Cost-Effectiveness of Multiple Sclerosis Disease-Modifying Therapies: A Systematic Review of the LiteratureReport as inadecuate




Cost-Effectiveness of Multiple Sclerosis Disease-Modifying Therapies: A Systematic Review of the Literature - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Autoimmune DiseasesVolume 2012 2012, Article ID 784364, 13 pages

Review Article

Department of Health Systems, Management, and Policy, Colorado School of Public Health, 13001 E 17th Place, Aurora, CO 80045, USA

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA

Received 10 August 2012; Accepted 31 October 2012

Academic Editor: Giovanni Savettieri

Copyright © 2012 David Yamamoto and Jonathan D. Campbell. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective. To provide a current and comprehensive understanding of the cost-effectiveness of DMTs for the treatment of MS by quantitatively evaluating the quality of recent cost-effectiveness studies and exploring how the field has progressed from past recommendations. Methods. We assessed the quality of studies that met our systematic literature search criteria using the Quality of Health Economic Studies validated instrument. Results. Of the 82 studies that met our initial search criteria, we included 22 in this review. Four studies 18% achieved quality category 2, three studies 14% achieved quality category 3, and 15 studies 68% achieved the highest quality category 4. 91% of studies were simulation models. 13 studies 59% had quality-adjusted life years QALYs as the primary outcome measure, included a societal perspective in the analysis, and utilized time horizons of 10 years to lifetime. Conclusions. To continue to improve the cost-effectiveness evidence of DMTs, we recommend: lifetime horizons, societal perspectives, and QALYs; supplemental evidence with shorter horizons, payer perspectives, and clinical outcomes to inform multiple decision makers; development of modeling and input standards for comparability; head-to-head RCTs between DMTs and long-term prospective studies; and comprehensive cost-effectiveness studies that compare all appropriate DMTs.





Author: David Yamamoto and Jonathan D. Campbell

Source: https://www.hindawi.com/



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents