SynthesisBMC health services research2024
Cost-effectiveness of oral versus injectable disease modifying therapies in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review analysis.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic and progressive neurological autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system. There are two types of drugs used to treat this disease: injectable and oral drugs. The present study aimed at systematically reviewing the cost effectiveness of oral versus injectable drugs.
methodsThe researchers searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to find relevant studies. After removing the duplicates, two authors independently assessed the records. The studies that had conducted full economic evaluations of oral versus injectable drugs in MS patients were included. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool was also used to assess the quality of the studies.
resultsThirty studies that had conducted the economic analysis of oral versus injectable therapies in MS patients were included in this review. The QHES scores for all records were generally high (≥ 77) and they were of good quality. The lowest and highest levels of incremental net monetary benefit were respectively obtained through the comparison of Fingolimod and Alemtuzumab (-1,419,333) and the comparison of Teriflunomide and Interferon β-1a (1,792,810). The amount of INMB (incremental net monetary benefit) in the comparisons between oral and injectable drugs showed that the highest and lowest amount of INMB calculated between) Fingolimod and injectable drugs, respectively, compared to (interferon β-1a) 98,253 and (Ocrelizumab) -212,417, the highest amount in dimethyl fumarate is also against (peginterferon β-1a) 191,470 and the lowest against (alemtuzumab) -124,333, Teriflunomide against injectable drugs is the highest against (peginterferon β-1a) 89,956 and the lowest (Ocrelizumab) - 194,169, as well as Cladribine compared to injectable drugs, the highest was compared to (interferon β-1a) 236,430 and the lowest (Ocrelizumab) was 23,965.
conclusionA large number of health economic evaluations of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in MS were available at the international level, the comparison of which was difficult and sometimes contradictory. However, despite the difference in the results, Cladribine tablets were cost-effective in all studies compared with injectable drugs. In addition, the present study could be of great importance for policymakers and other beneficiaries regarding the cost-effectiveness of the aforementioned drugs.
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.