ArticlePharmacoEconomics2009
Treating relapsing multiple sclerosis with subcutaneous versus intramuscular interferon-beta-1a: modelling the clinical and economic implications.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Economic evidence of alternative formulations and routes of administration for identical active pharmaceutical ingredient: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- How have Economic Evaluations in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Evolved Over Time? A Systematic Literature Review.Neurology and therapy · 2021Review
- GetReal in mathematical modelling: a review of studies predicting drug effectiveness in the real world.Research synthesis methods · 2016Review
- The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection.Patient preference and adherence · 2015Review
- Cost-effectiveness analyses in multiple sclerosis: a review of modelling approaches.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Review
- Cost-effectiveness of injectable disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in Spain.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014Article
- Modelling the cost effectiveness of disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: issues to consider.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: summarising current information by network meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Article
- Cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: a systematic review of the literature.Autoimmune diseases · 2012Article
- Review
- Disease-modifying therapies in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2010Article
- Assessing cost-effectiveness in the management of multiple sclerosis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The EVIDENCE trial concluded that administering high-dose/high-frequency subcutaneous (SC) interferon-beta-1a (IFNb1a) was more effective in preventing relapses among patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) than low-dose weekly intramuscular (IM) IFNb1a after 64 weeks. This analysis utilized discrete-event simulation (DES) to model the potential longer-term clinical and economic implications of this trial. A DES predicting the course of relapsing MS and incorporating the effect of IFNb1a therapy was developed. The model began by randomly reading in actual patient data from the trial to create 1000 patients. Each simulated patient was replicated - one was assigned to receive SC IFNb1a three times a week and the other to receive IM IFNb1a once a week. During the simulation, patients may (i) experience relapses, with associated short- and long-term impacts on costs and disability; (ii) develop new T2 lesions detected by a magnetic resonance imaging scan; (iii) discontinue treatment because of adverse events or lack of response; (iv) advance to secondary progressive MS; or (v) die. Model inputs were mainly obtained from the EVIDENCE trial, but were taken from published literature if they could not be obtained from the trial. Direct medical costs ($US, year 2006 values) to the US payers were primarily obtained by updating a published cost analysis. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model results. Based on 100 replications of 1000 patient pairs over 4 years, SC IFNb1a was predicted to enable more patients to avoid relapse (216 vs 147). Total mean costs per patient (discounted) were $US79 890 with SC IFNb1a versus $US74 485 with IM administration, a net increase of $US5405 per patient. However, SC IFNb1a was estimated to prevent 0.50 relapses and save 23 relapse-free days per patient, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $US10 755 per relapse prevented and $US232 per relapse-free day gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the result was most sensitive to the treatment efficacy, model time horizon and cost of IFNb1a treatment. Based on the results observed in the EVIDENCE trial, the model predicted that SC IFNb1a would yield greater health benefits over 4 years than IM IFNb1a, at a cost that would seem to be a reasonable trade-off.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19178123What 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.