Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of Shared Decision Making for Choosing between Disease-Modifying Drugs for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the Netherlands: A State Transition Model

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Background

          Up to 31% of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) discontinue treatment with disease-modifying drug (DMD) within the first year, and of the patients who do continue, about 40% are nonadherent. Shared decision making may decrease nonadherence and discontinuation rates, but evidence in the context of RRMS is limited. Shared decision making may, however, come at additional costs. This study aimed to explore the potential cost-effectiveness of shared decision making for RRMS in comparison with usual care, from a (limited) societal perspective over a lifetime.

          Methods

          An exploratory economic evaluation was conducted by adapting a previously developed state transition model that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a range of DMDs for RRMS in comparison with the best supportive care. Three potential effects of shared decision making were explored: 1) a change in the initial DMD chosen, 2) a decrease in the patient’s discontinuation in using the DMD, and 3) an increase in adherence to the DMD. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of a scenario that combined the 3 effects were conducted.

          Results

          Each effect separately and the 3 effects combined resulted in higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs due to the increased utilization of DMD. A decrease in discontinuation of DMDs influenced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) most. The combined scenario resulted in an ICER of €17,875 per QALY gained. The ICER was sensitive to changes in several parameters.

          Conclusion

          This study suggests that shared decision making for DMDs could potentially be cost-effective, especially if shared decision making would help to decrease treatment discontinuation. Our results, however, may depend on the assumed effects on treatment choice, persistence, and adherence, which are actually largely unknown.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS).

          J. Kurtzke (1983)
          One method of evaluating the degree of neurologic impairment in MS has been the combination of grades (0 = normal to 5 or 6 = maximal impairment) within 8 Functional Systems (FS) and an overall Disability Status Scale (DSS) that had steps from 0 (normal) to 10 (death due to MS). A new Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is presented, with each of the former steps (1,2,3 . . . 9) now divided into two (1.0, 1.5, 2.0 . . . 9.5). The lower portion is obligatorily defined by Functional System grades. The FS are Pyramidal, Cerebellar, Brain Stem, Sensory, Bowel & Bladder, Visual, Cerebral, and Other; the Sensory and Bowel & Bladder Systems have been revised. Patterns of FS and relations of FS by type and grade to the DSS are demonstrated.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

            Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice

              The principles of shared decision making are well documented but there is a lack of guidance about how to accomplish the approach in routine clinical practice. Our aim here is to translate existing conceptual descriptions into a three-step model that is practical, easy to remember, and can act as a guide to skill development. Achieving shared decision making depends on building a good relationship in the clinical encounter so that information is shared and patients are supported to deliberate and express their preferences and views during the decision making process. To accomplish these tasks, we propose a model of how to do shared decision making that is based on choice, option and decision talk. The model has three steps: a) introducing choice, b) describing options, often by integrating the use of patient decision support, and c) helping patients explore preferences and make decisions. This model rests on supporting a process of deliberation, and on understanding that decisions should be influenced by exploring and respecting “what matters most” to patients as individuals, and that this exploration in turn depends on them developing informed preferences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Med Decis Making
                Med Decis Making
                MDM
                spmdm
                Medical Decision Making
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                0272-989X
                1552-681X
                11 November 2020
                November 2020
                : 40
                : 8
                : 1003-1019
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands
                [ ]School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
                [3-0272989X20961091]Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands
                [4-0272989X20961091]Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
                [5-0272989X20961091]Institute for Disease Modeling, Bellevue, WA, USA
                [ ]MS4 Research Institute, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands
                [ ]Centre for Economic Evaluations, Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [ ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands
                [ ]Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [12-0272989X20961091]Department of Health Technology & Services Research, Faculty of Behavioral, Management & Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
                [13-0272989X20961091]School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
                Author notes
                [*]Ingrid E. H. Kremer, Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht, Limburg, 6200MD, The Netherlands ( i.kremer@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl ).
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2784-8207
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8780-8923
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3563-0013
                Article
                10.1177_0272989X20961091
                10.1177/0272989X20961091
                7672783
                33174513
                94400261-521d-4f13-ac54-c4c6c60bf671
                © The Author(s) 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 11 October 2019
                : 17 August 2020
                Categories
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                ts1

                Medicine
                disease-modifying drugs,early economic evaluation,multiple sclerosis,shared decision making,state transition model

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content515

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors1,114