ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences following first-line rituximab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Norwegian microsimulation study.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Toolkit for multistate disease progression simulation and treatment decision-making aid.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Norwegian guideline recommends highly effective disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) as the first line treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS), with rituximab preferred in clinical practice. While rituximab is effective, patients may discontinue due to side-effects or develop disease activity. Limited guidance exists on optimal switches following first line rituximab. Objectives: To estimate the costs and effects of different treatment sequences following first line rituximab in relapsing remitting MS patients in Norway. Design: A microsimulation model adapted to the Norwegian setting estimated outcomes for different treatment sequences following first line rituximab. Four neurologists were interviewed using a structured expert elicitation tool to inform switching behavior. The model allowed for three treatment lines after rituximab, with switches possible to fingolimod, ponesimod, cladribine tablets, or natalizumab. Methods: The model simulated all 32 possible treatment sequences and calculated costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) according to Norwegian pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Results: Neurologists were more likely to switch patients with >1 relapse (78%) or relapse and disability progression (66%) versus one relapse (54%). The most cost-effective sequence after rituximab is cladribine tablets (line 2), ponesimod (line 3), and natalizumab (line 4). The probability that second line cladribine tablets are most cost-effective is >75%. Mean time on first line rituximab was 15.2 years. The model predicts that over lifetime 21% of patients would require a fourth line of treatment due to the cumulative effects of discontinuation and recurring disease activity triggering treatment switches. Conclusion: Patients on first line rituximab may require a treatment switch due to side-effect induced discontinuation or new disease activity. If a switch from rituximab to another DMT is the preferred clinical course of action, this study showed that it is most cost-effective to switch to cladribine tablets followed by ponesimod and natalizumab.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.