Pharmacoeconomic and socioeconomic aspects of multiple sclerosis treatment in different countries
https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2026.309
Abstract
The social burden of multiple sclerosis is determined by its significant impact on quality of life: the presence of disabling symptoms, and severe comorbid somatic and psychological disorders, as well as the need for continuous medication and its impact on well-being. The economic burden of this disease affects both healthcare systems and patients. This can primarily be attributed to the high costs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), alongside expenses for hospitalization and the escalation of total costs as patient disability progresses. While direct costs dominated by DMTs, account for approximately 70–90% of total expenditures, indirect costs such as temporary disability, cost of care, and premature death range from 20% to 50% in different countries. Noteworthy is that exacerbations can double treatment costs. Although outpatient care accounts for 80–90% of all costs due to the use of DMTs, inpatient care for severe exacerbations still remains a significant cost driver.
About the Author
S. S. Maslova
Volgograd State Medical University;
Volgograd Regional Clinical Hospital No. 1
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana S. Maslova
1 Pavshikh Bortsov Sq., Volgograd 400066;
13 Angarskaya Str., Volgograd 400081
References
1. Spirin N.N., Boyko A.N., Stepanov I.O., Schmidt T.E. Managing patients with multiple sclerosis: methodological recommendations. Мoscow: Zdorovye cheloveka; 2015: 67 pp. (in Russ.).
2. Filippi M., Danesi R., Derfuss T., et al. Early and unrestricted access to high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies: a consensus to optimize benefits for people living with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2022; 269 (3): 1670–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-021-10836-8.
3. Petruzzo M., Palladino R., Nardone A., et al. The impact of diagnostic criteria and treatments on the 20-year costs for treating relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020; 38: 101514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2019.101514.
4. Walton C., King R., Rechtman L., et al. Rising prevalence of multiple sclerosis worldwide: insights from the Atlas of MS, third edition. Mul Scler. 2020; 26 (14): 1816–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458520970841.
5. Atlas of MS. Available at: https://www.atlasofms.org/map/global/epidemiology/number-of-people-with-ms (accessed 01.02.2025).
6. Boynova I.V., Samarina D.V., Katorova A.V., Tokareva N.G. Clinical and epidemiological features of multiple sclerosis in the Russian Federation. Modern Problems of Science and Education. 2022; 5: 139 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17513/spno.32006.
7. Boyko A., Melnikov M. Prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis in Russian Federation: 30 years of studies. Brain Sci. 2020; 10 (5): 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10050305.
8. Kulikov A.Yu., Tishchenko D.G. Economic burden of multiple sclerosis in the Republic of Belarus. Pharmacoeconomics: Theory and Practice. 2015; 3 (2): 96–101 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30809/phe.2.2015.1.
9. Ma V.Y., Chan L., Carruthers K.J. The incidence, prevalence, costs and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the US: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014; 95 (5): 986–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.10.032.
10. Ahmad H., Campbell J.A., van der Mei, et al. The increasing economic burden of multiple sclerosis by disability severity in Australia in 2017: results from updated and detailed data on types of costs. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020; 44: 102247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2020.102247.
11. Costa Arpín E., Naveiro Soneira J., Lema Bouzas M., et al. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Santiago de Compostela (Spain). Acta Neurol Scand. 2020; 142 (3): 267–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13265.
12. Puthenparampil M., Perini P., Bergamaschi R., et al. Multiple sclerosis epidemiological trends in Italy highlight the environmental risk factors. J Neurol. 2022; 269 (4): 1817–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-021-10782-5.
13. Biernacki T., Sandi D., Fricska-Nagy Z., et al. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Central Europe, update from Hungary. Brain Behav. 2020; 10 (5): e01598. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1598.
14. Abuawad M., Ziyadeh-Isleem A., Alkaiyat A., et al. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in West bank of Palestine. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2022; 59: 103686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2022.103686.
15. Sadigh G., Switchenko J., Lava N., et al. Longitudinal changes of financial hardship in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2021; 53: 103037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2021.103037.
16. Sadigh G., Lava N., Switchenko J., et al. Patient-reported financial toxicity in multiple sclerosis: predictors and association with care nonadherence. Mult Scler. 2021; 27 (3): 453–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458520913977.
17. Wang Y., Tian F., Fitzgerald K.C., et al. Socioeconomic status and race are correlated with affective symptoms in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020; 41: 102010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2020.102010.
18. Harding K.E., Wardle M., Carruthers R., et al. Socioeconomic status and disability progression in multiple sclerosis: a multinational study. Neurology. 2019; 92 (13): e1497–506. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007190.
19. Briggs F.B.S., Thompson N.R., Conway D.S. Prognostic factors of disability in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019; 30: 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2019.01.045.
20. Calocer F., Dejardin O., Kwiatkowski A., et al. Socioeconomic deprivation increases the risk of disability in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020; 40: 101930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2020.101930.
