Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33948740›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2021

Economics of Multiple Sclerosis Disease-Modifying Therapies in the USA.

Daniel M Hartung

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Daniel M HartungCollege of Pharmacy, Oregon State University, 2730 SW Moody Ave CL5CP, Portland, OR, 97201-5042, USA. hartungd@ohsu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0685-773X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a prevalent and debilitating neuroinflammatory disease associated with a significant economic burden. Direct healthcare costs, which can average $70,000 a year, have risen rapidly over the last decade and are driven by the escalating cost of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Despite a growing number of DMTs, annual increases in price for most DMTs have commonly exceeded 10% over the last 15 years. The high cost of MS DMTs has created economic hardships for patients in terms of high out-of-pocket costs and insurance company-induced barriers. Although generic versions of glatiramer acetate and dimethyl fumarate have provided some lower cost options, the median annual price for branded products currently exceeds $90,000. The goal of this paper is to examine the economic landscape of MS DMTs in the USA. RECENT

findingsRecent economic analyses have provided new insights into the relative value of DMTs. Robust economic modeling studies suggest that costs per quality-adjusted life-year for most DMTs exceed commonly endorsed thresholds for what is considered a reasonable value in the USA. Because of higher efficacy and lower net costs, ocrelizumab and alemtuzumab are considered the best value. It is likely that generic versions of dimethyl fumarate and glatiramer acetate are also economically attractive. DMTs provide clinical benefit for patients with MS; however, their high cost can be a financial burden and impede access. High DMT prices are the principal reason why cost-effectiveness studies have indicated the economic value of most DMTs is questionable.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisAlemtuzumabDimethyl FumarateGlatiramer AcetateHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsUnited StatesAlemtuzumabDimethyl FumarateGlatiramer AcetateImmunosuppressive AgentsCost-effectivenessDisease-modifying therapyEconomics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.