As someone who believes in using a dmd if possible I found these statements incongruent with the overall tone of the article and people's reactions. The cost is ridiculous and that is what this article is about more than the effectiveness of the medication but until something better and cheaper comes along I'm sticking myself every day.

Please keep in mind the web md article about this study in Neurology Journal which actually included patients with RRMS and SPMS was summarized by someone for webmd it is not the actual article which stated:

"Compared to treating patients with all levels of disease, starting DMT earlier was associated with a lower (more favorable) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to initiating treatment at any disease state. Our sensitivity analyses reemphasize the need for early DMT initiation and suggest that starting DMT earlier, at EDSS 2 or before, could be more cost-effective than starting DMT for patients with MS at later stages of the disease. One potential reason for this result is that starting DMT earlier may defer the substantial costs associated with late-stage MS and disability."


"While evidence suggests that these drugs slow MS progression and reduce the frequency of relapses, these therapies are characterized by significant side effects and high costs, representing great economic burden to patients, as well as public and private payers."

http://www.neurology.org/content/77/...a-58efe085a0fb

From the webmd article:

"We know, unequivocally, that these drugs slow the progression of the disease and slow the course of the disease," says Karen Blitz-Shabbir, MD, director of multiple sclerosis care center at North Shore-LIJ Glen Cove Hospital in New York. When I first started training, people were hospitalized all the time and did much worse than they do now," she says, "So we know for sure these drugs are good."

"However, the effectiveness varied significantly among individuals, with some experiencing double the improvements and being able to live independently and prolong their employment and others not getting any meaningful effect."

"Overall, health outcomes for patients on the disease-modifying drugs appeared to be only slightly better than for those on supportive care."

"The cost-effectiveness also improved when people were started on the drugs early in the course of their disease, when the medications could still prevent permanent nerve damage, perhaps keeping them healthier, longer."

"Kathleen A. Smyth, PhD, co-director of the Neurological Outcomes Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University who wrote an editorial that accompanied the study, says she thinks the message of the study isn't that patients shouldn't be treated with the drugs. "It's that we have to get drug prices under control in this country."