PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 455–469 | Cite as

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis

Issues to Consider
Practical Application

Abstract

Several cost-effectiveness models of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) have been developed for different populations and different countries. Vast differences in the approaches and discrepancies in the results give rise to heated discussions and limit the use of these models. Our main objective is to discuss the methodological challenges in modelling the cost effectiveness of treatments for MS. We conducted a review of published models to describe the approaches taken to date, to identify the key parameters that influence the cost effectiveness of DMTs, and to point out major areas of weakness and uncertainty. Thirty-six published models and analyses were identified. The greatest source of uncertainty is the absence of head-to-head randomized clinical trials. Modellers have used various techniques to compensate, including utilizing extension trials. The use of large observational cohorts in recent studies aids in identifying population-based, ‘real-world’ treatment effects. Major drivers of results include the time horizon modelled and DMT acquisition costs. Model endpoints must target either policy makers (using cost-utility analysis) or clinicians (conducting cost-effectiveness analyses). Lastly, the cost effectiveness of DMTs outside North America and Europe is currently unknown, with the lack of country-specific data as the major limiting factor. We suggest that limited data should not preclude analyses, as models may be built and updated in the future as data become available. Disclosure of modelling methods and assumptions could improve the transferability and applicability of models designed to reflect different healthcare systems.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express sincere gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Matthew Bellizzi for his clinical consultations and thoughtful suggestions. After publishing a risk-benefit assessment of natalizumab [55], Joel Thompson and Katia Noyes received a χresearch grant from Biogen Idec to update the model (unpublished).

Funding

Contract HC 0103 from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (Programme Officer: Nicholas LaRocca, PhD); Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) [UL1 RR024160] from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research.

Author Contributions

Joel Thompson contributed to the concept and design, the acquisition of data, the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript, and study supervision. Amir Abdolahi contributed to the acquisition of data, drafting the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript. Katia Noyes contributed to the concept and design, the acquisition of data, the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript, and study supervision, and obtained funding for the study. Joel Thompson acts as guarantor for the overall content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobs LD, Cookfair DL, Rudick RA, et al. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG). Ann Neurol. 1996;39(3):285–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    PRISMS Study Group. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon beta-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon beta-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9139):1498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rudick RA, Goodkin DE, Jacobs LD, et al. Impact of interferon beta-1a on neurologic disability in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG). Neurology. 1997;49(2):358–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon beta-1b delays progression of disability in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a European multicenter randomised study. Lancet. 1998;352:1491–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon beta-lb is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. I. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 1993;43:655–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    PRISMS Study Group. PRISMS-4: Long-term efficacy of interferon-beta-1a in relapsing MS. Neurology. 2001;56(12):1628–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, et al. Extended use of glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) is well tolerated and maintains its clinical effect on multiple sclerosis relapse rate and degree of disability. Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology. 1998;50(3):701–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Interferon beta-1b in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: final outcome of the randomized controlled trial. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Neurology 1995;45(7):1277–85.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller DH, Khan OA, Sheremata WA, et al. A controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(1):15–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nuijten MJ, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health. 2002;5(1):44–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kendrick M, Johnson KI. Long-term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-beta may be cost effective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(1):45–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rubio-Terres C, Aristegui RI, Medina RF, Izquierdo AG. Cost-utility analysis of multiple sclerosis treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta in Spain [in Spanish]. Farm Hosp. 2003;27(3):159–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubio-Terres C, Dominguez-Gil HA. Cost-utility analysis of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment with azathioprine or interferon beta in Spain [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol. 2005;40(12):705–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Fredrikson S. Cost-utility of interferon beta1b in the treatment of patients with active relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4(1):50–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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. 2004;7(5):554–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharac J, McCrone P, Sabes-Figuera R. Pharmacoeconomic considerations in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Drugs. 2010;70(13):1677–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown MG, Murray TJ, Sketris IS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1b in slowing multiple sclerosis disability progression. First estimates. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(3):751–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forbes RB, Swingler RJ. An epidemiologic study of multiple sclerosis in Northern Ireland. Neurology. 1999;52(1):215–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gold MR, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tufts Medical Center. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear4/default.aspx. Accessed 22 Apr 2012.
  21. 21.
    Culyer AJ. Perspective and desire in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:889–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:699.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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. 2011;17:463–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klawiter EC, Cross AH, Naismith RT. The present efficacy of multiple sclerosis therapeutics. Neurology. 2009;73:983–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minden S, Hoaglin D, Jureidini S, et al. Disease-modifying agents in the Sonya Slifka Longitudinal Multiple Sclerosis Study. Mult Scler. 2008;14(5):640–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khan OA, Zabad R, Caon C, et al. Comparative assessment of immunomodulating therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2002;16:563–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khan O. What can be learned from open direct comparative trials in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2009;277(Suppl. 1):S25–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bell C, Graham J, Earnshaw S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on long-term clinical data. J Manag Care Pharm. 2007;13(3):245–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Earnshaw SR, Graham J, Oleen-Burkley MK, et al. Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Policy. 2009;7(2):91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khan OA, Tselis AC, Kamholz JA, et al. A prospective, open-label treatment trial to compare the effect of IFNbeta-1a (Avonex), IFNbeta-1b (Betaseron), and glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) on the relapse rate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results after 18 months of therapy. Mult Scler. 2001;7:349–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deisenhammer F, Mayringer I, Harvey J, et al. A comparative study of the relative bioavailability of different interferon beta preparations. Neurology. 2000;54:2055–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Durelli L, Verdun E, Barbero P, et al. Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: results of a 2-year prospective randomised multicentre study (INCOMIN). Lancet. 2002;359:1453–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sturzebecher S, Maibauer R, Heuner A, et al. Pharmacodynamic comparison of single doses of IFN-beta1a and IFN-beta1b in healthy volunteers. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 1999;19:1257–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Panitch H, Goodin DS, Francis G, et al. Randomized, comparative study of interferon beta-1a treatment regimens in MS: the EVIDENCE Trial. Neurology. 2002;59(10):1496–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guo S, Bozkaya D, Ward A, et al. Treating relapsing multiple sclerosis with subcutaneous versus intramuscular interferon-beta-1a. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(1):39–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tappenden P, McCabe C, Chilcott JB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the Medicare population. Value Health. 2009;12(5):657–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mullins CD, Whicher D, Reese ES, et al. Generating evidence for comparative effectiveness research using more pragmatic randomized controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):969–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Methodology report: Our questions, our decisions—standards for patient-centered outcomes research. 4 Jun 2012. http://www.pcori.org/assets/Preliminary-Draft-Methodology-Report.pdf. Accessed 15 Jul 2012.
  39. 39.
    Shirani A, Zhao Y, Karim ME, et al. Association between use of interferon beta and progression of disability in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. JAMA. 2012;308(3):247–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heckman J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica. 1979;47:153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heckman J, Ichimura H, Todd PE. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Rev Econ Stud. 1997;64:605–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Heckman JJ, Vytlacil E. Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation. Econometrica. 2005;73(3):669–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dehejia R, Wahba S. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat. 2002;84(1):151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:17–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Duan N, Manning WG, Morris CN, et al. Choosing between the sample selection model and multi-part model. J Bus Econ Stat. 1984;2:283–9.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, et al. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of a new treatment for MS (natalizumab) compared with current standard practice in Sweden. Mult Scler. 2008;14:679–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Noyes K, Bajorska A, Chappel A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Neurology. 2011;77:355–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Minden SL, Frankel D, Hadden LS, Perloff JN, Srinath KP, Hoaglin DC. The Sonya Slifka Longitudinal Multiple Sclerosis Study: methods and sample characteristics. Mult Scler. 2006;12:24–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sculpher M, Claxton K, Drummond MF, et al. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ. 2006;15(7):677–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(5):461–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Griffin S, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision analysis for resource allocation in health care. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(Suppl. 3):23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(36):iii–xi 1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Noyes K, Veazie P, Hall WJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the MADIT-CRT trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(1):66–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Goldberg LD, Edwards NC, Fincher C, et al. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying drugs for the first-line treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15:543–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Thompson JP, Noyes K, Dorsey ER, et al. Quantitative risk-benefit analysis of natalizumab. Neurology. 2008;71:357–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):1–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Meltzer D. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16:33–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the “societal perspective” on costs of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:371–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weinstein MC, O’Brien BJ, Hornberger J. Principles of good practice of decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15:796–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Smyth KA. Cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for multiple sclerosis: are they clinically relevant? Neurology. 2011;77(4):317–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Boult C, Wieland GD. Comprehensive primary care for older patients with multiple chronic conditions: “nobody rushes you through”. JAMA. 2010;304:1936–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Meltzer D, Basu A, Conti R. The economics of comparative effectiveness studies: societal and private perspectives and their implications for prioritizing public investments in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):843–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, et al. 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. 2003;326(7388):522–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Cahill J, Learner N. Managed care pharmacy sees potential of comparative effectiveness research to improve patient care and lower costs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):931–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Raftery J. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: a costly failure. BMJ. 2010;340:1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schafer JA, Gunderson BW, Gleason PP. Price increases and new drugs drive increased expenditures for multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16:713–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sanchez-de la Rosa R, Sabater E, Casado MA. Budget impact analysis of the first-line treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol. 2011;53:129–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Coyle PK, Foley JF, Fox EJ, et al. Best practice recommendations for the selection and management of patients with multiple sclerosis receiving natalizumab therapy. Mult Scler. 2009;15:S26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Chambers JD, Neumann PJ, Buxton MJ. Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med Decis Making. 2010;30:E14–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    O’Neill P, Devlin NJ. An analysis of NICE’s “restricted” (or “optimized”) decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(11):987–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Eckermann S, Karnon J, Willan AR. The value of value of information: best informing research design and prioritization using current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):699–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chalkidou K, Walley T. Using comparative effectiveness research to inform policy and practice in the UK NHS: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):799–811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jankovic SM, Kostic M, Radosavljevic M. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on data a Balkan country in socioeconomic transition. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2009;66(7):556–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Romero A, Arango C, Alvis N, et al. The cost of treatment in multiple sclerosis in Colombia. Value Health. 2011;14(Suppl. 1):S48–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Traboulsee AL, Li DK. The role of MRI in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Adv Neurol. 2006;98:125–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Knies S, Evers SM, Candel MJ, et al. Utilities of the EQ-5D: Transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):767–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, et al. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1194–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, et al. A cost-utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(4):iii–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Parkin D, et al. Costs and Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study in the UK [Scandinavian Working Papers in Economics]. Stockholm: The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics; 2000.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, et al. Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2003;9(3):311–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kobelt G, Texier-Richard B, Lindgren P. The long-term cost of multiple sclerosis in France and potential changes with disease-modifying interventions. Mult Scler. 2009;15(6):741–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Otten N. Interferon beta 1-b and multiple sclerosis, issue 5.0, 1. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1996.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Otten N. Comparison of drug treatments for multiple sclerosis. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1998.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Levy AR, Mitton C, Johnston KM, et al. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):813–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Garrison LP. Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):855–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Brown MG, Murray TJ, Fisk JD, et al. A therapeutic and economic assessment of betaseron in multiple sclerosis. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1996.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Forbes RB, Lees A, Waugh N, et al. Population based cost utility study of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1999;319(7224):1529–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Henriksson F, et al. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(3):768–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Parkin D, Jacoby A, McNamee P, et al. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon beta: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68(2):144–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bose U, Ladkani D, Burrell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2001;4:207–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Phillips C, Gilmour L, Gale R. A cost utility model of beta-interferon in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2001;4:35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Miltenburger C, et al. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1B in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using natural history disease data. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(1):127–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lepen C, Coyle PK, Vollmer T, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of interferon-beta-1a in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Clin Drug Invest. 2003;23(9):571–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Touchette DR, Durgin TL, Wanke LA, et al. A cost-utility analysis of mitoxantrone hydrochloride and interferon beta-1b in the treatment of patients with secondary progressive or progressive relapsing multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2003;25(2):611–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Iskedjian M, Walker JH, Gray T, et al. Economic evaluation of Avonex (interferon beta-Ia) in patients following a single demyelinating event. Mult Scler. 2005;11(5):542–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Gani R, Giobannoni G, Bates D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of natalizumab (Tysabri) compared with other disease-modifying therapies for people with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(7):617–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Chiao E, Meyer K. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1445–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Nuijten M, Mittendorf T. A health-economic evaluation of disease-modifying drugs for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis from the German societal perspective. Clin Ther. 2010;32(4):717–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Becker R, Dembeck C. Effects of cohort selection on the results of cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying drugs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17(5):377–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    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. 2011;14(5):617–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations