Search

In order to fully understand and explore the effectiveness of any intervention for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), it is important to have robust, valid, reliable, and universally applied measures. The recent article, ‘Disability outcome measures in multiple sclerosis clinical trials’ by Cohen, Reingold, Polman and Wolinsky (2012), explores this issue in regards to the effective measurement of MS-related disability, and the utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures, whilst highlighting the need for collaboration between the academic and clinical communities. Although it is important to examine disability measures, it is also equally important to recognise that physical function is only one aspect of a person’s experience; for example, quality of life and psychological well-being are also important aspects to assess. The application of e-health technologies and patient registers could be a useful method of gaining additional information, using patient-reported outcomes. This commentary explores these issues in relation to points raised by the Cohen et al. paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate through survey and data linkage, healthcare resource use and costs (except drugs), including who bears the cost, of multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom by disease severity and type. Methods: The United Kingdom Multiple Sclerosis Register deployed a cost of illness survey, completed by people with multiple sclerosis and linked this with data within the United Kingdom Multiple Sclerosis Register and from their hospital records. Resource consumption was categorised as being medical or non-medical and costed by National Health Service and social services estimates for 2018. Results: We calculated £509,003 in non-medical costs over a year and £435,488 in medical costs generated over 3 months. People with multiple sclerosis reported self-funding 75% of non-medical costs with non-medical interventions having long-term potential benefits. Costs increased with disability as measured by patient-reported Expanded Disability Status Score and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, with Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical being a more powerful predictor of costs than the patient-reported Expanded Disability Status Score. Two distinct groups were identified: medical and non-medical interventions (n = 138); and medical interventions only (n = 399). The medical and non-medical group reported increased disease severity and reduced employment but incurred 80% more medical costs per person than the medical-only group. Conclusions: The importance of disability in driving costs is illustrated with balance between medical and non-medical costs consistent with the United Kingdom health environment. People with multiple sclerosis and their families fund a considerable proportion of non-medical costs but non-medical interventions with longer term impact could affect future medical costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]