Dataset Information

Improving quality, affordability, and equity of multiple sclerosis care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The prevailing approaches to selecting multiple sclerosis (MS) disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have contributed to exponential increases in societal expenditures and out-of-pocket expenses, without compelling evidence of improved outcomes. Guidance is lacking regarding when and in whom the benefits of preventing MS-related disability likely outweighs the risks of highly effective DMTs (HET) and when it is appropriate to consider DMT costs. Our objective was to develop a standardized approach to improve the quality, affordability and equity of MS care.

Methods

MS experts partnered with health plan pharmacists to develop an ethical, risk-stratified, cost-sensitive treatment algorithm. We developed a risk-stratification schema to classify patients with relapsing forms of MS as high, intermediate or low risk of disability based on the best available evidence and, when the evidence was poor or lacking, by consensus. DMTs are grouped as highly, modestly or low/uncertain effectiveness and preferentially ranked within groups by safety based on pre-specified criteria. We reviewed FDA documents and the published literature. When efficacy and safety are equivalent, the lower cost DMT is preferred.

Results

Assignment to the high-risk group prompts treatment with preferred HETs early in the disease course. For persons in the intermediate- or low-risk groups with cost or health care access barriers, we incorporated induction therapy with an affordable B-cell depleting agent. Based on more favorable safety profiles, our preferred approach prioritizes use of rituximab and natalizumab among HETs and interferon-betas or glatiramer acetate among modestly effective agents.

Interpretation

The risk-stratified treatment approach we recommend provides clear, measurable guidance in whom and when to prescribe HETs, when to prioritize lower cost DMTs and how to accommodate persons with MS with cost or other barriers to DMT use. It can be adapted to other cost structures and updated quickly as new information emerges. We recommend that physician groups partner with health insurance plans to adapt our approach to their settings, particularly in the United States. Future studies are needed to resolve the considerable uncertainty about how much variability in prognosis specific risk factors explain.

SUBMITTER: Langer-Gould A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8045931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes.Data sources and study settingThis project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government.Study designExpert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review.Data collection/extraction methodsPriority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus.Principal findingsHealth care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines.ConclusionsAs the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.