4.3 Review

Measuring the cost-effectiveness of treatments for people with multiple sclerosis: Beyond quality-adjusted life-years

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 346-351

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458520954172

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; cost-effectiveness; quality-adjusted life-years; cost-effectiveness analysis; health-related quality of life; quality of life

资金

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Society [82]
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula
  3. Efficacy and Evaluation (EME) Programme
  4. Medical Research Council (MRC)
  5. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership
  6. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (NIHR)
  7. UK MS Society
  8. US National MS Society
  9. Rosetrees Trust
  10. National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals, Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
  11. Canadian MS society
  12. Actelion
  13. Biogen
  14. Novartis
  15. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review discusses the cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis treatment, explores the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in resource allocation decisions, and highlights the limitations of this approach in the context of multiple sclerosis. The article concludes by suggesting methodological and policy developments that could address these limitations.
Background: It is a familiar story. A promising multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment clears the three regulatory hurdles of safety, quality and efficacy, only to fall at the fourth: cost-effectiveness. This has led to concerns about the validity of the measures typically used to quantify treatment effects in cost-effectiveness analyses and in 2012, in the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence called for an improvement in the cost-effectiveness framework for assessing MS treatments. Objective and Methods: This review describes what is meant by cost-effectiveness in health/social care funding decision-making, and usual practice for assessing treatment benefits. Results: We detail the use of the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in resource allocation decisions, and set out limitations of this approach in the context of MS. Conclusion: We conclude by highlighting methodological and policy developments which should aid addressing these limitations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据