Matched-cohort study reports increased healthcare costs and comorbidities in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, suggesting a need for integrated care.
Objectives To understand the real-world clinical and economic impact of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the United States (US).Methods This retrospective, matched-cohort study used a large, integrated US administrative health database from 01 January 2012 to 31 December 2021. People with RRMS (PwRRMS) were identified using a validated algorithm or through electronic health records and matched 1:1 to MS-free controls based on age, gender, race, region, and insurance. Demographics, comorbidities, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and healthcare costs (HCCs) were compared between the RRMS cohort and MS-free controls during 1-year follow-up. All costs were reported in 2021 US dollars.Results The final cohort comprised 9,290 people (RRMS, n = 4,645; MS-free controls, n = 4,645) with a mean ± SD age of 52.9 ± 14.4 years; 79.1% were female. During the follow-up period, compared with the controls, the RRMS cohort had significantly higher prevalence of infections (60.9% vs. 51.5%; p < 0.001) and MS-related comorbidities, including malaise/fatigue (34.3% vs. 15.7%), major depressive disorders (27.6% vs. 17.7%), anxiety (21.4% vs. 15.1%), burning/numbness (19.4% vs. 5.8%), and abnormal gait (16.1% vs. 5.2%) (all p < 0.001). RRMS was associated with significantly higher mortality (5.0% vs. 1.2%), hospitalizations (18.2% vs. 11.5%), emergency department visits (40.3% vs. 28.1%), and physician visits (13.7 vs. 10.0) (all p < 0.001) versus controls. Mean total HCCs were significantly higher for RRMS versus controls ($54,244 vs. $19,671; p < 0.001), driven primarily by medical claims ($31,154 vs. $15,944; p < 0.001).Conclusions PwRRMS experienced a greater impact of comorbidities and significantly increased HCRU and HCCs, highlighting the need to integrate these impacts into everyday clinical decision‑making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greene et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: