ReviewPharmacoEconomics2000
Long-term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-beta may be cost effective.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost savings of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy using a digital infusion pump.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Modelling the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: issues to consider.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2012Review
- Cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: a systematic review of the literature.Autoimmune diseases · 2012Article
- Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis: a population-based study.Neurology · 2011Article
- Assessing cost-effectiveness in the management of multiple sclerosis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2009Article
- Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Review
- A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2005Article
- The cost of multiple sclerosis and the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying agents in its treatment.CNS drugs · 2004Review
- Cost-analysis of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy after the introduction of new disease-modifying agents.Clinical drug investigation · 2004Article
- 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 (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- Disease-modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis.Current treatment options in neurology · 2003Article
- Long-Term Cost Effectiveness of Interferon-beta-1a in the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis : An Econometric Model.Clinical drug investigation · 2003Article
- Optic Neuritis.Current treatment options in neurology · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a devastating disease that can occur in early life, progressing to rapid disability and loss of physical, psychosocial and economic functioning, significantly affecting quality of life. The traditional treatment for MS has been symptomatic, treating acute relapses without affecting the underlying disease. The introduction of interferon-beta (IFN beta) has offered significant clinical benefits by reducing the frequency of relapses and slowing disease progression. Although the costs of this treatment are high, the costs to society of caring for a patient disabled by MS are greater, and if IFN beta can delay disease progression in the longer term, the economic impact would be substantial. Previous pharmacoeconomic studies of IFN beta have suggested that benefits can only be achieved at extremely high cost, with reported cost-effectiveness measures of up to 1 million pounds sterling (Pound) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) [1995 values]. However, these studies have considered only the short term benefits of IFN beta treatment: over 2 to 3 years, the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life is relatively small, and cost-utility analyses that do not consider longer term benefits nor include societal costs may be misleading. The model reported here is based on the hypothesis that the delay in disease progression seen in short term clinical trials is likely to continue if treatment is continued. The model also assumes that the delay in disease progression, which represents a reduction in brain atrophy, will result in lasting clinical benefits even if treatment is stopped. These assumptions are strongly supported by clinical trial data and the treatment hypothesis itself. A delay in disease progression will result in a significant improvement in functioning and quality of life, and if the costs associated with increased disability can be postponed, even long term treatment of MS with IFN beta can be shown to be cost effective. Using resource utilisation costs derived from an economic evaluation of MS in the UK, it was possible to calculate the impact of delaying disease progression in terms of both health service and societal costs. An estimate of mean disease progression in patients with MS treated with IFN beta-1a compared with patients who did not receive disease-modifying agents suggested that significant cost savings would be realised after about 12 years' treatment with IFN beta-1a. The application of utility scores to the disease progression curves also facilitated estimates of cost effectiveness, with cost per QALY values ranging from 27,036 Pounds after 2 years' treatment with IFN beta-1a to 37,845 Pounds after 20 years' treatment (1995 values).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.