Squinting Through Layers of Fog: Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Annie Hawton (1) (2)
James Shearer (1)
Elizabeth Goodwin (1)
Colin Green (1) (2) - 刊名：Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
- 出版年：2013
- 出版时间：August 2013
- 年：2013
- 卷：11
- 期：4
- 页码：331-341
- 全文大小：350 KB
- 参考文献：1. Zwibel H. Contribution to impaired mobility and general symptoms to the burden of multiple sclerosis. Adv Ther. 2009;26:1043-7. CrossRef
2. 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;66:1696-02. CrossRef
3. McCrone P, Heslin M, Knapp M, et al. Multiple sclerosis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:847-0. CrossRef
4. Ryan M, Deno S, Zwibel H. Review of the clinical debate regarding interventions for multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15:S1-7.
5. 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;339:1359-3. CrossRef
6. 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):S96-04. CrossRef
7. 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;10:54-0. CrossRef
8. 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-. CrossRef
9. 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;13:78-9. CrossRef
10. Phillips C, Humphreys I. Assessing cost-effectiveness in the management of multiple sclerosis. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res. 2009;1:61-8. CrossRef
11. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Guidance No. 32; 2002.
12. 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.
13. McCabe C, Chilcott J, Claxton K, et al. Continuing the multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme is unjustified. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2010;340:c1786. CrossRef
14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Fingolimod for the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. TA254; 2012.
15. Holmoy T, Gulowsen Celius E. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab in multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:11-1. CrossRef
16. 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-. CrossRef
17. Phillips C. The cost of multiple sclerosis and the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying agents in its treatment. CNS Drugs. 2004;18:561-4. CrossRef
18. Sharac J, McCrone P, Sabes-Figuera R. Pharmacoeconomic considerations in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Drugs. 2010;70:1677-1. CrossRef
19. Hoch J. Cost-effectiveness lessons from disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2004;4:537-7. CrossRef
20. Chiao E, Meyer K. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25:1445-4. CrossRef
21. 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-. CrossRef
22. 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;7:91-08. CrossRef
23. 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;26:617-7. CrossRef
24. 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;14:679-0. CrossRef
25. 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;14:617-7. CrossRef
26. Noyes K, Bajorska A, Chappel A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population based study. Neurology. 2011;77:353-3. CrossRef
27. 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;17:377-1.
28. 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;32:717-8. CrossRef
29. 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;12:657-5. CrossRef
30. 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;15:543-5.
31. 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;25:658-3. CrossRef
32. 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;13:245-1.
33. 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;7:554-8. CrossRef
34. 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;5:67-9.
35. 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;27:39-3. CrossRef
36. 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;11:542-1. CrossRef
37. 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;23:571-1. CrossRef
38. 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;25:611-4. CrossRef
39. Kobelt G, J?nsson 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-. CrossRef
40. 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;30:21-1. CrossRef
41. Kobelt G, J?nsson 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;18:127-8.
42. Nuijten M, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health. 2002;5:44-4. CrossRef
43. 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;4:35-0. CrossRef
44. 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;16:751-7. CrossRef
45. Kendrick M, Johnson K. Long term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-β may be cost effective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:45-3. CrossRef
46. Kobelt G, J?nsson L, Henriksson F, et al. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1B in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:768-0. CrossRef
47. Forbes R, Lees A, Waugh N, et al. Population based cost utility study of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1999;319:1529-3. CrossRef
48. 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-. CrossRef
49. 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;45:1014-1. CrossRef
50. 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;15:741-1. CrossRef
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;38:816-6. CrossRef
52. 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-.
53. 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;33:914-5. CrossRef
54. 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;16:956-3. CrossRef
55. 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;27:179-8. CrossRef
56. Kurtzke J. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33:1444-2. CrossRef
57. 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.
58. 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-.
59. 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;8:27-5. CrossRef
60. Berg J, Lindgren P, Fredrikson S, et al. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Sweden. Eur J Health Econ. 2006;7:75-5. CrossRef
61. Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, et al. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2000;6:91-.
62. Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, et al. A cost-utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1-5.
63. 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.
64. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D user guide. Rotterdam: The EuroQol Group; 1996.
65. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-08. CrossRef
66. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271-2. CrossRef
67. Brazier J, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851-. CrossRef
68. 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. CrossRef
69. Ebers GC. Outcome measures were flawed. BMJ. 2010;340:1286. CrossRef
70. Ebers GC, Heigenhauser L, Daumer M, et al. Disability as an outcome in MS clinical trials. Neurology. 2008;71:624-1. CrossRef
71. 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-. CrossRef
72. 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;112:133-6. CrossRef
73. Runmarker B, Andersen O. Prognostic factors in a multiple sclerosis incidence cohort with twenty-five years of follow-up. Brain. 1993;116:117-4. CrossRef
74. Tremlett H, Paty DW, Devonshire V. Disability progression in multiple sclerosis is much slower than previously reported. Neurology. 2006;66:172-. CrossRef
75. Zajicek J, Freeman J, Porter B. Multiple sclerosis: a practical manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. CrossRef
76. 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. CrossRef
77. Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Lage M, et al. Burden of a multiple sclerosis relapse. The patient’s perspective. Patient. 2012;5:57-9. CrossRef
78. 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-.
79. 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-. CrossRef
80. Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, et al. Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions. CHE Research Paper. York: Centre for Health Economics; 2010.
81. Koopmanschap M, Rutten FFH, Vanineveld B, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ. 1995;14:171-9. CrossRef
82. Anderson R. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility? Health Econ. 2010;19:350-4. CrossRef
83. 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;15:639-9. CrossRef
84. Ara R, Wailoo A. Using health state utility values in models exploring the cost-effectiveness of health technologies. Value Health. 2012;15(6):971-.
85. 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. CrossRef - 作者单位：Annie Hawton (1) (2)
James Shearer (1)
Elizabeth Goodwin (1)
Colin Green (1) (2)
1. Health Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
2. Peninsula Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
文摘
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.