Modelling the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: Issues to consider

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 455-469

  Thompson, Joel P ^a   Abdolahi, Amir ^a   Noyes, Katia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MODEL; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; UNCERTAINTY;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IMMUNOLOGIC FACTORS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84878886342     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0063-4     Document Type: Review

References (101)

1. Jacobs LD, Cookfair DL, Rudick RA, et al. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG). Ann Neurol. 1996;39(3):285-94.
2. PRISMS Study Group. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon beta-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon beta-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9139):1498-504.
3. Rudick RA, Goodkin DE, Jacobs LD, et al. Impact of interferon beta-1a on neurologic disability in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG). Neurology. 1997;49(2):358-63.
4. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon beta-1b delays progression of disability in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a European multicenter randomised study. Lancet. 1998;352:1491-7.
5. IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon beta-lb is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. I. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 1993;43:655-61.
6. PRISMS Study Group. PRISMS-4: Long-term efficacy of interferon-beta-1a in relapsing MS. Neurology. 2001;56(12):1628-36.
7. Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, et al. Extended use of glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) is well tolerated and maintains its clinical effect on multiple sclerosis relapse rate and degree of disability. Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology. 1998;50(3):701-8.
8. Interferon beta-1b in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: final outcome of the randomized controlled trial. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and The University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Group. Neurology 1995;45(7):1277-85.
9. Miller DH, Khan OA, Sheremata WA, et al. A controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(1):15-23.
10. Nuijten MJ, Hutton J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: a Markov process analysis. Value Health. 2002;5(1):44-54.
11. Kendrick M, Johnson KI. Long-term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-beta may be cost effective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(1):45-53.
12. Rubio-Terres C, Aristegui RI, Medina RF, Izquierdo AG. Cost-utility analysis of multiple sclerosis treatment with glatiramer acetate or interferon beta in Spain [in Spanish]. Farm Hosp. 2003;27(3):159-65.
13. Rubio-Terres C, Dominguez-Gil HA. Cost-utility analysis of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment with azathioprine or interferon beta in Spain [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol. 2005;40(12):705-10.
14. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Fredrikson S. Cost-utility of interferon beta1b in the treatment of patients with active relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4(1):50-9.
15. Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2004;7(5):554-68.
16. Sharac J, McCrone P, Sabes-Figuera R. Pharmacoeconomic considerations in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Drugs. 2010;70(13):1677-91.
17. Brown MG, Murray TJ, Sketris IS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1b in slowing multiple sclerosis disability progression. First estimates. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(3):751-67.
18. Forbes RB, Swingler RJ. An epidemiologic study of multiple sclerosis in Northern Ireland. Neurology. 1999;52(1):215-6.
19. Gold MR, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
20. Tufts Medical Center. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear4/default.aspx. Accessed 22 Apr 2012.
21. Culyer AJ. Perspective and desire in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:889-97.
22. Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:699.
23. Bell CF. The pursuit of transparency and quality improvement in cost-effectiveness analysis: a case study in disease-modifying drugs for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17:463-8.
24. Klawiter EC, Cross AH, Naismith RT. The present efficacy of multiple sclerosis therapeutics. Neurology. 2009;73:983-90.
25. Minden S, Hoaglin D, Jureidini S, et al. Disease-modifying agents in the Sonya Slifka Longitudinal Multiple Sclerosis Study. Mult Scler. 2008;14(5):640-55.
26. Khan OA, Zabad R, Caon C, et al. Comparative assessment of immunomodulating therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2002;16:563-78.
27. Khan O. What can be learned from open direct comparative trials in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2009;277(Suppl. 1):S25-8.
28. 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(3):245-61.
29. Earnshaw SR, Graham J, Oleen-Burkley MK, et al. Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Policy. 2009;7(2):91-108.
