Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
27 January 2023

Cost–effectiveness of cladribine tablets and dimethyl fumarate in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain

Authors: Ricardo Ginestal, Carlos Rubio-Terrés, Olga Durán Morán [email protected], Darío Rubio-Rodríguez, Heidi De Los Santos https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4630-2376, Cristina Ordoñez, and Isabel Sánchez-MagroAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 12, Number 2
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2022-0193
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: To analyze the cost–effectiveness of treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) with cladribine tablets (CladT) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Methods: A probabilistic Markov model (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) with a 10-year time horizon and annual Markov cycles was performed. Results: CladT was the dominant treatment, with lower costs (-74,741 € [95% CI: -67,247; -85,661 €]) and greater effectiveness (0.1920 [95% CI: -0.1659; 0.2173] QALY) per patient, compared with DMF. CladT had a 95.1% probability of being cost-effective and a 94.1% chance of being dominant compared with DMF. Conclusion: CladT is the dominant treatment (lower costs, with more QALYs) compared with DMF in the treatment of RRMS in Spain.

Plain language summary

What was the aim of this research?

To analyze the cost–effectiveness of treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) with cladribine tablets (CladT) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

How was the research carried out?

A probabilistic Markov model (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) with a 10-year time horizon and annual Markov cycles was performed, based on a model developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Data on progression, relapses, treatment adherence, treatment continuation and utilities (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from the medical literature. Univariate sensitivity analyses (modifying time horizon, cost of treatment continuation, and CladT and DMF purchase prices) were performed to confirm and provide robustness to the results.

What were the results?

CladT was the dominant treatment, with lower costs (-74,741 € [95% CI: -67,247; -85,661 €]) and greater effectiveness (0.1920 [95% CI: -0.1659; 0.2173] QALY) per patient, compared with DMF. CladT had a 95.1% probability of being cost-effective for a willingness to pay of 25,000 € per QALY gained and remained dominant across the scenario analyses tested. In that sense, the scenario analyzed from a societal perspective, including labour costs, CladT was also dominant in 94.1% of the cases. The QALY gain (0.1920) with CladT versus DMF was clinically relevant.

What do the results of the study mean?

CladT is the dominant treatment (lower costs, with more QALYs) compared with DMF in the treatment of RRMS in Spain. These results serve as an important piece of evidence for policymakers, budget holders, and health advisers in decision-making when choosing among different treatment options for these patients.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDFView Full Text

