multiple sclerosis and the comparative value disease modifying therapy report of the institute for clinical and economic review (icer)
Clicks: 109
ID: 183780
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
109 views
36 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #112 of 122 articles by views in food control
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 122 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
On January 26, 2017, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) posted its final report on treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) with disease modifying therapies (DMTs). The objective was to provide a modeled assessment of the effectiveness and value of the various DMTs against each other and supportive care. The model considered both relapsing-remitting and primary-progressive MS with hypothetical patient cohorts tracked from therapy initiation to death in a lifetime cost-utility framework. Recommendations were made for possible DMT package price discounts given benchmark willingness-to-pay cost per QALY thresholds. The purpose of this commentary is to assess this modeled analysis from the criteria of normal science: are the claims presented for the competing DMTs credible, evaluable and replicable? The review concludes that the ICER model does not meet required standards. The claims made for comparative effectiveness and value are non-evaluable. They are immune to failure. The review concludes that if models are to contribute to improving our understanding of the effectiveness and costs of DMTs then they should be evaluable in the short-term to allow feedback to formulary committees in a meaningful timeframe.
Type: Commentary
| Reference Key |
langley2017innovationsmultiple
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Paul C Langley |
| Journal | food control |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.24926/21550417.1358
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.