Aims: Natalizumab is approved as an infusion every 4 weeks (standard-interval dosing [SID]) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Extended-interval dosing (EID) reduces risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) compared with SID, but the impact on healthcare resources and costs remains unknown. Methods: In this population-based study, we included 208 natalizumab-treated MS patients who were classified into EID (≤15 infusions in the previous 18 months; n = 51; age = 33.7 ± 11.1 years; female = 72.5%) and SID (>15 infusions in the previous 18 months; n = 157; age = 36.5 ± 10.8 years; female = 68.1%) groups. Results: Natalizumab EID had fewer MS outpatient visits (p = 0.01) and related costs (p = 0.03), and lower natalizumab costs (p < 0.01) compared with SID, without changes in other healthcare resources and costs. Conclusion: Natalizumab EID is associated with reduced direct treatment costs, apparently without additional healthcare burden.
Aim: To evaluate adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs for glatiramer acetate (GA; injectable), dimethyl fumarate (oral) and teriflunomide (oral) in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Patients & methods: Retrospective analyses of a claims database. Results: Teriflunomide patients were older with more co-morbidities and fewer relapses versus GA and dimethyl fumarate. GA patients were mostly disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)-treatment naive. Treatment adherence was 61-70%. All DMTs reduced HRU versus pre-index. Costs were comparable across cohorts. High adherence reduced hospitalizations and several costs versus low adherers. Conclusion: Adherence rates were high and comparable with all DMTs. Similar (and high) reductions in HRU and costs occurred with all DMTs. High adherence improved economic outcomes versus low adherence. Thus, investing in adherence improvement is beneficial to improve outcomes in relapsing multiple sclerosis.
Aim: To examine three different accuracy metrics for evaluation of cognitive screening instruments: overall correct classification accuracy (Acc), the sum of true positives and negatives divided by the total number tested; balanced accuracy (balanced Acc), half of the sum of sensitivity and specificity; and unbiased accuracy (unbiased Acc), removing biasing effects of random associations between test results and disease prevalence. Materials & methods: Data from a prospective test accuracy study of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination were used to calculate and plot the Acc measures. Results: Each Acc metric resulted in a similar pattern of results across the range of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination cut-offs for diagnosis of both dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Acc and balanced Acc gave more optimistic outcomes (closer to possible maximum value of 1) than unbiased Acc. Conclusion: Unbiased Acc may have advantages over Acc and balanced Acc by removing biasing effects of random associations between test result and disease prevalence.