ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2016
Treatment patterns and health care resource utilization associated with dalfampridine extended release in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective claims database analysis.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-marketing safety surveillance of dalfampridine for multiple sclerosis using FDA adverse event reporting system.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Inpatient Admissions and Costs Associated with Persistent Use of Dalfampridine Extended-Release in Multiple Sclerosis: A Claims Database Analysis.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough previous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of dalfampridine extended release (D-ER) tablets in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), there are limited real-world data on D-ER utilization and associated outcomes in patients with MS. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns, budget impact, and health care resource utilization (HRU) associated with D-ER use in a real-world setting.
methodsA retrospective claims database analysis was conducted using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database(SM). Adherence (measured by medication possession ratio, or [MPR]) and persistence (measured by days between initial D-ER claim and discontinuation or end of follow-up) were evaluated over 1-year follow-up. Budget impact was calculated as cost per member per month (PMPM) over the available follow-up period. D-ER and control cohorts were propensity-score matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, and MS-related resource utilization to compare walking-impairment-related HRU over follow-up.
resultsOf the 2,138 MS patients identified, 1,200 were not treated with D-ER (control) and 938 were treated with D-ER. Patients were aged 51 years on average and 74% female. Approximately 82.6% of D-ER patients were adherent (MPR >80%). The estimated budget impact range of D-ER was $0.014-$0.026 PMPM. Propensity-score-matched D-ER and controls yielded 479 patients in each cohort. Postmatching comparison showed that the D-ER cohort was associated with fewer physician (21.5% vs 62.4%, P<0.0001) and other outpatient visits (22.8% vs 51.4%, P<0.0001) over the 12-month follow-up. Changes in HRU from follow-up to baseline were lower in the D-ER cohort for metrics including walking-impairment-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits.
conclusionThe majority of D-ER patients were adherent to treatment. D-ER utilization was associated with fewer walking-impairment-related physician and outpatient visits, with lower HRU increase over time. The budget impact of D-ER was low.
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.