ArticlePharmacoEconomics2024
A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Hypothetical Treatments for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in the UK: Implications for Pricing of New and Emerging Health Technologies.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-utility analysis of Edaravone compared to Riluzole in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in Iran.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a devastating disease which leads to loss of muscle function and paralysis. Historically, clinical drug development has been unsuccessful, but promising disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may be on the horizon.
objectivesThe aims of this study were to estimate survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs under current care, and to explore the conditions under which new therapies might be considered cost effective.
methodsWe developed a health economic model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of future ALS treatments from a UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective over a lifetime horizon using data from the ALS-CarE study. Costs were valued at 2021/22 prices. Two hypothetical interventions were evaluated: a DMT which delays progression and mortality, and a symptomatic therapy which improves utility only. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify key drivers of cost effectiveness.
resultsStarting from King's stage 2, patients receiving current care accrue an estimated 2.27 life-years, 0.75 QALYs and lifetime costs of £68,047. Assuming a 50% reduction in progression rates and a UK-converted estimate of the price of edaravone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a new DMT versus current care is likely to exceed £735,000 per QALY gained. Symptomatic therapies may be more likely to achieve acceptable levels of cost effectiveness.
conclusionsRegardless of efficacy, DMTs may struggle to demonstrate cost effectiveness, even at a low price. The cost effectiveness of DMTs is likely to be strongly influenced by drug price, the magnitude and durability of relative treatment effects, treatment starting/stopping rules and any additional utility benefits over current care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38819717What 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.