Multiple sclerosis: relapses, resource use, and costs

Hawton, Annie; Green, C

doi:10.1007/s10198-015-0728-3

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, there are no investigations on whether the long-term economic burden for administration and management of DMTs is associated with MS clinical evolution [10,13]. Therefore, the present retrospective cohort study aims to explore the relationships between the expenditure for MS treatments, and the risk of relapses and of disability progression during a 10-year observation period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthcare Costs for Treating Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis and the Risk of Progression: A Retrospective Italian Cohort Study from 2001 to 2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDisease modifying treatments (DMTs) are the main responsible for direct medical costs in multiple sclerosis (MS). The current investigation aims at evaluating possible associations between healthcare costs for treating relapsing remitting MS (RRMS) and disease evolution.MethodsThe present cohort study retrospectively included 544 newly diagnosed RRMS patients, prospectively followed up for 10.1±3.3 years. Costs for DMT administration and management were calculated for each year of observation. Following clinical endpoints were recorded: time to first relapse, 1-point EDSS progression, reaching of EDSS 4.0, reaching of EDSS 6.0, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SP). Covariates for statistical analyses were age, gender, disease duration and EDSS at diagnosis.ResultsAt time varying Cox regression models, 10% increase in annual healthcare costs was associated with 1.1% reduction in 1-point EDSS progression (HR = 0.897; p = 0.018), with 0.7% reduction in reaching EDSS 6.0 (HR = 0.925; p = 0.030), and with 1.0% reduction in SP conversion (HR = 0.902; p = 0.006).ConclusionHigher healthcare costs for treating MS have been associated with a milder disease evolution after 10 years, with possible reduction of long-term non-medical direct and indirect costs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthcare Costs for Treating Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis and the Risk of Progression: A Retrospective Italian Cohort Study from 2001 to 2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The costs of each type of relapse differed and so an average cost of relapse was estimated (based on the proportions). The sources of the data differed, with Biogen Idec Ltd using data from the study by Hawton and Green 107 and Teva and Merck inflating the costs reported in the ScHARR model. 275 The cost estimates used in Biogen Idec Ltd's model were lower than those used in the Teva and Merck models.…”

Section: Manufacturers' Submissions: Economic Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…105,106 Overall, indirect costs, including those from lost employment, are projected to be greater than the direct costs of care, and costs are greater for those in the later stages of disease. 93 The estimated cost of relapse ranges from £519 107 to £2115, 108 depending on the level of care required.…”

Section: Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resource use and costs were not reported by type of MS in the Hawton and Green study. 107 The assessment group considers that the costs used in the model were underestimates of the cost of a relapse.…”

Section: Cost Of Relapsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the manufacturer did not elaborate on the resource use estimates used to derive the unit cost of a relapse. Resource use information in the Hawton and Green study 107 was obtained from information collected in the UK South West Impact of Multiple Sclerosis (SWIMS) project. 284 The SWIMS project is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of people with MS in Devon and Cornwall, with follow up every 6 months.…”

Section: Cost Of Relapsementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta-interferon and glatiramer acetate for treating multiple sclerosis: systematic review and economic evaluation

Melendez‐Torres

Auguste

Armoiry

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background At the time of publication of the most recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance [technology appraisal (TA) 32] in 2002 on beta-interferon (IFN-β) and glatiramer acetate (GA) for multiple sclerosis, there was insufficient evidence of their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Objectives To undertake (1) systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IFN-β and GA in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) and clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) and each other, investigating annualised relapse rate (ARR) and time to disability progression confirmed at 3 months and 6 months and (2) cost-effectiveness assessments of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for CIS and RRMS compared with BSC and each other. Review methods Searches were undertaken in January and February 2016 in databases including The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and the Science Citation Index. We limited some database searches to specific start dates based on previous, relevant systematic reviews. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts with recourse to a third when needed. The Cochrane tool and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Philips checklists were used for appraisal. Narrative synthesis and, when possible, random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed. Cost-effectiveness analysis used published literature, findings from the Department of Health’s risk-sharing scheme (RSS) and expert opinion. A de novo economic model was built for CIS. The base case used updated RSS data, a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, a 50-year time horizon, 2014/15 prices and a discount rate of 3.5%. Outcomes are reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We undertook probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results In total, 6420 publications were identified, of which 63 relating to 35 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. In total, 86% had a high risk of bias. There was very little difference between drugs in reducing moderate or severe relapse rates in RRMS. All were beneficial compared with BSC, giving a pooled rate ratio of 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.76] for ARR and a hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.87) for time to disability progression confirmed at 3 months. NMA suggested that 20 mg of GA given subcutaneously had the highest probability of being the best at reducing ARR. Three separate cost-effectiveness searches identified > 2500 publications, with 26 included studies informing the narrative synthesis and model inputs. In the base case using a modified RSS the mean incremental cost was £31,900 for pooled DMTs compared with BSC and the mean incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.943, giving an ICER of £33,800 per QALY gained for people with RRMS. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis the ICER was £34,000 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analysis, using the assessment group inputs gave an ICER of £12,800 per QALY gained for pooled DMTs compared with BSC. Pegylated IFN-β-1 (125 µg) was the most cost-effective option of the individual DMTs compared with BSC (ICER £7000 per QALY gained); GA (20 mg) was the most cost-effective treatment for CIS (ICER £16,500 per QALY gained). Limitations Although we built a de novo model for CIS that incorporated evidence from our systematic review of clinical effectiveness, our findings relied on a population diagnosed with CIS before implementation of the revised 2010 McDonald criteria. Conclusions DMTs were clinically effective for RRMS and CIS but cost-effective only for CIS. Both RCT evidence and RSS data are at high risk of bias. Research priorities include comparative studies with longer follow-up and systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016043278. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract