Abstract
Background
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurological disorder, which can lead to a wide range of disabling symptoms. The condition has a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life, and the economic cost of the disease is substantial. Decision-making regarding treatments for MS, and particularly disease-modifying interventions, has been hampered by limitations in the data and evaluative framework for assessing their cost effectiveness. Whilst attention has been drawn to these weaknesses, the scope and extent of the challenges in this area have not been fully set out to date.
Aims
The aims of this review were to identify all published economic evaluations of MS treatments in order to provide a statement on the scope and characteristics of the cost-effectiveness literature in the area of MS and to provide a basis on which to suggest practical recommendations for future research to aid decision-making.
Method
A systematic search was undertaken to identify economic evaluations of treatments for people with MS published in English up to December 2011. Included studies were reviewed to provide a comprehensive description of the characteristics of the currently applied framework for cost effectiveness in MS, with the following key methodological components considered: methods for estimating disease progression, the impact of treatment and health outcomes and costs associated with MS.
Results
Thirty-seven papers were identified. Most studies (n = 32) were model-based evaluations of disease-modifying drugs. All models used disability stages defined by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) to characterise disease progression, and the impact of treatment was based on data from clinical trials and epidemiological cohorts. Outcomes were primarily based on quality-adjusted life-years (n = 22) and/or related to relapse (n = 14). Estimates for health state utility values (HSUVs), costs and the impact of treatment on the course of MS varied considerably between studies, depending on the data sources used and the methods used to incorporate data into models. The scope of the studies was narrow, with a sparsity of economic evaluations of symptomatic and/or non-pharmacological interventions; exclusion of direct non-medical, indirect and informal care costs from analyses; and a narrow view of the potential impact of treatment, concentrating on disability, according to the EDSS, and relapses. In addition, there were issues concerning how to capture losses in HSUVs due to relapses in a way that reflects their salience to people with MS, the wide variation in costs and outcomes from different sources and from potentially unrepresentative samples and modelling disease progression from natural history data from over 30 years ago.
Conclusion
There are many complexities for those designing and reporting cost-effectiveness studies of treatments for MS. Analysts, and ultimately decision makers, face multiple data and methodological challenges. Policy makers, technology developers, clinicians, patients and researchers need to acknowledge and address these challenges and to consider recommendations that will improve the current scenario. There is a need for further research that can constructively inform decision-making regarding the funding of treatments for MS.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Zwibel H. Contribution to impaired mobility and general symptoms to the burden of multiple sclerosis. Adv Ther. 2009;26:1043–57.
Kobelt G, Berg J, Atherly D, et al. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in the United States. Neurology. 2006;66:1696–702.
McCrone P, Heslin M, Knapp M, et al. Multiple sclerosis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:847–60.
Ryan M, Deno S, Zwibel H. Review of the clinical debate regarding interventions for multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15:S1–17.
Boggild M, Palace J, Barton P, et al. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: two year results of clinical cohort study with historical comparator. Br Med J. 2009;339:1359–63.
Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, et al. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom. Eur J Health Econ. 2006;7(Suppl 2):S96–104.
Orme M, Kerrigan J, Tyas D, et al. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health. 2007;10:54–60.
Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 2003;326:522–8.
Naci H, Fleurence R, Birt J, et al. The impact of increasing neurological disability of multiple sclerosis on health utilities: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Econ. 2010;13:78–89.
Phillips C, Humphreys I. Assessing cost-effectiveness in the management of multiple sclerosis. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res. 2009;1:61–78.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Guidance No. 32; 2002.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Natalizumab for the treatment of adults with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Guidance No. TA127. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.
McCabe C, Chilcott J, Claxton K, et al. Continuing the multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme is unjustified. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2010;340:c1786.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Fingolimod for the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. TA254; 2012.
Holmoy T, Gulowsen Celius E. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:11–21.
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 Psychiatry. 2001;70:574–9.
Phillips C. The cost of multiple sclerosis and the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying agents in its treatment. CNS Drugs. 2004;18:561–74.
Sharac J, McCrone P, Sabes-Figuera R. Pharmacoeconomic considerations in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Drugs. 2010;70:1677–91.
Hoch J. Cost-effectiveness lessons from disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2004;4:537–47.
Chiao E, Meyer K. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25:1445–54.
