Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 22, 2025
The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test MSPT: An iPad-Based Disability Assessment Tool
Published on: June 30, 2014
Patterns of Utilization and Expenditure Across Multiple Sclerosis Disease-Modifying Therapies: A Retrospective Cohort
Wen Zhu1, Xiaoyu Tang2, Rock A Heyman1
1Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA.
Introduction:
Comparisons of healthcare utilization and expenditure among multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are limited.
Methods:
In this retrospective cohort study using commercial insurance claims data of a US population (2010-2019), we compared healthcare utilization and costs in MS across different DMTs. We assigned patients to different treatment arms: no DMT (ND), high-efficacy (HE) DMT (alemtuzumab, B cell depletion, cladribine, and natalizumab), and standard-efficacy (SE) DMT (dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta, sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator, and teriflunomide). We obtained healthcare costs and occurrences of healthcare services: outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, MS-related magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We quantified relapses (based on MS-related hospitalizations, as well as outpatient visits with prescription of high-dose steroids) and medical complexity (based on unique drug classes of prescriptions). We calculated covariate-adjusted incidence rate ratio of healthcare services using negative binomial regression with ND as reference and covariate-adjusted mean cumulative healthcare costs using a generalized linear model with log-link function and gamma distribution.
Results:
Among the 25,932 patients with MS (mean age 52.8 years, 75.2% women), both HE (mean age 54.0 years, 76.2% women) and SE (mean age 43.9 years, 75.6% women) groups had more non-pharmacy healthcare utilization than ND (mean age 57.6 years, 75.4% women), including overall outpatient doctor visits, neurology visits, and MS-related MRIs as well as relapses and medical complexities. Relative to ND, both HE and SE groups had higher pharmacy costs and overall healthcare costs 12 months after treatment initiation, despite having lower or equivalent non-pharmacy medical costs. In patients on DMT, pharmacy costs accounted for up to 65% of overall healthcare costs with over 85% of pharmacy costs attributable to DMT costs.
Conclusion:
DMT cost is a key driver of the overall healthcare expenditure in MS. Future comparative and cost-effectiveness studies integrating claims and electronic health records data with better balancing of patient characteristics are warranted.
