatment in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 71:i20–ii21Google Scholar
  11. Hauser S (1994) Multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases. In: Isselbacher KJ, Martin JB, Fauci AS (eds) Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 2287–2295Google Scholar
  12. Holmoy T, Celius EG (2008) Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Pharm Outcomes Res 8:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kendrick M, Johnson KI (2000) Long-term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon may be cost effective. PharmacoEconomics 18:45–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kleinschnitz C, Meuth SG, Wiendl H (2008) The trials and errors in MS therapy. Int MS J 15:79–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. MacLean HJ, Freedman MS (2001) Immunologic therapy for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 1:277–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maggon K (2010) Daclizumab (Biogen, Abbott) Review: multiple sclerosis. Accessed July 11, 2011
  17. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Multiple sclerosis information page. Accessed May 13, 2007
  18. O’Connor PS, Goodman AD, Kappos L, Lublin FD, Miller DH, Polman CH, Rudick RA, Forrestal F, Jurgensen S, Panzara MA, Sandrock AW (2009) Return of disease activity after cessation of natalizumab. Mult Scler 15:S240Google Scholar
  19. Pugliatti M, Rosati G, Carton H, Riise T, Drulovic J, Vecsei L, Milanov I (2006) The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Eur J Neurol 13:700–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ryan M (2008) Multiple sclerosis. In: Dipiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM (eds) Pharmacotherapy a pathophysiologic approach. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 431–441Google Scholar
  21. Sorensen PS, Mellgren SI, Svenningsson A, Elovaara I, Frederiksen JL, Beiske AG, Myhr KM, Søgaard LV, Olsen IC, Sandberg-Wollheim M (2009) NORdic trial of oral Methylprednisolone as add-on therapy to Interferon beta-1a for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (NORMIMS study): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 8:519–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tan IL, Lycklama à Nijeholt GJ, Polman CH, Adèr HJ, Barkhof F (2000) Linomide in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: MRI results from prematurely terminated phase-III trials. Mult Scler 6:99–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weinshenker BG, Noseworthy JH (2001) Multiple sclerosis: study design, sample sizes and pitfalls. In: Guiloff RJ (ed) Clinical trials in neurology. Springer, London, pp 371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wiendl H, Hohlfeld R (2002) Therapeutic approaches in multiple sclerosis: lessons from failed and interrupted treatment trials. BioDrugs 16:183–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wiendl H, Neuhaus O, Kappos L, Hohlfeld R (2000) Multiple sclerosis: current review of failed and discontinued clinical trials of drug treatment. Nervenarzt 71:597–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cherry HillUSA

Personalised recommendations