Bakhshai J, Bleu-Laine R, Jung M, et al. The cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab for formulary inclusion. J Med Econ. 2010;13:63–9.
Earnshaw S, Graham J, Oleen-Burkey M, et al. Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7:91–108.
Gani R, Giovannoni G, Bates D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of natalizumab (Tysabri) compared with other disease-modifying therapies for people with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:617–27.
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.
O’Day K, Meyer K, Miller R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2011;14:617–27.
Noyes K, Bajorska A, Chappel A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population based study. Neurology. 2011;77:353–63.
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;17:377–81.
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;32:717–28.
Tappenden P, McCabe C, Chilcott J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the Medicare population. Value Health. 2009;12:657–65.
Goldberg L, Edwards N, 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.
Castelli-Haley J, Oleen-Burkey M-KA, Lage M, et al. Glatiramer acetate versus interferon beta-1a for subcutaneous administration: comparison of outcomes among multiple sclerosis patients. Adv Ther. 2008;25:658–73.
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;13:245–61.
Prosser L, Kuntz K, Bar-Or A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2004;7:554–68.
Bose U, Kadkhani D, Burrell A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Drug Assess. 2002;5:67–79.
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. 2009;27:39–53.
Iskedjian M, Walker J, Gray T, et al. Economic evaluation of Avonex (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event. Mult Scler. 2005;11:542–51.
Lepen C, Coyle P, Vollmer T, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of interferon-β-1a in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Clin Drug Investig. 2003;23:571–81.
Touchette D, Durgin T, Wanke L, 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;25:611–34.
Kobelt G, Jönsson L, Fredrikson S. Cost-utility of interferon β1b in the treatment of patients with active relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:50–9.
Lazzaro C, Bianchi C, Peracino L, et al. Economic evaluation of treating clinically isolated syndrome and subsequent multiple sclerosis with interferon beta-1b. Neurol Sci. 2009;30:21–31.
Kobelt G, Jönsson L, Miltenburger C, et al. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using natural history data. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:127–38.
Nuijten M, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health. 2002;5:44–54.
Phillips C, Gilmour L, Gale R, et al. A cost utility model of interferon beta-1b in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2001;4:35–50.
Brown M, Murray T, Sketris I, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1B in slowing multiple sclerosis disability progression. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:751–67.
Kendrick M, Johnson K. Long term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-β may be cost effective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:45–53.
Kobelt G, Jönsson L, Henriksson F, et al. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1B in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:768–80.
Forbes R, Lees A, Waugh N, et al. Population based cost utility study of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1999;319:1529–33.
Parkin D, Jacoby A, McNamee P, et al. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-β: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68:144–9.
Tappenden P, Saccardi R, Confavreux C, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: an exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2010;45:1014–21.
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;15:741–51.
Higginson I, McCrone P, Hart S, et al. Is short-term palliative care cost-effective in multiple sclerosis? A randomized phase II trial. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2009;38:816–26.
Pozzilli C, Brunetti M, Amicosante A, et al. Home based management in multiple sclerosis: results of a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73(3):250–5.
Curkendall S, Wang C, Hohnson B, et al. Potential health care cost savings associated with early treatment of multiple sclerosis using disease modifying therapy. Clin Ther. 2011;33:914–25.
Tan H, Yu J, Tabby D, et al. Clinical and economic impact of a specialty care management program among patients with multiple sclerosis: a cohort study. Mult Scler. 2010;16:956–63.
Rajagopalan K, Brook R, Beren I, et al. Comparing the costs and absences for multiple sclerosis among US employees: pre- and post-treatment initiation. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:179–88.
Kurtzke J. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33:1444–52.
Tappenden P, McCabe C, Simpson E, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of relapsing/remitting and secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis. Maryland, USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Health and Human Services; 2006.
Prosser L, Kuntz K, Bar-Or A, et al. Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2003;9:311–9.
Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Masterman T. Cost, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in Sweden. Eur J Neurol. 2001;8:27–35.
Berg J, Lindgren P, Fredrikson S, et al. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Sweden. Eur J Health Econ. 2006;7:75–85.
Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, et al. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2000;6:91–8.
Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, et al. A cost-utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1–45.
Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Parkin D, et al. Cost and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in the UK. Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics; 2000.
EuroQol Group. EQ-5D user guide. Rotterdam: The EuroQol Group; 1996.
Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.
Brazier J, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851–9.
Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions for a comprehensive health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702.
