Walking speed and economic outcomes for walking-impaired patients with multiple sclerosis

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 595-603

  Cohen, Joshua T ^a  

^a Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies   (United States)

Author keywords

care burden; community ambulation; multiple sclerosis; productivity; quality of life; walking speed

Indexed keywords

CAREGIVER BURDEN; CLINICAL TRIAL; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EXPANDED DISABILITY STATUS SCALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INDEPENDENCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FUNCTIONAL COMPOSITE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PRODUCTIVITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; STRESS; TIMED 25 FOOT WALK; WALKING DIFFICULTY; WALKING SPEED;

COST OF ILLNESS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; EFFICIENCY; EXERCISE TEST; HUMANS; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; WALKING;

EID: 77958159820     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/erp.10.60     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Kobelt G, Berg J, Atherly D, Hadjimichael O. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in the United States. Neurology 66(11), 1696-1702 (2006).
2. Richards R, Sampson F, Baird S, Tappenden P. A review of the natural history and epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: implications for resource allocation and health economic models. Health Technology Assessment 6(10), (2002).
3. Murphy N, Confavreux C, Haas J et al. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Cost of Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 65(4), 460-466 (1998).
4. Nortvedt MW, Riise T, Myhr KM, Nyland HI. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: measuring the disease effects more broadly. Neurology 53(5), 1098-1103 (1999).
5. Ozakbas S, Cagiran I, Ormeci B, Idiman E. Correlations between multiple sclerosis functional composite, expanded disability status scale and health-related quality of life during and after treatment of relapses in patients with multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Sci. 218 (1-2), 3-7 (2004).
6. Kobelt G. Health economic issues in MS. Int. MS J. 13(1), 17-26, 16 (2006).
7. Carton H, Loos R, Pacolet J, Versieck K, Vlietinck R. A quantitative study of unpaid caregiving in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 6(4), 274-279 (2000).
8. Solari A, Ferrari G, Radice D. A longitudinal survey of self-assessed health trends in a community cohort of people with multiple sclerosis and their significant others. J. Neurol. Sci. 243 (1-2), 13-20 (2006).
9. Figved N, Myhr KM, Larsen JP, Aarsland D. Caregiver burden in multiple sclerosis: the impact of neuropsychiatric symptoms. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 78(10), 1097-1102 (2007).
10. Sutliff MH. Contribution of impaired mobility to patient burden in multiple sclerosis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 26(1), 109-119 (2010).
11. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33(11), 1444-1452 (1983). • Describes the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), which plays a central role in the analysis.
12. Pearson OR, Busse ME, van Deursen RW, Wiles CM. Quantification of walking mobility in neurological disorders. QJM 97(8), 463-475 (2004).
13. Rudick R, Antel J, Confavreux C et al. Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann. Neurol. 42(3), 379-382 (1997).
14. Fischer J, Jak A, Kniker J, Rudick R, Cutter G. Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC): Administration and Scoring Manual. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, London, UK (2001).
15. Goodman AD, Brown TR, Krupp LB et al. Sustained-release oral fampridine in multiple sclerosis: a randomised, doubleblind, controlled trial. Lancet 373(9665), 732-738 (2009).
16. Miller DM, Rudick RA, Cutter G, Baier M, Fischer JS. Clinical significance of the multiple sclerosis functional composite: relationship to patient-reported quality of life. Arch. Neurol. 57(9), 1319-1324 (2000).
17. Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Fischer JS et al. Use of the multiple sclerosis functional composite as an outcome measure in a Phase 3 clinical trial. Arch. Neurol. 58(6), 961-967 (2001). • Characterizes the association between the Timed 25-Foot Walk and the EDSS.
18. Schwid SR, Goodman AD, Mattson DH et al. The measurement of ambulatory impairment in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 49(5), 1419-1424 (1997).
19. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA et al. Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 122 (Pt 5), 871-882 (1999).
20. Kalkers NF, de Groot V, Lazeron RH et al. MS functional composite: relation to disease phenotype and disability strata. Neurology 54(6), 1233-1239 (2000).
21. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, Jonsson B, Stawiarz L, Hillert J. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of a new treatment for MS (natalizumab) compared with current standard practice in Sweden. Mult. Scler. 14(5), 679-690 (2008).
22. Ivanova JI, Birnbaum HG, Samuels S, Davis M, Phillips AL, Meletiche D. The cost of disability and medically related absenteeism among employees with multiple sclerosis in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 27(8), 681-691 (2009).
23. Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Masterman T, Jonsson B. Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis: a crosssectional study in Sweden. Eur. J. Neurol 8(1), 27-35 (2001).
24. Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P, Zaborski J et al. A prospective study of the financial costs of multiple sclerosis at different stages of the disease. Eur. J. Neurol. 12(1), 31-39 (2005).
25. Amato MP, Battaglia MA, Caputo D et al. The costs of multiple sclerosis: a crosssectional, multicenter cost-of-illness study in Italy. J. Neurol. 249(2), 152-163 (2002).
26. Burden of illness of multiple sclerosis: part I: cost of illness. The Canadian Burden of Illness Study Group. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 25(1), 23-30 (1998).
27. Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Smala A et al. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Health Economics Prevention Care 2, 60-68 (2001).
28. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Miltenburger C, Jonsson B. Cost-utility analysis of interferon β-1B in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using natural history disease data. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18(1), 127-138 (2002).
29. Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, Rice G, Rosner AJ, Lafortune L. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 6(2), 91-98 (2000).
30. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Jonsson B. Cost-utility analysis of interferon β-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16(3), 768-780 (2000).
31. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Fredrikson S. Cost-utility of interferon β1b in the treatment of patients with active relapsingremitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Eur. J. Health Econ. 4(1), 50-59 (2003).
32. Berg J, Lindgren P, Fredrikson S, Kobelt G. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Sweden. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S75-S85 (2006).
33. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P et al. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S55-S64 (2006).
34. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, Battaglia M, Lucioni C, Uccelli A. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Italy. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S45-S54 (2006).
35. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P et al. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Germany. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S34-S44 (2006).
36. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P et al. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Spain. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S65-S74 (2006).
37. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P et al. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Austria. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S14-S23 (2006).
38. Kobelt G. Costs and quality of life for patients with multiple sclerosis in Belgium. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S24-S33 (2006).
39. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, Gerfin A, Lutz J. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Switzerland. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S86-S95 (2006).
40. Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, Kerrigan J, Russell N, Nixon R. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7 (Suppl. 2), S96-S104 (2006).
41. Julian LJ, Vella L, Vollmer T, Hadjimichael O, Mohr DC. Employment in multiple sclerosis. Exiting and re-entering the work force. J. Neurol. 255(9), 1354-1360 (2008).
42. Brazier J. The SF-36 health survey questionnaire - a tool for economists. Health Econ. 2(3), 213-215 (1993).
43. Parkin D, Jacoby A, McNamee P, Miller P, Thomas S, Bates D. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon β: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 68(2), 144-149 (2000).
44. Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (Second Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1997).
45. Busche KD, Fisk JD, Murray TJ, Metz LM. Short term predictors of unemployment in multiple sclerosis patients. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 30(2), 137-142 (2003).
46. Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness of interferon β-1a, interferon β-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Value Health 7(5), 554-568 (2004).
47. Bell C, Graham J, Earnshaw S, Oleen-Burkey M, Castelli-Haley J, Johnson K. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on long-term clinical data. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 13(3), 245-261 (2007).
48. Nuijten MJ, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon β in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health 5(1), 44-54 (2002).
49. Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, Metz LM, Murray TJ, Stadnyk KJ. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 76(1), 58-63 (2005).
50. Orme M, Kerrigan J, Tyas D, Russell N, Nixon R. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health 10(1), 54-60 (2007).
51. Corrigan R, McBurney H. Community ambulation: environmental impacts and assessment inadequacies. Disabil. Rehabil 30(19), 1411-1419 (2008).
52. Lord SE, McPherson K, McNaughton HK, Rochester L, Weatherall M. Community ambulation after stroke: how important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 85(2), 234-239 (2004).
53. Schmid A, Duncan PW, Studenski S et al. Improvements in speed-based gait classifications are meaningful. Stroke 38(7), 2096-2100 (2007).
54. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 26(6), 982-989 (1995).
55. Hill K, Ellis P, Bernhardt J, Maggs P, Hull S. Balance and mobility outcomes for stroke patients: a comprehensive audit. Aust. J. Physiother. 43(3), 173-180 (1997).
56. Robinett CS, Vondran MA. Functional ambulation velocity and distance requirements in rural and urban communities. A clinical report. Phys. Ther. 68(9), 1371-1373 (1988).
57. Lernier-Frankiel M, Vargas S, Brown M, Krusell L, Schoneberger W. Functional community ambulation: what are your criteria? Clin. Manag. Phys. Ther. 6, 12-15 (1986).
58. Lord SE, Rochester L. Measurement of community ambulation after stroke: current status and future developments. Stroke 36(7), 1457-1461 (2005). •• Reviews the literature on community ambulation for stroke patients.