Health economic evaluations of myasthenia gravis: a systematic review

TL;DR

This review examines the costs and cost-effectiveness of treatments for myasthenia gravis, highlighting regional and therapeutic variations.

Contribution

The study provides a systematic review of recent pharmacoeconomic evidence for myasthenia gravis treatments.

Findings

Costs and cost-effectiveness of MG treatments vary significantly across regions and therapies.

Plasma exchange is generally less expensive than intravenous immunoglobulin.

Newer treatments like efgartigimod and eculizumab raise economic sustainability concerns.

Abstract

To systematically review the latest pharmacoeconomic evidence regarding the costs associated with myasthenia gravis (MG) care and treatment.

We searched the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PubMed for articles in English from any country reporting health economic analyses of pharmacological treatments, hospitalization, or surgical procedures related to MG.

The study included 31 articles showing a considerable variability in the costs and cost-effectiveness of MG treatments across regions, therapies, and health care settings. Traditional therapies such as plasma exchange (PLEX) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) differ notably in cost, with PLEX generally being less expensive. Newer clinically effective treatments such as efgartigimod and eculizumab raise concerns about their economic sustainability, whereas rituximab might be a more affordable alternative in certain contexts.

Future research should compare cost-effectiveness across health care systems, incorporating local pricing and reimbursement, and collecting real-world data.

Figures