Squinting Through Layers of Fog: Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis

Abstract

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Modeling in Multiple Sclerosis: Playing Around with Non-Healthcare Costs?

“…Our review of the most recent economic evaluations conducted in the EU setting on first-generation DMDs confirms the widespread concern raised in previous wider reviews [6][7][8][9]. First, most studies were based on long-term modeling and they all had to rely on weak sources to populate them [8].…”

“…Although medical evidence on the most dated DMDs is quite well established, the economic literature on these drugs is still controversial [6][7][8][9], casting doubts on their cost effectiveness. In this commentary, we assess the potential contribution of cost-effectiveness analyses to pricing and reimbursement decisions in Europe.…”

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

“…On the basis of title and abstract, 966 records were excluded and the remaining 57 records were included for full-text screening. A further 48 articles were excluded at the full-text stage, leaving nine systematic reviews, [245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252][253] of which eight were economic evaluation studies [245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252] and one was a systematic review of studies that used a generic tool to measure HRQoL in people with multiple sclerosis. 253 …”

“…First, most studies were unclear on whether study selection and data extraction were carried out in duplicate or did not carry out study selection and data extraction in duplicate. Second, although some authors [245][246][247][248][249][250][251]253 provided a list of included studies, not all of these authors 246,[248][249][250]253 provided a list of excluded studies. Third, it was unclear or not stated whether some authors assessed and/or documented the scientific quality of the included studies.…”

“…We identified several related systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness evaluations in RRMS in the overview of systematic reviews. [245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252][253] Therefore, we performed searches for primary cost-effectiveness studies from the earliest search date found in these selected reviews (i.e. 2012) to April 2016.…”