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Montalban X, Gold R, Thompson AJ et al. ECTRIMS/EAN Guideline on the pharmacological treatment of people with multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 24, 96–120 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
MSSSI: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Estrategia en Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas del Sistema Nacional de Salud (2016). Available from: www.msps.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/pdf/Est_Neurodegenerativas_APROBADA_C_INTERTERRITORIAL.pdf (Accessed December 2021).
Google Scholar
3.
Bártulos M, Marzo ME, Estrella LA, Bravo Y. Estudio epidemiológico de la esclerosis múltiple en La Rioja. Neurología 30, 552–560 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Izquierdo G, Venegas A, Sanabria C, Navarro G. Long-term epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in the Northern Seville District. Acta Neurol. Scand. 132, 111–117 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Carreón-Guarnizo E, Andreu-Reinón E, Cerdán-Sánchez M et al. Prevalencia de la esclerosis múltiple en la Región de Murcia. Rev. Neurol. 62, 396–402 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Perez-Carmona N, Gimenez-Martinez J, Borrego-Honrubia C, Sempere AP. Multiple sclerosis prevalence and incidence in San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 33, 78–81 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
García-Estévez DA, Fraga-González C, Ramos-Pacho ME, López-Díaz LM, Pardo-Parrado M, Prieto JM. Prevalencia de la esclerosis múltiple en la ciudad de Ourense, Galicia, noroeste de la Península Ibérica [The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the city of Ourense, Galicia, in the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula]. Rev. Neurol. 71, 19–25 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Oreja-Guevara C, Kobelt G, Berg J, Capsa D, Eriksson J. The European Multiple Sclerosis Platform. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe: Results for Spain. Mult. Scler. J. 23(2S), 166–178 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Fernández O, Calleja-Hernández MA, Meca-Lallana J, Oreja-Guevara C, Polanco A, Pérez-Alcántara F. Estimate of the cost of multiple sclerosis in Spain by literature review. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 17, 321–333 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GP et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. I. Clinical course and disability. Brain 112, 133–146 (1989).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Confavreux C, Vukusic S. Natural history of multiple sclerosis: a unifying concept. Brain 129, 606–616 (2006).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Tecfidera 120 mg/240 mg cápsulas duras gastrorresistentes. Ficha técnica o Resumen de Características del Producto. 20 de septiembre de 2018. Available from: https://cima.aemps.es/cima/pdfs/es/ft/113837001/FT_113837001.pdf (Accessed 14 December 2021).
Google Scholar
13.
Mavenclad 10 mg comprimidos. Ficha técnica o Resumen de Características del Producto. 22 de agosto de 2017. Available from: https://cima.aemps.es/cima/pdfs/es/ft/1171212001/FT_1171212001.pdf (Accessed 14 December 2021).
Google Scholar
14.
Poveda JL, Trillo JL, Rubio-Terrés C, Rubio-Rodríguez D, Polanco A, Torres C. Cost–effectiveness of Cladribine tablets and fingolimod in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in Spain. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 20, 295–303 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Previous cost–effectiveness analysis vs. fingolimod in Spain.
15.
Butzkueven H, Spelman T, Ozakbas S et al. MSBase Study Group. Real-world comparative effectiveness and persistence of cladribine tablets and other oral disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis from GLIMPSE: Results from the MSBase Registry (P12-4.003). Neurology 98(Suppl. 18), 1373 (2022).
Google Scholar
16.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH Therapeutic Review. Comparative clinical and Cost–effectiveness of drug therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Canada (CADTH Therapeutic Review vol.1, no. 2b). Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/TR0004_RRMS_ScienceReport_e.pdf (Accessed 30 August 2021).
Google Scholar
•• Original model.
17.
Tremlett H, Zhu F, Petkau J, Oger J, Zhao Y. BC MS Clinic Neurologists. Natural, innate improvements in multiple sclerosis disability. Mult. Scler. 18, 1412–1421 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Couto E, Hamidi V, Ringerike T, Odgaard-Jensen J, Harboe I, Klemp M. Medicines Used for Multiple Sclerosis – a Health Technology Assessment. Report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health No. 2016-23. Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), Norway (2016).
Google Scholar
•• Canadian model adapted.
19.
Alsaqa'aby MF, Vaidya V, Khreis N, Khairallah TA, Al-Jedai AH. Cost–effectiveness of oral agents in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis compared to interferon-based therapy in Saudi Arabia. Ann. Saudi Med. 37, 433–443 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Canadian model adapted.
20.
Signori A, Saccà F, Lanzillo R, Maniscalco GT, Signoriello E, Repice AM. Cladribine vs other drugs in MS: merging randomized trial with real-life data. Neurol. Neuroimmunol. Neuroinflamm. 7, e878 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
TreeAge Pro Healthcare 2021. TreeAge Software LCC, MA, USA. Available from: www.treeage.com (Accessed 18 December 2021).
Google Scholar
22.
Siddiqui MK, Khurana IS, Budhia S et al. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of cladribine tablets versus alternative disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 34, 1361–1371 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Petitti DB. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost–effectiveness Analysis. Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1994).
Google Scholar
24.
Su W, Kansal A, Vicente C, Deniz B, Sarda S. The Cost–effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada. J. Med. Econ. 19, 718–727 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
INE. Tablas de mortalidad por año, sexo, edad y funciones. Resultados nacionales, por comunidades autónomas y provincias. Available from: www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=27150#!tabs-grafico (Accessed 18 June 2021).
