How relevant are social costs in economic evaluations? The case of Alzheimer's disease.

Alzheimer’s disease Cost–effectiveness Cost–utility Economic evaluation Informal care Labour productivity Social costs Societal perspective

Journal

The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
ISSN: 1618-7601
Titre abrégé: Eur J Health Econ
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101134867

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Historique:
received: 08 04 2019
accepted: 09 07 2019
pubmed: 26 7 2019
medline: 15 4 2020
entrez: 26 7 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The main objective of this study was to analyse how the inclusion (exclusion) of social costs can alter the results and conclusions of economic evaluations in the field of Alzheimer's disease interventions. We designed a systematic review that included economic evaluations in Alzheimer's disease. The search strategy was launched in 2000 and ran until November 2018. The inclusion criteria were: being an original study published in a scientific journal, being an economic evaluation of any intervention related to Alzheimer's disease, including social costs (informal care costs and/or productivity losses), being written in English, using QALYs as an outcome for the incremental cost-utility analysis, and separating the results according to the perspective applied. It was finally included 27 studies and 55 economic evaluations. Around 11% of economic evaluations changed their main conclusions. More precisely, three of them concluded that the new intervention became cost-effective when the societal perspective was considered, whereas when using just the health care payer perspective, the new intervention did not result in a cost-utility ratio below the threshold considered. Nevertheless, the inclusion of social cost can also influence the results, as 37% of the economic evaluations included became the dominant strategy after including social costs when they were already cost-effective in the health care perspective. Social costs can substantially modify the results of the economic evaluations. Therefore, taking into account social costs in diseases such as Alzheimer's can be a key element in making decisions about public financing and pricing of health interventions.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The main objective of this study was to analyse how the inclusion (exclusion) of social costs can alter the results and conclusions of economic evaluations in the field of Alzheimer's disease interventions.
METHODS METHODS
We designed a systematic review that included economic evaluations in Alzheimer's disease. The search strategy was launched in 2000 and ran until November 2018. The inclusion criteria were: being an original study published in a scientific journal, being an economic evaluation of any intervention related to Alzheimer's disease, including social costs (informal care costs and/or productivity losses), being written in English, using QALYs as an outcome for the incremental cost-utility analysis, and separating the results according to the perspective applied.
RESULTS RESULTS
It was finally included 27 studies and 55 economic evaluations. Around 11% of economic evaluations changed their main conclusions. More precisely, three of them concluded that the new intervention became cost-effective when the societal perspective was considered, whereas when using just the health care payer perspective, the new intervention did not result in a cost-utility ratio below the threshold considered. Nevertheless, the inclusion of social cost can also influence the results, as 37% of the economic evaluations included became the dominant strategy after including social costs when they were already cost-effective in the health care perspective.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Social costs can substantially modify the results of the economic evaluations. Therefore, taking into account social costs in diseases such as Alzheimer's can be a key element in making decisions about public financing and pricing of health interventions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31342208
doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01087-6
pii: 10.1007/s10198-019-01087-6
pmc: PMC8149344
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1207-1236