30. Khan OA, Tselis AC, Kamholz JA, et al. A prospective, open-label treatment trial to compare the effect of IFNbeta-1a (Avonex), IFNbeta-1b (Betaseron), and glatiramer acetate (Copaxone) on the relapse rate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results after 18 months of therapy. Mult Scler. 2001;7:349-53.
31. Deisenhammer F, Mayringer I, Harvey J, et al. A comparative study of the relative bioavailability of different interferon beta preparations. Neurology. 2000;54:2055-60.
32. Durelli L, Verdun E, Barbero P, et al. Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: results of a 2-year prospective randomised multicentre study (INCOMIN). Lancet. 2002;359:1453-60.
33. Sturzebecher S, Maibauer R, Heuner A, et al. Pharmacodynamic comparison of single doses of IFN-beta1a and IFN-beta1b in healthy volunteers. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 1999;19:1257-64.
34. Panitch H, Goodin DS, Francis G, et al. Randomized, comparative study of interferon beta-1a treatment regimens in MS: the EVIDENCE Trial. Neurology. 2002;59(10):1496-506.
35. Guo S, Bozkaya D, Ward A, et al. Treating relapsing multiple sclerosis with subcutaneous versus intramuscular interferon-beta-1a. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(1):39-53.
36. Tappenden P, McCabe C, Chilcott JB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the Medicare population. Value Health. 2009;12(5):657-65.
37. Mullins CD, Whicher D, Reese ES, et al. Generating evidence for comparative effectiveness research using more pragmatic randomized controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):969-76.
38. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Methodology report: Our questions, our decisions - standards for patient-centered outcomes research. 4 Jun 2012. http://www.pcori.org/assets/Preliminary-Draft-Methodology- Report.pdf. Accessed 15 Jul 2012.
39. Shirani A, Zhao Y, Karim ME, et al. Association between use of interferon beta and progression of disability in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. JAMA. 2012;308(3):247-56.
40. Heckman J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica. 1979;47:153-61.
41. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Todd PE. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Rev Econ Stud. 1997;64:605-54.
42. Heckman JJ, Vytlacil E. Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation. Econometrica. 2005;73(3):669-738.
43. Dehejia R, Wahba S. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat. 2002;84(1):151-61.
44. Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:17-34.
45. Duan N, Manning WG, Morris CN, et al. Choosing between the sample selection model and multi-part model. J Bus Econ Stat. 1984;2:283-9.
46. 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;14:679-90.
47. Noyes K, Bajorska A, Chappel A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Neurology. 2011;77:355-63.
48. Minden SL, Frankel D, Hadden LS, Perloff JN, Srinath KP, Hoaglin DC. The Sonya Slifka Longitudinal Multiple Sclerosis Study: methods and sample characteristics. Mult Scler. 2006;12:24-38.
49. Sculpher M, Claxton K, Drummond MF, et al. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ. 2006;15(7):677-87.
50. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(5):461-77.
51. Griffin S, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision analysis for resource allocation in health care. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(Suppl. 3):23-30.
52. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(36):iii-xi 1.
53. Noyes K, Veazie P, Hall WJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the MADIT-CRT trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(1):66-74.
54. Goldberg LD, Edwards NC, 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;15:543-55.
55. Thompson JP, Noyes K, Dorsey ER, et al. Quantitative risk-benefit analysis of natalizumab. Neurology. 2008;71:357-64.
56. Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):1-31.
57. Meltzer D. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16:33-64.
58. Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the "societal perspective" on costs of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:371-7.
59. Weinstein MC, O'Brien BJ, Hornberger J. Principles of good practice of decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9-17.
60. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices - overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15:796-803.
61. Smyth KA. Cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for multiple sclerosis: are they clinically relevant? Neurology. 2011;77(4):317-8.
62. Boult C, Wieland GD. Comprehensive primary care for older patients with multiple chronic conditions: "nobody rushes you through". JAMA. 2010;304:1936-43.
63. Meltzer D, Basu A, Conti R. The economics of comparative effectiveness studies: societal and private perspectives and their implications for prioritizing public investments in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):843-53.
64. Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Commentary: evaluating disease modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 2003;326(7388):522-6.
65. Cahill J, Learner N. Managed care pharmacy sees potential of comparative effectiveness research to improve patient care and lower costs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):931-4.
66. Raftery J. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: a costly failure. BMJ. 2010;340:1672.
67. Schafer JA, Gunderson BW, Gleason PP. Price increases and new drugs drive increased expenditures for multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16:713-7.
68. Sanchez-de la Rosa R, Sabater E, Casado MA. Budget impact analysis of the first-line treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol. 2011;53:129-38.
69. Coyle PK, Foley JF, Fox EJ, et al. Best practice recommendations for the selection and management of patients with multiple sclerosis receiving natalizumab therapy. Mult Scler. 2009;15:S26-35.
70. Chambers JD, Neumann PJ, Buxton MJ. Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med Decis Making. 2010;30:E14-27.
71. O'Neill P, Devlin NJ. An analysis of NICE's "restricted" (or "optimized") decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(11):987-93.
72. Eckermann S, Karnon J, Willan AR. The value of value of information: best informing research design and prioritization using current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):699-709.
73. Chalkidou K, Walley T. Using comparative effectiveness research to inform policy and practice in the UK NHS: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):799-811.
74. Jankovic SM, Kostic M, Radosavljevic M. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on data a Balkan country in socioeconomic transition. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2009;66(7):556-62.
75. Romero A, Arango C, Alvis N, et al. The cost of treatment in multiple sclerosis in Colombia. Value Health. 2011;14(Suppl. 1):S48-50.
76. Traboulsee AL, Li DK. The role of MRI in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Adv Neurol. 2006;98:125-46.
77. Knies S, Evers SM, Candel MJ, et al. Utilities of the EQ-5D: Transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):767-79.
78. Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, et al. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1194-200.
79. Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, et al. A cost-utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(4):iii-54.
80. Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Parkin D, et al. Costs and Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study in the UK [Scandinavian Working Papers in Economics]. Stockholm: The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics; 2000.
81. Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, et al. Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2003;9(3):311-9.
82. 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(6):741-51.
83. Otten N. Interferon beta 1-b and multiple sclerosis, issue 5.0, 1. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1996.
84. Otten N. Comparison of drug treatments for multiple sclerosis. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1998.
85. Levy AR, Mitton C, Johnston KM, et al. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):813-30.
86. Garrison LP. Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):855-65.
87. Brown MG, Murray TJ, Fisk JD, et al. A therapeutic and economic assessment of betaseron in multiple sclerosis. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1996.
88. Forbes RB, Lees A, Waugh N, et al. Population based cost utility study of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1999;319(7224):1529-33.
89. Kobelt G, Jonsson 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(3):768-80.
90. Parkin D, Jacoby A, McNamee P, et al. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon beta: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68(2):144-9.
91. Bose U, Ladkani D, Burrell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2001;4:207-19.
92. Phillips C, Gilmour L, Gale R. A cost utility model of beta-interferon in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2001;4:35-50.
93. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Miltenburger C, et al. Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1B in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using natural history disease data. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(1):127-38.
94. Lepen C, Coyle PK, Vollmer T, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of interferon-beta-1a in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Clin Drug Invest. 2003;23(9):571-81.
95. Touchette DR, Durgin TL, Wanke LA, 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(2):611-34.
96. Iskedjian M, Walker JH, Gray T, et al. Economic evaluation of Avonex (interferon beta-Ia) in patients following a single demyelinating event. Mult Scler. 2005;11(5):542-51.
97. Gani R, Giobannoni G, Bates D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of natalizumab (Tysabri) compared with other disease-modifying therapies for people with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(7):617-27.
98. Chiao E, Meyer K. Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(6):1445-54.
99. 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(4):717-27.
100. 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(5):377-87.
101. O'Day K, Meyer K, Miller RM, Agarwal S, Franklin M. Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2011;14(5):617-27.