ArticleAutoimmune diseases2012
Cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: a systematic review of the literature.
Article in Autoimmune diseases, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of oral versus injectable disease modifying therapies in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Modeling Approaches in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Societal economic burden of multiple sclerosis and cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- How have Economic Evaluations in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Evolved Over Time? A Systematic Literature Review.Neurology and therapy · 2021Review
- Predictors of Health Utility in Relapsing-Remitting and Secondary-Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for Future Economic Models of Disease-Modifying Therapies.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Article
- Health economics of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis in the United States.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2021Review
- Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Utility Analysis.CNS drugs · 2018Article
- A Multiple Treatment Comparison of Eleven Disease-Modifying Drugs Used for Multiple Sclerosis.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2018Article
- Economics and Cost-Effectiveness of Multiple Sclerosis Therapies in the USA.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2017Review
- Safety and effectiveness assessment of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2016Article
- The cost of multiple sclerosis drugs in the US and the pharmaceutical industry: Too big to fail?Neurology · 2015Article
- Cost-effectiveness analyses in multiple sclerosis: a review of modelling approaches.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Review
- Review of the pharmacoeconomics of early treatment of multiple sclerosis using interferon beta.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2013Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Objective. To provide a current and comprehensive understanding of the cost-effectiveness of DMTs for the treatment of MS by quantitatively evaluating the quality of recent cost-effectiveness studies and exploring how the field has progressed from past recommendations. Methods. We assessed the quality of studies that met our systematic literature search criteria using the Quality of Health Economic Studies validated instrument. Results. Of the 82 studies that met our initial search criteria, we included 22 in this review. Four studies (18%) achieved quality category 2, three studies (14%) achieved quality category 3, and 15 studies (68%) achieved the highest quality category 4. 91% of studies were simulation models. 13 studies (59%) had quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary outcome measure, included a societal perspective in the analysis, and utilized time horizons of 10 years to lifetime. Conclusions. To continue to improve the cost-effectiveness evidence of DMTs, we recommend: lifetime horizons, societal perspectives, and QALYs; supplemental evidence with shorter horizons, payer perspectives, and clinical outcomes to inform multiple decision makers; development of modeling and input standards for comparability; head-to-head RCTs between DMTs and long-term prospective studies; and comprehensive cost-effectiveness studies that compare all appropriate DMTs.
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.