Google Scholar
26.
Estrategia en Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Estrategia aprobada por el Consejo Interterritorial el Sistema Nacional de Salud el 13 de abril de 2016. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Madrid (2016). Available from: www.mscbs.gob.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/pdf/Est_Neurodegenerativas_ APROBADA_C_INTERTERRITORIAL.pdf (Accessed 18 June 2021).
Google Scholar
27.
Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Cost–effectiveness of interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate in newly diagnosed non-primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Value Health 7, 554–568 (2004).
PubMed
Google Scholar
28.
Casado V, Bonaventura I, Brieva L et al. Direct costs of relapses in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurol. Persp. 1(3), 160–169 (2021).
Google Scholar
• Multiple sclerosis costs in Spain.
29.
Casado V, Martínez-Yélamos S, Martínez-Yélamos A et al. Direct and indirect costs of multiple sclerosis in Baix Llobregat (Catalonia, Spain), according to disability. BMC Health Serv. Res. 6, 143 (2006).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Multiple sclerosis costs in Spain.
30.
BotPlus 2.0. Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos (CGCOF) (2021). Available from: www.portalfarma.com (Accessed 18 June 2021).
Google Scholar
31.
Real Decreto-ley 8/2010, de 20 de mayo, por el que se adoptan medidas extraordinarias para la reducción del déficit público. BOE N° 126, Lunes 24 de mayo de 2010: 45070.
Google Scholar
32.
Giovannoni G, Comi G, Cook S et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral cladribine for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 416–426 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
33.
Giovannoni G, Soelberg Sorensen P et al. Safety and efficacy of cladribine tablets in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results from the randomized extension trial of the CLARITY study. Mult. Scler. 24, 1594–1604 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Giovannoni G, Leist T, Aydemir A, Verdun E. on behalf of the CLASSIC-MS Steering Committee. Long-term efficacy for patients receiving cladribine tablets in CLARITY/CLARITY extension: primary results from 9-15 years of follow-up in the CLASSIC-MS study. Presented at: ECTRIMS 2021 Virtual Congress. (13-15 October 2021).
Google Scholar
35.
Gold R, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of dimethyl fumarate for up to 13 years in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: final ENDORSE study results. Mult. Scler. 28(5), 801–816 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
CLARITY Extension Study. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00641537 (2020). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00641537?term=cladribine+clarity&draw=2&rank=1 (Accessed: 17 December 2021).
Google Scholar
37.
Meuth SG, Ruck T, Aktas O, Hartung HP. Cladribin-Tabletten: Orale Immuntherapie der schubförmigen Multiplen Sklerose mit kurzen, jährlichen Behandlungsphasen [Cladribine tablets: Oral immunotherapy of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with short yearly treatment periods]. Nervenarzt 89, 895–907 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
38.
Giovannoni G, Mathews J. Cladribine tablets for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a clinician's review. Neurol. Ther. 11, 571–595 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
39.
Fox RJ, Miller DH, Phillips JT et al. Placebo-controlled Phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1087–1097 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
40.
Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1098–1107 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
41.
Cook S, Leist T, Comi G et al. Safety of cladribine tablets in the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis: an integrated analysis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 29, 157–167 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
42.
Liang G, Chai J, Ng HS, Tremlett H. Safety of dimethyl fumarate for multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 46, 102566 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
43.
A Safety and Efficacy Study of Oral Cladribine in Subjects with Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) (CLARITY). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00213135 (2014). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00213135?term=cladribine++clarity&draw=2&rank=3 (Accessed 17 December 2021).
Google Scholar
44.
Efficacy and Safety Study of Oral BG00012 With Active Reference in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (CONFIRM). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00451451 (2015a). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00451451 (Accessed 17 December 2021).
Google Scholar
45.
Efficacy and Safety of Oral BG00012 in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (DEFINE). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00420212 (2015b). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00420212 (Accessed 17 December 2021).
Google Scholar
46.
De Luis D, González JL, Aller R, González M, Cuellar L, Terroba MC. Hipotiroidismo: implicaciones clínicas y económicas en un área de salud. An. Med. Intern. 20, 127–133 (2003).
Google Scholar
47.
Badía X, Roset M, Francés JM, Álvarez C, Rubio Terrés C. Estudio de costes de la gripe. Aten Primaria 38, 260–267 (2006).
PubMed
Google Scholar
48.
Resolución del director general del Servicio de salud de modificación del anexo I de la Orden de la Consejería de Salud y Consumo de 22 de diciembre de 2006. BOIB N° 89, 1 d julio de 2014.
Google Scholar
49.
Llibre-Codina JM, Casado-Gómez MA, Sánchez-de la Rosa R et al. Cost of nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor-related toxicity in HIV-1-infected patients. Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 25, 98–107 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
50.
Sicras-Mainar A, Navarro-Artieda R. Cost of arterial hypertension according to levels of morbidity in primary care setting. Med. Clin. (Barc.) 133(8), 290–295 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
51.
Estudio de evaluación económica de la accidentabilidad de las personas mayores en España. Madrid: Fundación Mapfre, Noviembre de 2012.
Google Scholar
52.
