IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v31y2013i6p455-469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis

Author

Listed:
  • Joel Thompson
  • Amir Abdolahi
  • Katia Noyes

Abstract

Several cost-effectiveness models of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) have been developed for different populations and different countries. Vast differences in the approaches and discrepancies in the results give rise to heated discussions and limit the use of these models. Our main objective is to discuss the methodological challenges in modelling the cost effectiveness of treatments for MS. We conducted a review of published models to describe the approaches taken to date, to identify the key parameters that influence the cost effectiveness of DMTs, and to point out major areas of weakness and uncertainty. Thirty-six published models and analyses were identified. The greatest source of uncertainty is the absence of head-to-head randomized clinical trials. Modellers have used various techniques to compensate, including utilizing extension trials. The use of large observational cohorts in recent studies aids in identifying population-based, ‘real-world’ treatment effects. Major drivers of results include the time horizon modelled and DMT acquisition costs. Model endpoints must target either policy makers (using cost-utility analysis) or clinicians (conducting cost-effectiveness analyses). Lastly, the cost effectiveness of DMTs outside North America and Europe is currently unknown, with the lack of country-specific data as the major limiting factor. We suggest that limited data should not preclude analyses, as models may be built and updated in the future as data become available. Disclosure of modelling methods and assumptions could improve the transferability and applicability of models designed to reflect different healthcare systems. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Joel Thompson & Amir Abdolahi & Katia Noyes, 2013. "Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 455-469, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:31:y:2013:i:6:p:455-469
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0063-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40273-013-0063-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-013-0063-4?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garber, Alan M. & Phelps, Charles E., 1997. "Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, February.
    2. Duan, Naihua, et al, 1984. "Choosing between the Sample-Selection Model and the Multi-part Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 2(3), pages 283-289, July.
    3. Meltzer, David, 1997. "Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 33-64, February.
    4. David Meltzer, 1997. "Accounting for Future Costs in Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Working Papers 5946, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney & Madeleine King & Deborah Street & John Brazier & Julie Ratcliffe, 2007. "Valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis, CHERE Working Paper 2007/9," Working Papers 2007/9, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    2. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    3. Philipson Tomas J & Jena Anupam B, 2006. "Who Benefits from New Medical Technologies? Estimates of Consumer and Producer Surpluses for HIV/AIDS Drugs," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-33, January.
    4. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Johan J. Polder & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2011. "Economic evaluation and the postponement of health care costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 432-445, April.
    5. Kenkel, Don, 1997. "On valuing morbidity, cost-effectiveness analysis, and being rude," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 749-757, December.
    6. Liqun Liu & Andrew J. Rettenmaier & Thomas R. Saving, 2008. "Longevity bias in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(4), pages 523-534, April.
    7. Ruth Etzioni & Scott D. Ramsey & Kristin Berry & Martin Brown, 2001. "The impact of including future medical care costs when estimating the costs attributable to a disease: a colorectal cancer case study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 245-256, April.
    8. Mark Sculpher & David Torgerson & Ron Goeree & Bernie O'Brien, 1999. "A critical structured review of economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis," Working Papers 169chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    9. Joshua Graff Zivin, 2001. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis with risk aversion," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(6), pages 499-508, September.
    10. Lee, Robert H., 2008. "Future costs in cost effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 809-818, July.
    11. Basu, Anirban, 2015. "Welfare implications of learning through solicitation versus diversification in health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 165-173.
    12. Kenkel, Donald S. & Manning, Willard, 1999. "Economic evaluation of nutrition policy: Or, there's no such thing as a free lunch," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 145-162, May.
    13. Johannesson, M. & Jonsson, B. & Jonsson, L. & Kobelt, G. & Zethraeus, N., 2009. "Why Should Economic Evaluations of Medical Innovations Have a Societal Perspective?," Briefings 000228, Office of Health Economics.
    14. Blomqvist, Ake, 2002. "QALYs, standard gambles, and the expected budget constraint," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 181-195, March.
    15. Marie Kruse & Jan Sørensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2012. "Future costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: an empirical assessment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(1), pages 63-70, February.
    16. Daniel Grima & Lisa Bernard & Elizabeth Dunn & Philip McFarlane & David Mendelssohn, 2012. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Therapies for Chronic Kidney Disease Patients on Dialysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(11), pages 981-989, November.
    17. Sussex, J. & Towse, A. & Devlin, N., 2011. "Operationalising Value Based Pricing of Medicines: A Taxonomy of Approaches," Research Papers 000177, Office of Health Economics.
    18. Weinstein, Milton C. & Manning, Willard Jr., 1997. "Theoretical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 121-128, February.
    19. James Hammitt, 2013. "Admissible utility functions for health, longevity, and wealth: integrating monetary and life-year measures," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 311-325, December.
    20. Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Phelps, Charles E., 2020. "Health technology assessment with risk aversion in health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    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:pharme:v:31:y:2013:i:6:p:455-469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.