21. Wang G., Marrie R.A., Fox R.J., et al. Treatment satisfaction and bothersome bladder, bowel, sexual symptoms in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018; 20: 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.006.
22. Eriksson J., Kobelt G., Gannedahl M., Berg J. Association between disability, cognition, fatigue, EQ-5D-3L domains, and utilities estimated with different Western European value sets in patients with multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2019; 22 (2): 231–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.002.
23. Zhang T., Tremlett H., Zhu F., et al. Effects of physical comorbidities on disability progression in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2018; 90 (5): e419–27. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.000000000000488.
24. Kern D.M., Cepeda M.S. Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States. BMC Neurol. 2020; 20 (1): 296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-01882-2.
25. Holownia-Voloskova M.E., Golicki D.T., Vorobev P.A., et al. Assessment of the quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis using a EuroQol5D questionnaire as a standardized tool when carrying out pharmacoeconomic research. Health Care Standardization Problems. 2018 (11–12): 25–35 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26347/1607-2502201811-12025-035.
26. Gross H.J., Watson C. Characteristics, burden of illness, and physical functioning of patients with relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional US survey. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017; 13: 1349–57. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S132079.
27. Buesa-Estelléz A., Cano-de-la-Cuerda R., Ortiz-Gutiérrez R.M., Palacios-Ceña D. The impact of pharmacological treatment on patients with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Health J. 2019; 12 (4): 615–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.05.005.
28. Dehghani A., Nayeri N.D., Ebadi A. Features of coping with disease in Iranian multiple sclerosis patients: a qualitative study. J Caring Sci. 2018; 7 (1): 35–40. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2018.006.
29. Yeh E.A., Chiang N., Darshan B., et al. Adherence in youth with multiple sclerosis: a qualitative assessment of habit formation, barriers, and facilitators. Qual Health Res. 2019; 29 (5): 645–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318779039.
30. Dahham J., Rizk R., Kremer I., et al. Economic burden of multiple sclerosis in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021; 39 (7): 789–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01032-7.
31. Kobelt G., Thompson A., Berg J., et al. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Mult Scler. 2017; 23 (8): 1123–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458517694432.
32. Kolasa K. How much is the cost of multiple sclerosis – systematic literature review. Przegl Epidemiol. 2013; 67 (1): 75–9, 157–60.
33. Casado V., Bonaventura I., Brieva L., et al. Direct costs of relapses in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurol Perspect. 2021; 1 (3): 160–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurop.2021.05.003.
34. Tolkushin A.G., Smirnova A.V., Davydovskaya M.V., et al. The burden of multiple sclerosis in Russia and Europe: what's above? Pharmacoeconomics: Theory and Practice. 2018; 6 (2): 25–30 (in Russ.).
35. Kawachi I., Okamoto S., Sakamoto M., et al. Recent transition of medical cost and relapse rate of multiple sclerosis in Japan based on analysis of a health insurance claims database. BMC Neurol. 2019; 19 (1): 324. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1534-9.
36. Bebo B., Cintina I., LaRocca N., et al. The economic burden of multiple sclerosis in the United States: estimate of direct and indirect costs. Neurology. 2022; 98 (18): e1810–7. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000200150.
37. Nicholas J., Zhou H., Deshpande C. Annual cost burden by level of relapse severity in patients with multiple sclerosis. Adv Ther. 2021; 38 (1): 758–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01570-0.
38. Hartung D.M. Health economics of disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis in the United States. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2021; 14: 1756286420987031. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756286420987031.
39. Hartung D.M., Johnston K.A., Irwin A., et al. Trends in coverage for disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis in Medicare Part D. Health Aff. 2019; 38 (2): 303–12. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05357.
40. Zimmermann M., Brouwer E., Tice J.A., et al. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting and primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a cost-utility analysis. CNS Drugs. 2018; 32 (12): 1145–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-018-0566-9.
What is already known about thе subject?
► Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic demyelinating disease characterized by multiple focal lesions of the nervous system, which leads to disability and impaired quality of life
► Early administration of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS effectively reduces the frequency of exacerbations and the risk of disease progression
► DMTs represent the primary cost driver in the management of MS patients
What are the new findings?
► Drawing on the latest scientific data, a comprehensive assessment of MS treatment in various countries was carried out
► Analysis of data on the MS prevalence in various countries confirmed a rising trend in both disease prevalence and detection rates
► The socioeconomic factors were shown to have a significant impact on the disease burden for both patients and the healthcare system
How might it impact the clinical practice in the foreseeable future?
► The findings facilitate the consideration of economic factors when prescribing DMTs for MS
Review
For citations:
Maslova S.S. Pharmacoeconomic and socioeconomic aspects of multiple sclerosis treatment in different countries. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2026;1(19):194-199. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2026.309
Views:
420
JATS XML
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Email this article 