No abstract

Background Survey-based studies are frequently used to describe the economic impact of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, there is no validated health resource survey available, preventing comparison of study results and meaningful conclusions regarding the efficiency of long-term treatments. Objective The aim of this study was to develop and validate a tablet- and paper-based MS health resource utilization survey. Methods We developed and validated the Multiple Sclerosis Health Resource Utilization Survey (MS-HRS), consisting of 24 cost items for paper and tablet users. Data for validation came from two large German observational studies. Survey practicability was assessed according to the response rate. Reliability was described using test-retest reliability as well as Guttman lambda. Construct validity was assessed as convergent and discriminant validity via correlations with associated patient-reported outcomes and known-group analyses. Results In total, 2207 out of 2388 (response rate: 92.4%) patients completed the survey and were included to determine psychometric properties. The test-retest reliability had an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.828 over a course of 3 months. Convergent validity analyses showed that total costs correlated positively with increased disability (r=0.411, P<.001). For discriminant validity, correlations of total costs with the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication ranged from −0.006 (convenience) to −0.216 (effectiveness). The mean annual cost was €28,203 (SD €14,808) (US $39,203; SD US $20,583) with disease-modifying therapies. Conclusions The MS-HRS is a multilingual, reliable, valid, electronically available, and easy-to-administer questionnaire providing a holistic cross-sectional and longitudinal assessment of resource utilization in patients with MS.

Background: For the case of multiple sclerosis, research on gender differences from a health economics perspective has not received much attention. However, cost-of-illness analyses can provide valuable information about the diverse impact of the disease and thus help decision-makers to allocate scarce resources. The aim of this study was to describe healthcare resource use and associated societal costs from a gender perspective. In particular, we aimed to identify how resource utilization potentially differs in certain cost components between men and women. Methods: Clinical and economic data were extracted from two prospective, multicentre, non-interventional, observational studies in Germany. Information on health resource use was obtained from all patients on a quarterly basis using a validated questionnaire. Cost analyses were conducted from the societal perspective including all direct (healthcare-related) and indirect (work-related) costs, regardless of who bears them. Gender-related differences were analysed by a multivariable generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and log link function due to the right-skewed distribution pattern of cost data. In addition, costs for men and women were descriptively analysed within subgroups of two-year disease activity. Results: In total, 2095 patients (women-to-men ratio of 2.7:1) presented a mean age of 41.85 years and a median Expanded Disability Status Scale of 2 (interquartile range 1–3.5) ( p > 0.30 for gender-related differences). Women and men did not statistically differ in total quarterly costs (€2329 ± €2570 versus €2361 ± €2612). For both, costs were higher with advancing disease severity and indirect costs were the main societal cost driver. Regarding healthcare-related resources, women incurred higher costs for ambulant consultations [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.16, confidence interval (CI) 1.04–1.31], complementary medicine (IRR 2.41, CI 1.14–5.06), medical consumables (IRR 2.53, CI 1.69–3.79) and informal care (IRR 2.79, CI 1.56–5.01). Among indirect costs, we found higher costs for men for presenteeism (IRR 0.62; CI 0.53–0.72) and higher costs for women for disability pension (IRR 1.62; CI 1.23–2.13). Conclusions: Multiple sclerosis poses a significant economic burden on patients, families and society. While the total economic burden did not differ between male and female patients, we found gender differences in specific cost items that are similar to those in the wider non-MS population.

Background Relapses are the hallmark of multiple sclerosis (MS). Analyses have shown that the cost of MS increases during periods of relapse. However, results are inconsistent between studies, possibly due to different study designs and the different implications of relapses with respect to patient characteristics. Objectives The aims were to estimate and describe direct and indirect relapse costs and to determine differences in costs with respect to patient characteristics. Furthermore, we describe the pharmacoeconomic impact during the relapse follow-up. Methods Data were extracted from two German, multicenter, observational studies applying a validated resource costs instrument. Relapse costs were calculated as the difference in quarterly costs between propensity score (PS)-matched patients with and without relapses (1:1 ratio). For relapse active patients, we additionally calculated the difference between quarterly costs prior to and during relapse and determined costs in the post-relapse quarter. Results Of 1882 patients, 607 (32%) presented at least one relapse. After PS-matching, 597 relapse active and relapse inactive patients were retained. Relapse costs (in 2019 values) ranged between €791 (age 50 + years) and €1910 (disease duration < 5 years). In mildly disabled and recently diagnosed patients, indirect relapse costs (range €1073-€1207) constantly outweighed direct costs (range €591-€703). The increase from prior quarter to relapse quarter was strongest for inpatient stays (+ 366%, €432; p < 0.001), day admissions (+ 228%, €57; p < 0.001), and absenteeism (127%, €463; p < 0.001). In the post-relapse quarter, direct costs and costs of absenteeism remained elevated for patients with relapse-associated worsening. Conclusion A recent diagnosis and mild disability lead to high relapse costs. The results suggest the necessity to incorporate patient characteristics when assessing relapse costs.

Background Evidence suggests that early highly efficacious therapy in relapsing multiple sclerosis is superior to escalation strategies. Objective A cost-consequence analysis simulated different treatment scenarios with ofatumumab (OMB), dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and glatiramer acetate (GA): immediate OMB initiation as first treatment, early switch to OMB after 1 year on DMF/GA, late switch after 5 years or no switch. Methods An EDSS-based Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was applied. Cycle transitions included EDSS progression, improvement or stabilization, treatment discontinuation, relapse or death. Input data were extracted from OMB trials, a network meta-analysis, published literature, and publicly available sources. Results The late switch compared to the immediate OMB scenario resulted in a lower proportion of patients with EDSS 0–3 (Δ − 7.5% DMF; Δ − 10.3% GA), more relapses (Δ + 0.72 DMF; Δ + 1.23 GA) and lower employment rates (Δ − 4.0% DMF; Δ − 5.6% GA). The same applies to late versus early switches. No switch scenarios resulted in worse outcomes. Higher drug acquisition costs in the immediate OMB and early switch scenarios were almost compensated by lower costs for patient care and productivity loss. Conclusion Immediate OMB treatment and an early switch improves clinical and productivity outcomes while remaining almost cost neutral compared to late or no switches.