Pharmacoeconomics and clinical trials in multiple sclerosis: baseline data from the European Union
- 123 Downloads
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
KeywordsDisease 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.
- 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
- European Union Clinical Trials Register, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=multiple+sclerosis. Accessed February 24, 2012
- Fuller GN, Bone I (2001) Disease modifying treatment in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 71:i20–ii21Google Scholar
- 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
- Maggon K (2010) Daclizumab (Biogen, Abbott) Review: multiple sclerosis. http://knol.google.com/k/daclizumab-biogen-abbott-review-multiple-sclerosis#Clinical_trials. Accessed July 11, 2011
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Multiple sclerosis information page. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/multiple_sclerosis/multiple_sclerosis.htm. Accessed May 13, 2007
- 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
- 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
- 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