ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Cost-Consequence Analysis of Natalizumab Compared with Other High-Efficacy Treatments in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in the availability and regimen optimization of highly effective disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) have led to questions about their comparative worth.
objectivesThis study evaluates the costs and effects of natalizumab versus other highly effective DMTs and the impact, in terms of times and costs, of the new subcutaneous natalizumab formulation versus the intravenous formulation in patients with RRMS in Italy.
methodsThis is a cost-consequence analysis from the Italian national health service and societal perspectives. A Markov model was developed to assess clinical and cost outcomes related to disease and DMTs. The model simulated two scenarios: one comparing natalizumab extended-dose regimen and ofatumumab and ocrelizumab, focusing on efficacy outcomes and costs, and one comparing intravenous and subcutaneous natalizumab with a focus on administration resource consumption, times, and costs. Model input data came from the literature.
resultsDMTs had similar clinical and social outcomes: natalizumab slightly reduced disease progression, increased quality-adjusted life-years, and reduced the impact on days of productivity loss and informal care. Natalizumab also resulted in statistically significant 5-year cost reductions compared with ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. Subcutaneous natalizumab improved resource consumption compared with intravenous natalizumab, saving the time of healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers and reducing administration costs. The subcutaneous formulation was associated with statistically significant total direct and indirect cost reductions at 5 years.
conclusion6-week dosing regimen of natalizumab showed a slight improvement of clinical and social outcomes and a statistically significant cost reduction compared with ocrelizumab and ofatumumab over a 5-year simulation. Moreover, subcutaneous administration reduced administration times and costs.
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.