ArticleHealth economics review2025
Matters arising: cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of disease-modifying drugs of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.
Article in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn their interesting systematic review, Gallehzan et al. quoted our article Cost-utility analysis of teriflunomide in naïve vs. previously treated patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Italy. While we are grateful to Gallehzan et al. for their interest in the aim of our research, we would like to clarify some points.
methodsWe compare Gallehzan et al.'s statements about our article with the original publication.
resultsGallehzan et al. omitted or misreported some relevant methodological issues and findings presented in our article. As far as methods are concerned, the main omissions were the 7-year time horizon of our study (that falls in between the 5-10 years range mentioned by Gallehzan et al. for other contributions) and the number of simulated RRMS naïve patients (1000). Regarding findings, Gallehzan et al. mistook the 0.480 incremental Quality-Adjusted Life Year gained by RRMS naïve patients vs. RRMS experienced patients on teriflunomide for the base case Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) calculated according to the societal viewpoint. In fact, for both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives adopted in our Markov model-based cost-utility analysis, the baseline results showed teriflunomide in RRMS naïve patients to be strongly dominant (that is, producing more QALYs and being, at the same time, cost-saving) vs. RRMS experienced patients. Therefore, the calculation of the two ICURs was not necessary.
conclusionsAs systematic reviews play a remarkable role in disseminating health economic research, a careful description of the methods and the findings reported in the included studies is of paramount importance.
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.