Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Avonex and CinnoVex in Relapsing Remitting MS

Abstract

Introduction:Multiple sclerosis is a chronic and degenerative neurological disease characterized by loss of myelin sheath of some neurons in brain and spinal cord. It is associated with high economic burden due to premature deaths and high occurrence of disabilities. The aim of the current study was to determine cost effectiveness of two major products of interferon 1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.Method and Materials:Altogether, 140 patients who have consumed Avonex and CinnoVex in Relapsing Remitting MS for at least two years were randomly selected (70 patients in each group). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the adopted MSQoL-54 instrument. Costs were measured and valued from Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME) perspective. Two-way sensitivity analysis was used to check robustness of the results.Results:Patients in CinnoVex group reported significantly higher scores in both physical (69.5 vs. 50.9, P<0.001) and mental (63.3 vs. 56.6, P=0.03) aspects of HRQoL than Avonex group. On the other hand, annual cost of CinnoVex and Avonex were 2410 US$ and 4515US$ per patient, respectively (P<0.001).Conclusions:The results showed that CinnoVex was dominant option over the study period. It is suggested that results of the current study should be considered in allocating resources to MS treatments in Iran. Of course, our findings should be interpreted with caution duo to short term horizon and lack of HRQoL scores at baseline (before the intervention).

Factors affecting MS patients’ health-related quality of life and measurement challenges in Lebanon and the MENA region

“…The impact of a few therapies on QoL was investigated to some extent. [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] Drawing firm conclusions on the findings of therapeutic approaches is difficult, due to the treatment choices and methods heterogeneity, and insufficient replication studies (see Supplementary Table 1).…”

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying drugs of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

“…Fig. 1 Flow chart of the study selection process using a 31-health-state Markov model [43], one study conducted CEA using a 5-year cohort-based Markov model [44], one study conducted CEA using a 1-year cycle cohort-based Markov state transition model [45], one study conducted CEA using a lifetime Markov model [46], five studies conducted CEA [2,[47][48][49][50], two studies conducted both CEA and CBA [10,51], one study conducted CEA using simulation model [52], one study conducted CEA using a treatment-sequence model [53], one study conducted CUA and budget impact analysis (BIA) using a Markov state transition model [54], one study conducted CEA using a published Markov structure with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) [55], one study conducted CEA using a Markov state transition model [56], one study conducted CEA using a Markov economic model [57], five studies conducted CEA using a cohort Markov economic model [10,13,17,51,58], one study conducted CEA using a microsimulation model [19], one study conducted CEA using a discrete-time Markov model [59], one study condcuted CEA using a cohort-based multi-state Markov model [60], and one study conducted CEA using a probabilistic Markov model (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) [61] (Table 2).…”

“…One study was conducted from the UK societal cost perspective [22], two from UK National Health Service [2,58], one from UK third-party payer perspective [55], two from Canadian healthcare system perspective [13,59], one from Chilean health care public sector perspective [38], one from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia payer's perspective [56], two from Payer perspective [34,45], one from the Colombian healthcare system perspective [57], one from Italian societal perspective [28], one from Italian National Healthcare System perspective [60], one study from Swiss health insurance perspective [30], one from Payer and societal perspective [17], eleven studies from societal perspective [19, 27, 29, 31-33, 35, 42-44, 51], three studies from Ministry of Health perspective [50,52,64], one from Third-party payer perspective [23], one from Saudi payer perspective [24], two from US payer perspective [18,37], one from US health care payer perspective [47], one from both National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective [25], two from Spanish National Health System [39,61], one from thirdparty payer perspective [63], one from both patients and third-party payers perspective [26], one from healthcare perspective [36], one from public healthcare perspective [49], one from both National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective [41], one from both thirdparty payer & Societal [46], and one from Finnish payer perspective and Scenario analysis with a societal perspective [10], one from both health economics and societal perspective…”

Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of disease-modifying drugs of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review

“…Forms of disease-modifying drugs of RRMS: Three forms of treatment of RRMS were identified; injectable, oral, and intravenous infusions treatments. Eight studies only analyzed the injectable disease-modifying drugs of RRMS together (2,8,13,(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). Two studies only analyzed the oral disease-modifying drugs of RRMS together (25,26).…”