No abstract

Background Inconsistent use of generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments in multiple sclerosis (MS) studies limits cross-country comparability. The objectives: 1) investigate real-world HRQOL of MS patients using both generic and disease-specific HRQOL instruments in the Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany and Italy; 2) compare HRQOL among these countries; 3) determine factors associated with HRQOL. Methods A cross-sectional, observational online web-based survey amongst MS patients was conducted in June–October 2019. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and two HRQOL instruments: the generic EuroQOL (EQ-5D-5L) and disease-related Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (MSQOL)-54, an extension of the generic Short Form-36 (SF-36) was collected. Health utility scores were calculated using country-specific value sets. Mean differences in HRQOL were analysed and predictors of HRQOL were explored in regression analyses. Results In total 182 patients were included (the Netherlands: n = 88; France: n = 58; the United Kingdom: n = 15; Spain: n = 10; living elsewhere: n = 11). Mean MSQOL-54 physical and mental composite scores (42.5, SD:17.2; 58.3, SD:21.5) were lower, whereas the SF-36 physical and mental composite scores (46.8, SD:22.6; 53.1, SD:22.5) were higher than reported in previous clinical trials. The mean EQ-5D utility was 0.65 (SD:0.26). Cross-country differences in HRQOL were found. A common predictor of HRQOL was disability status and primary progressive MS. Conclusions The effects of MS on HRQOL in real-world patients may be underestimated. Combined use of generic and disease-specific HRQOL instruments enhance the understanding of the health needs of MS patients. Consequent use of the same instruments in clinical trials and observational studies improves cross-country comparability of HRQOL.

Introduction: Cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost–utility analyses (CUA) have become popular types of economic evaluations (EE) used for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare resource allocation. Newborn screening programs (NBS) can have significant clinical benefits for society, and cost-effectiveness analysis may help to select the optimal strategy among different screening programs, including the no-screening option, on different conditions. These economic analyses of NBS, however, are hindered by several methodological challenges. This study explored the methodological quality in recent NBS economic evaluations and analyzed the main challenges and strategies adopted by researchers to deal with them. Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA methodology to identify CEAs and CUAs of NBS. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies was assessed quantitatively using a specific guideline for the quality assessment of NBS economic evaluations, by calculating a general score for each EE. Challenges in the studies were then explored using thematic analysis as a qualitative synthesis approach. Results: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative analysis showed that the methodological quality of NBS economic evaluations was heterogeneous. Lack of clear description of items related to results, discussion, and discounting were the most frequent flaws. Methodological challenges in performing EEs of neonatal screenings include the adoption of a long time horizon, the use of quality-adjusted life years as health outcome measure, and the assessment of costs beyond the screening interventions. Conclusions: The results of this review can support future economic evaluation research, aiding researchers to develop a methodological guidance to perform EEs aimed at producing solid results to inform decisions for resource allocation in neonatal screening.

No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background Disease-modifying therapies are given to people with multiple sclerosis (MS) to reduce disease progression and relapse frequency. Current modes of administration include oral, injectable and infusion therapy and the treatment decision-making process is complex. A novel mode of treatment administration, an implantable device, is currently under development, yet patient attitudes about the device are unknown. The aim of this study was 1) to understand the treatment decision-making process from the patient perspective and 2) to explore the possible acceptance of an implant to treat MS. Methods Focus groups with people with MS were conducted in the Netherlands. Three topics were addressed: the treatment decision-making process, the current treatment landscape, and attitudes about the implantable device. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed and data were analyzed by raw data coding and creating themes. An online survey was conducted in the Netherlands to quantify interest in an implant. Results Two focus group sessions were held (n=16 participants) and n=93 persons filled out the survey. The main theme that emerged was the constant uncertainty persons with MS face throughout their disease course and during treatment decisions (when to start, stop, continue or switch treatment). Patients were generally positive towards the implant but felt that efficacy and safety should be guaranteed. Conclusion People with MS want some form of control over their disease and treatment course. New medical technologies, such as an implant, may enhance the treatment landscape and with caution we postulate that it may be accepted by patients as a new mode of administration, though further research is needed. For medical technologies to be successful, patients should be engaged early on in the design process.

Background Current first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are injectable or oral treatments. The Optogenerapy consortium is developing a novel bioelectronic cell-based implant for controlled release of beta-interferon (IFNβ1a) protein into the body. The current study estimated the potential cost effectiveness of the Optogenerapy implant (hereafter: Optoferon) compared with injectable IFNβ1a (Avonex). Methods A Markov model simulating the costs and effects of Optoferon compared with injectable 30 mg IFNβ1a over a 9-year time horizon from a Dutch societal perspective. Costs were reported in 2019 Euros and discounted at a 4% annual rate; health effects were discounted at a 1.5% annual rate. The cohort consisted of 35-year-old, relapsing-remitting MS patients with mild disability. The device is implanted in a daycare setting, and is replaced every 3 years. In the base-case analysis, we assumed equal input parameters for Optoferon and Avonex regarding disability progression, health effects, adverse event probabilities, and acquisition costs. We assumed reduced annual relapse rates and withdrawal rates for Optoferon compared with Avonex. Sensitivity, scenario, value of information, and headroom analysis were performed. Results Optoferon was the dominant strategy with cost reductions (− €26,966) and health gains (0.45 quality-adjusted lifeyears gained). A main driver of cost differences are the acquisition costs of Optoferon being 2.5 times less than the costs of Avonex. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to variations in the annual acquisition costs of Avonex, the annual withdrawal rate of Avonex and Optoferon, and the disability progression of Avonex. Conclusion Innovative technology such as the Optoferon implant may be a cost-effective therapy for patients with MS. The novel implantable mode of therapeutic protein administration has the potential to become a new mode of treatment administration for MS patients and in other disease areas. However, trials are needed to establish safety and effectiveness.

Information sheet regarding Optogenerapy researchThe purpose of the study The leader of this study is Laurenske Visser The aim of this study is to measure the current quality of life and the health status of patients with multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands, France, Great Britain, Italy and Germany.The study is being conducted by the Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It forms part of the OPTOGENERAPY project, which is an EUfunded Horizon 2020 project. The aim of OPTOGENERAPY is to develop a new optogenetics implant that ensures a controlled release of beta interferon for treating multiple sclerosis patients. In order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the OPTOGENERAPY implant in different European countries, it is important to gather information about the effect of the current treatment on the quality of life and health status of multiple sclerosis patients. The research data will be used in reports and scientific publications.