Oyagüez I, Frías C, Seguí MA et al. Eficiencia de tratamientos oncológicos para tumores sólidos en España. Farm. Hosp. 37, 240–259 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
53.
Betegón L, Canal C, Escolar G et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of apixaban versus dabigatran for prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Spain. Eur. J. Clin. Pharm. 16, 325–338 (2014).
Google Scholar
54.
Sánchez J, Chantada V. Abordaje práctico de la patología urológica en Atención Primaria. Algoritmos diagnóstico-terapéuticos. Barcelona: EdikaMed (2014).
Google Scholar
55.
González Y, Sicras A, Larraínzar R, Sorio F, Canals L, Lizán L et al. Estimación de los costes sanitarios relacionados con las fracturas osteoporóticas en pacientes posmenopáusicas en España. PharmacoEcon. Span. Res. Art. 12, 1–9 (2015).
Google Scholar
56.
Rejas Gutiérrez J, Blanca Tamayo M, Gascón Barrachina J, Armada Peláez B. Economic evaluation of desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder in Spain. Rev. Psiquiatr. Salud Ment. 9, 87–96 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
57.
Isla D, De Castro J, Juan O et al. Costs of adverse events associated with erlotinib or afatinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer. ClinicoEcon. Outcomes Res. 9, 31–38 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
58.
Orden 727/2017, de 7 de agosto, del consejero de sanidad, por la que se fijan los precios públicos por la prestación de los servicios y actividades de naturaleza sanitaria de la red de centros de la Comunidad de Madrid. BOCM N° 198, 21 agosto 2017.
Google Scholar
59.
Tarifas para facturación de servicios sanitarios y docentes del Servicio vasco de salud para el año 2020. Servicio vasco de salud, diciembre de 2019.
Google Scholar
60.
Irimia P, Santos-Lasaosa S, García Bujalance L, Ramos Pinazo L, Rubio-Rodríguez D, Rubio-Terrés C. Cost of fremanezumab, erenumab, galcanezumab and onabotulinumtoxinA associated adverse events, for migraine prophylaxis in Spain. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 21, 285–297 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
61.
López-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F et al. Propuesta de guía para la evaluación económica aplicada a las tecnologías sanitarias. Gac. Sanit. 24, 154–170 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
62.
Rubio-Terrés C, Rubio-Rodríguez D. Probabilistic analysis: sensitivity analysis or main result? Pharmacoeconomics 1, 2 (2016).
Google Scholar
63.
Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, UK (2007).
Google Scholar
64.
Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S. Applied Methods of Cost–effectiveness Analysis in Healthcare. Oxford University Press, UK (2012).
Google Scholar
65.
Sicras-Mainar A, Ruíz-Beato E, Navarro-Artieda R, Maurino J. Impact on healthcare resource utilization of multiple sclerosis in Spain. BMC Health Serv. Res. 17, 854 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
66.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13, 873–884 (2004).
PubMed
Google Scholar
67.
Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1, 54 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
68.
Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1, 4 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
69.
Wee H-L, Machin D, Loke W-C et al. Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments. Value Health 10, 256–265 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
70.
Palace J, Duddy M, Bregenzer T et al. Effectiveness and Cost–effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the UK Multiple Sclerosis Risk Sharing Scheme at 6 years: a clinical cohort study with natural history comparator. Lancet Neurol. 14, 497–505 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
71.
Tappenden P, Chilcott J, O'Hagan T et al. Cost–effectiveness of beta interferons and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis: final report to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2001). Available from: www.academia.edu/8908699/Cost_effectiveness_of_beta_interferons_and_glatiramer_acetate_in_the_management_of_multiple_sclerosis (Accessed 31 January 2018).
Google Scholar
72.
Tappenden P, McCabe C, Chilcott J et al. Cost–effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies in the management of multiple sclerosis for the Medicare population. Value Health 12, 657–665 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
73.
Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG). The effectiveness and Cost–effectiveness of natalizumab for multiple sclerosis: an evidence review of the submission from Biogen (2007). Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta127/resources/multiple-sclerosis-natalizumabevaluation-report-evidence-review-group-report2 (Accessed 31 January 2018).
Google Scholar
74.
Gani R, Giovannoni G, Bates D, Kemball B, Hughes S, Kerrigan J. Cost–effectiveness analyzes of natalizumab (Tysabri) compared with other disease-modifying therapies for people with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 617–627 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
75.
Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P et al. Modelling the Cost–effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Commentary: evaluating disease modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis. BMJ 326(7388), 522; discussion 522 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
76.
Hettle R, Harty G, Wong SL. Cost–effectiveness of cladribine tablets, alemtuzumab and natalizumab in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in England. J. Med. Econ. 21(7), 676–686 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
77.
Bohlega S, Elboghdady A, Al-Johani A et al. Economic evaluation of cladribine tablets in patients with high disease activity-relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Value Health Reg. Issues 25, 189–195 (2021).
Google Scholar
78.
Maruszczak MJ, Montgomery SM, Griffiths MJ, Bergvall N, Adlard N. Cost-utility of fingolimod compared with dimethyl fumarate in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in England. J. Med. Econ. 18, 874–885 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
79.
Hidalgo A, Ivanova A, Nozaya N. Análisis del gasto asociado a los tratamientos de esclerosis múltiple en España durante el periodo 2004-2016. Available from: www.aes.es/Jornadas2017/pdfs/posters/Aes_2017_14_1.pdf (Accessed 6 June 2022).
Google Scholar
|