ArticleDrugs in context2020
Cost per response analysis of repository corticotropin injection
Article in Drugs in context, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing: Part 2: Off-Label Marketing-Consequences for Patients, Clinicians, and Researchers.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2023Article
- Acthar Gel (RCI): A Narrative Literature Review of Clinical and Economic Evidence.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2023Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Acute Exacerbations in Multiple Sclerosis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRelapses are common in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) even after the use of disease-modifying therapies. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI), plasmapheresis (PMP), and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) may be utilized as alternative therapies in the management of MS relapse. There is a lack of health economic studies on these alternative therapies for the acute exacerbations of MS. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost per response of RCI compared with PMP or IVIg from the United States (US) commercial payer perspective.
methodsCosts and response rates were sourced from published peer-reviewed observational studies. The cost of care included MS-related inpatient, outpatient, and medication costs. Treatment response was defined as no evidence of additional relapse treatment or procedure claims within 30 days after treatment. The cost per response for each treatment was calculated by dividing the total annual cost of care by the proportion of patients with resolved relapse for each treatment. The incremental cost per response ratio was calculated by dividing the difference in costs and the proportion of responses for RCI
resultsWith a lower total annual cost of care and a higher response rate, RCI had a lower cost per response (US$141,970) compared with PMP or IVIg (US$253,331). RCI had a lower cost per response even when more stringent estimates for RCI were applied in the OWSA. The annual cost of care had a greater influence on the cost per response in the OWSA.
conclusionsBased on the estimates from the real-world evidence, our economic evaluation suggests that RCI may have real-world clinical and economic benefits for patients with MS relapse who fail on corticosteroid therapy.
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.