IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v14y2016i5d10.1007_s40258-016-0244-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paucity and Inconsistency: A Systematic Review and Critique of Budget Impact Analyses of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis in the UK and the Implications for Policy in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Montgomery

    (Costello Medical Consulting Ltd)

  • Jeanette Kusel

    (Costello Medical Consulting Ltd)

  • Felicity Allen

    (Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)

  • Nicholas Adlard

    (Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)

Abstract

Background and Objectives Budget impact analysis (BIA) has become an essential part of economic evaluation within health technology assessment. Several disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are now available for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). This study sought to identify the inputs and assumptions used in existing BIAs for DMTs in the UK, and the uncertainty and variation in these, to allow critique within the context of UK policy. Methods MEDLINE and the Economic Evaluations Database from the Cochrane Library were searched systematically on 15 December 2014 to identify BIAs of DMTs licensed for MS in the UK. In addition, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and National Health Service (NHS) England websites were searched for relevant publications and grey literature searching was undertaken. Sources and assumptions from the included analyses were extracted, compared and critiqued. Results The database searches produced 115 de-duplicated results. An additional 12 results were identified from the NICE and NHS England websites. No BIAs of DMTs for MS in the UK were identified in the literature. All ten included studies were from the NICE website, comprising manufacturer submissions for each DMT and corresponding NICE costing templates. There are considerable uncertainties in the inputs and assumptions used in the BIAs, but limited sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Conclusions Data limitations were not highlighted in the results, failing to present the uncertainty in the results to users clearly. It is to be welcomed that NICE has recently consulted on a process change to allow additional critique of the costing templates.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Montgomery & Jeanette Kusel & Felicity Allen & Nicholas Adlard, 2016. "Paucity and Inconsistency: A Systematic Review and Critique of Budget Impact Analyses of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis in the UK and the Implications for Policy in the UK," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 545-558, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0244-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0244-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0244-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0244-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0244-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.