Ebers GC. Outcome measures were flawed. BMJ. 2010;340:1286.
Ebers GC, Heigenhauser L, Daumer M, et al. Disability as an outcome in MS clinical trials. Neurology. 2008;71:624–31.
Tyas D, Kerrigan J, Russell N, et al. The distribution of the cost of multiple sclerosis in the UK: How do costs vary by illness severity? Value Health. 2007;10:386–9.
Weinshenker B, Bass B, Rice G, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study 1. Clinical course and disability. Brain. 1989;112:133–46.
Runmarker B, Andersen O. Prognostic factors in a multiple sclerosis incidence cohort with twenty-five years of follow-up. Brain. 1993;116:117–34.
Tremlett H, Paty DW, Devonshire V. Disability progression in multiple sclerosis is much slower than previously reported. Neurology. 2006;66:172–7.
Zajicek J, Freeman J, Porter B. Multiple sclerosis: a practical manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
Zajicek J, Ingram W, Vickery J, et al. Patient-orientated longitudinal study of multiple sclerosis in south west England (The South West Impact of Multiple Sclerosis project, SWIMS) 1: Protocol and baseline characteristics of cohort. BMC Neurol. 2010;10:88.
Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Lage M, et al. Burden of a multiple sclerosis relapse. The patient’s perspective. Patient. 2012;5:57–69.
Parkin D, Jacoby A, McNamee P, et al. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-β: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68:144–9.
Patwardhan M, Matchar D, Samsa G, et al. Cost of multiple sclerosis by level of disability: a review of literature. Mult Scler. 2005;11:232–9.
Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, et al. Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions. CHE Research Paper. York: Centre for Health Economics; 2010.
Koopmanschap M, Rutten FFH, Vanineveld B, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ. 1995;14:171–89.
Anderson R. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility? Health Econ. 2010;19:350–64.
Saramago P, Manca A, Sutton A. Deriving input parameters for cost-effectiveness modeling: taxonomy of data types and approaches to their statistical synthesis. Value Health. 2012;15:639–49.
Ara R, Wailoo A. Using health state utility values in models exploring the cost-effectiveness of health technologies. Value Health. 2012;15(6):971–4.
Ford D, Jones K, Middleton R, et al. The feasibility of collecting information from people with Multiple Sclerosis for the UK MS Register via a web portal: characterising a cohort of people with MS. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2012;12:73.
Acknowledgments
This project has been supported through funding from the UK NIHR Comprehensive Clinical Research Network. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). AH and CG acknowledge funding from the PenCLAHRC National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. AH would like to thank Prof Ken Stein for conversations that led to the paper’s title.
Author contributions
Annie Hawton drafted and revised the manuscript for content, was involved in conceptualisation and design of the work, analysed and interpreted the data, and is guarantor for overall content. James Shearer drafted and revised the manuscript for content, was involved in conceptualisation and design of the work and analysed and interpreted the data. Elizabeth Goodwin drafted and revised the manuscript for content, was involved in conceptualisation and design of the work and analysed and interpreted the data. Colin Green drafted and revised the manuscript for content, was involved in conceptualisation and design of the work and analysed and interpreted the data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix: Example of Medline Search
Appendix: Example of Medline Search
Search strategy: |
1 exp cost analysis/ |
2 exp cost-benefit analysis/ |
3 (cost$2 adj2 (benefit$ or consequence* or analys* or utilit$ or minim$ or effective$ or effective* or efficac*)).ti,ab. |
4 1 or 2 or 3 |
5 exp Multiple Sclerosis/ |
6 Myelitis, Transverse/ |
7 Demyelinating Diseases/ |
8 Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated/ |
9 exp Optic Neuritis/ |
10 multiple sclerosis.mp. |
11 neuromyelitis optica.mp. |
12 transverse myelitis.mp. |
13 encephalomyelitis.mp. |
14 devic.mp. |
15 optic neuritis.mp. |
16 demyelinating disease$.mp. |
17 acute disseminated encephalomyelitis.mp. |
18 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 |
19 4 and 18 |
20 letter.pt. |
21 editorial.pt. |
22 comment.pt. |
23 20 or 21 or 22 |
24 19 not 23 |
25 limit 24 to english language |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hawton, A., Shearer, J., Goodwin, E. et al. Squinting Through Layers of Fog: Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11, 331–341 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0034-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0034-0