+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis.

      Value in Health
      Adjuvants, Immunologic, economics, therapeutic use, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Disability Evaluation, Disease Progression, Economics, Pharmaceutical, Female, Humans, Interferon-beta, Male, Monte Carlo Method, Multiple Sclerosis, drug therapy, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Peptides, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of three immunomodulatory treatments for newly diagnosed nonprimary progressive MS: interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate. We developed a state-transition model to estimate the health effects and costs associated with interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, glatiramer acetate, and no treatment for hypothetical cohorts of men and women with non-primary progressive MS. We used the Expanded Disability Status Scale as the measure of disability and included both relapses and disease progression in the model. We evaluated treatment strategies assuming a 10-year treatment duration using the societal perspective. We elicited preferences for disability and treatment states using standard-gamble questions and modeled the disutility associated with treatment administration and side effects explicitly. Main outcome measures were net gains in quality-adjusted life expectancy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. For treatment duration of 10 years for newly diagnosed non-primary progressive MS, interferon beta-1a yielded the largest gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2,200,000/QALY for women and $1,800,000/QALY for men, compared with no treatment. For a 5-year treatment duration, a "no treatment" strategy yielded more quality-adjusted life years than any of the treatment strategies. Cost-effectiveness ratios were similar for all three immunomodulatory treatments evaluated. Cost-effectiveness results for all three immunomodulatory treatments for MS were unfavorable in the simulated study population under a wide range of assumptions. For treatment duration less than or equal to 5 years, expected benefits of treatment may not outweigh disutility associated with side effects and treatment discomfort.

          Related collections

          Author and article information


          Comment on this article