ArticleBMC health services research2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of rituximab versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of rituximab in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Dimethyl Fumarate Versus Teriflunomide in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) in Iran.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Economic value of anti-CD20 therapies in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2026Review
- Could rituximab revolutionize multiple sclerosis treatment in Brazil? The missed opportunity for fewer relapses and lower costs.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Review
- Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying drugs of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2024Review
- Clinical and economic evaluations of natalizumab, rituximab, and ocrelizumab for the management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Saudi Arabia.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory disease in which the myelin sheaths of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, which are responsible for communication, are destroyed and cause physical signs and symptoms. According to studies, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have significant results in the treatment of this disease. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of rituximab against natalizumab in the patients with RRMS in southern Iran in 2020.
methodsThis is an economic evaluation including cost-effectiveness analysis in which the Markov model with a lifetime horizon was used. The study sample consisted of 120 patients randomly selected from among those referred to the MS Association and the Special Diseases Unit of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. In this study, the costs were collected from a societal perspective, and the outcomes were obtained in the form of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) and the mean relapse rate. The TreeAge pro 2020 and Excel 2016 software were used for data analysis.
resultsThe comparative study of rituximab and natalizumab showed that the patients receiving rituximab had lower costs ($ 58,307.93 vs. $ 354,174.85) and more QALYs (7.77 vs. 7.65). In addition, the incidence of relapse by rituximab was lower compared to natalizumab (1.15 vs. 2.57). The probabilistic one-way sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of the results. The scatter plots also showed that rituximab was more cost-effective for the patients in 100% of the simulations for the threshold of < $ 37,641. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionAccording to the results of this study, rituximab had higher cost-effectiveness than natalizumab. Therefore, it could be a priority for RRMS patients compared to natalizumab because it reduced treatment costs and increased effectiveness.
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.