Subventions

Organisme : FP7 Work Programme 2012: Cooperation
ID : HEALTH-2012.3.2-2

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Références

Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2015 Jan-Feb;89(1):39-50
pubmed: 25946584
Eur J Health Econ. 2014 Nov;15(8):791-800
pubmed: 23928827
Neurology. 2006 Dec 26;67(12):2186-91
pubmed: 17190942
Healthc Q. 2009;12(2):42-9
pubmed: 19369810
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Apr;13(2):223-31
pubmed: 25761544
BMC Neurol. 2012 Feb 08;12:2
pubmed: 22316501
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Jul;31(7):537-49
pubmed: 23620213
Health Serv Res. 2015 Jun;50(3):871-82
pubmed: 25294306
Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):687-97
pubmed: 26350541
Blood. 2015 Mar 19;125(12):1866-9
pubmed: 25655601
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Mar;66(3):313-23
pubmed: 19255381
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(5):391-403
pubmed: 19586077
Health Aff (Millwood). 1999 Mar-Apr;18(2):182-8
pubmed: 10091447
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Mar;35(3):331-345
pubmed: 27848219
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 Jan;16(1):63-70
pubmed: 25528281
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1603-1658
pubmed: 27733283
Radiology. 2000 Oct;217(1):58-68
pubmed: 11012424
J Alzheimers Dis. 2009;16(2):399-407
pubmed: 19221429
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014 Aug;23(7):1753-63
pubmed: 24957313
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;23(1):73-8
pubmed: 17520661
Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(5):411-27
pubmed: 20402542
Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2018 Aug 22;92:
pubmed: 30129567
Alzheimers Dement. 2017 Jan;13(1):1-7
pubmed: 27583652
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Dec;31(12):1105-19
pubmed: 24218135
Curr Med Res Opin. 2007 May;23(5):1187-97
pubmed: 17519086
Eur J Health Econ. 2012 Jun;13(3):327-36
pubmed: 21400197
Pharmacoecon Open. 2018 Sep;2(3):309-323
pubmed: 29623628
Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Feb;202:121-8
pubmed: 23258767
CNS Drugs. 2010 Nov;24(11):909-27
pubmed: 20932064
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017 Dec;32(12):1392-1400
pubmed: 27874210
Clin Drug Investig. 2008;28(5):291-303
pubmed: 18407715
Health Policy. 2015 Nov;119(11):1459-71
pubmed: 26518906
Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(48):v-xv, 1-116
pubmed: 23211271
Curr Med Res Opin. 2017 Apr;33(4):675-685
pubmed: 28035842
Swiss Med Wkly. 2012 Nov 21;142:w13676
pubmed: 23180021
J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;57(3):797-812
pubmed: 28304285
Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Feb;33(2):123-35
pubmed: 25315368
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017 Dec;32(12):1205-1216
pubmed: 27739182
Eur J Health Econ. 2016 Apr;17 Suppl 1:1-5
pubmed: 27023708
Eur J Health Econ. 2016 May;17(4):391-402
pubmed: 25876834
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2015 Jun;18(2):63-73
pubmed: 26231002
Alzheimers Dement. 2012 Jan;8(1):22-30
pubmed: 21420366
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:852368
pubmed: 23509789
Eur Heart J. 2006 Jul;27(13):1610-9
pubmed: 16495286
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2011 Jun;26(4):298-309
pubmed: 21561991
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Aug;19(64):1-108
pubmed: 26292178
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011 May;26(5):483-94
pubmed: 20845395
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 18;9(8):e105471
pubmed: 25133395
Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):975-81
pubmed: 22999150
Eur J Health Econ. 2004 Feb;5(1):36-45
pubmed: 15452763
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;27(6):573-82
pubmed: 21834130
BMC Geriatr. 2016 Jun 10;16:122
pubmed: 27287238
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1459-1544
pubmed: 27733281
J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;27(1):187-96
pubmed: 21860095
J Med Econ. 2015;18(11):930-43
pubmed: 26086535
Eur J Health Econ. 2012 Aug;13(4):461-90
pubmed: 21584815
BMJ Open. 2014 Jan 15;4(1):e004105
pubmed: 24435893
Health Technol Assess. 2018 May;22(28):1-202
pubmed: 29848412
Int J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;2012:548157
pubmed: 23326754
Can J Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;56(10):596-604
pubmed: 22014692
Eur J Health Econ. 2012 Oct;13(5):605-14
pubmed: 21858534
Gac Sanit. 2008 Apr;22 Suppl 1:137-42
pubmed: 18405563
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Nov;14(12):1165-74
pubmed: 24131614

Auteurs

L M Peña-Longobardo (LM)

Faculty of Social Science and Law, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Talavera de la Reina, Spain. luzmaria.pena@uclm.es.

B Rodríguez-Sánchez (B)

Faculty of Social Science and Law, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Talavera de la Reina, Spain.

J Oliva-Moreno (J)

Faculty of Social Science and Law, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Talavera de la Reina, Spain.

I Aranda-Reneo (I)

Faculty of Social Science and Law, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Talavera de la Reina, Spain.

J López-Bastida (J)

Faculty of Health Science, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Talavera de la Reina, Spain.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH