Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease.
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-utility
Economic evaluation
Health technology assessment
Informal care
Multiple sclerosis
Productivity losses
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:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
21
06
2021
accepted:
19
04
2022
pubmed:
21
5
2022
medline:
8
3
2023
entrez:
20
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Multiple sclerosis imposes a heavy burden on the person who suffers from it and on the relatives, due to the caregiving load involved. The objective was to analyse whether the inclusion of social costs in economic evaluations of multiple sclerosis-related interventions changed results and/or conclusions. A systematic review was launched using Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of Tufts University (2000-2019). Included studies should: (1) be an original study published in a scientific journal, (2) be an economic evaluation of any multiple sclerosis-related intervention, (3) include productivity losses and/or informal care costs (social costs), (4) be written in English, (5) use quality-adjusted life years as outcome, and (6) separate the results according to the perspective applied. Twenty-nine articles were selected, resulting in 67 economic evaluation estimations. Social costs were included in 47% of the studies. Productivity losses were assessed in 90% of the estimations (the human capital approach was the most frequently used method), whereas informal care costs were included in nearly two-thirds of the estimations (applying the opportunity and the replacement-cost methods equally). The inclusion of social costs modified the figures for incremental costs in 15 estimations, leading to a change in the conclusions in 10 estimations, 6 of them changing from not recommended from the healthcare perspective to implemented from the societal perspective. The inclusion of social costs also altered the results from cost-effective to dominant in five additional estimations. The inclusion of social costs affected the results/conclusions in multiple sclerosis-related interventions, helping to identify the most appropriate interventions for reducing its economic burden from a broader perspective.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis imposes a heavy burden on the person who suffers from it and on the relatives, due to the caregiving load involved. The objective was to analyse whether the inclusion of social costs in economic evaluations of multiple sclerosis-related interventions changed results and/or conclusions.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review was launched using Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of Tufts University (2000-2019). Included studies should: (1) be an original study published in a scientific journal, (2) be an economic evaluation of any multiple sclerosis-related intervention, (3) include productivity losses and/or informal care costs (social costs), (4) be written in English, (5) use quality-adjusted life years as outcome, and (6) separate the results according to the perspective applied.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-nine articles were selected, resulting in 67 economic evaluation estimations. Social costs were included in 47% of the studies. Productivity losses were assessed in 90% of the estimations (the human capital approach was the most frequently used method), whereas informal care costs were included in nearly two-thirds of the estimations (applying the opportunity and the replacement-cost methods equally). The inclusion of social costs modified the figures for incremental costs in 15 estimations, leading to a change in the conclusions in 10 estimations, 6 of them changing from not recommended from the healthcare perspective to implemented from the societal perspective. The inclusion of social costs also altered the results from cost-effective to dominant in five additional estimations.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The inclusion of social costs affected the results/conclusions in multiple sclerosis-related interventions, helping to identify the most appropriate interventions for reducing its economic burden from a broader perspective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35596098
doi: 10.1007/s10198-022-01471-9
pii: 10.1007/s10198-022-01471-9
pmc: PMC9985586
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
247-277Subventions
Organisme : h2020 european research council
ID : 779312
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet Neurol. 2005 May;4(5):281-8
pubmed: 15847841
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Dec;31(12):1105-19
pubmed: 24218135
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Nov;20(8):1207-1236
pubmed: 31342208
Health Econ Rev. 2020 Sep 22;10(1):32
pubmed: 32964372
Clin Ther. 2012 May;34(5):1132-44
pubmed: 22541587
Mult Scler. 2005 Oct;11(5):542-51
pubmed: 16193892
Mult Scler. 2017 Jul;23(8):1123-1136
pubmed: 28273775
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013 Feb;84(2):141-7
pubmed: 23154123
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 17;11(3):e0150703
pubmed: 26987055
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(12):vii-viii, xxv-xxxi, 1-187
pubmed: 25676540
Mult Scler. 2008 Jun;14(5):679-90
pubmed: 18566030
Neurology. 2013 Jul 9;81(2):184-92
pubmed: 23836941
Value Health. 2002 Jan-Feb;5(1):44-54
pubmed: 11873383
Neurol Sci. 2009 Feb;30(1):21-31
pubmed: 19169625
Pharmacoeconomics. 1998 May;13(5 Pt 2):607-22
pubmed: 17165327
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Mar;35(3):331-345
pubmed: 27848219
Value Health. 2021 Mar;24(3):431-442
pubmed: 33641778
Blood. 2015 Mar 19;125(12):1866-9
pubmed: 25655601
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun 28;19(1):436
pubmed: 31253138
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;83(1):61-6
pubmed: 21865212
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(7):617-27
pubmed: 18563952
Mult Scler. 2009 Jun;15(6):741-51
pubmed: 19383645
Mult Scler. 2020 Apr;26(4):411-420
pubmed: 30806569
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017 Aug;88(8):621-625
pubmed: 28365589
J Med Econ. 2016;19(4):432-42
pubmed: 26707273
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Neurol. 2002 Feb;249(2):152-63
pubmed: 11985380
Neurology. 2019 Jun 11;92(24):e2764-e2773
pubmed: 31092624
J Neurol Sci. 2013 Jul 15;330(1-2):71-7
pubmed: 23647840
Clin Ther. 2012 Sep;34(9):1966-76
pubmed: 22906738
J Med Econ. 2018 Jul;21(7):676-686
pubmed: 29618273
Eur J Health Econ. 2009 Oct;10(4):357-9
pubmed: 19618224
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Apr;37(4):475-499
pubmed: 30887469
Acta Clin Belg. 2015 Jun;70(3):175-80
pubmed: 25579611
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Dec;16(6):771-779
pubmed: 26750641
Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4(1):50-9
pubmed: 15609169
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(2):91-108
pubmed: 19731967
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 13;11(7):e0159129
pubmed: 27411042
Value Health. 2005 Jan-Feb;8(1):3-9
pubmed: 15841889
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Summer;16(3):768-80
pubmed: 11028132
BMC Public Health. 2019 May 20;19(1):609
pubmed: 31109317
Mult Scler. 2014 Jul;20(8):1123-30
pubmed: 24421304
Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2015 Jan-Feb;89(1):5-14
pubmed: 25946581
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Winter;18(1):127-38
pubmed: 11987436
Lancet Neurol. 2019 Oct;18(10):973-980
pubmed: 31375366
Aust Fam Physician. 2011 Dec;40(12):948-55
pubmed: 22146321
Mult Scler. 2015 Aug;21(9):1184-94
pubmed: 25767124
J Med Econ. 2017 Oct;20(10):1074-1082
pubmed: 28726530
Vojnosanit Pregl. 2009 Jul;66(7):556-62
pubmed: 19678581
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2016 Jan;172(1):3-13
pubmed: 26718593
Clin Ther. 2003 Feb;25(2):611-34
pubmed: 12749517
Eur J Health Econ. 2010 Oct;11(5):513-20
pubmed: 20405159
JAMA. 2019 Jan 15;321(2):175-187
pubmed: 30644981
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2020 May 22;20(7):18
pubmed: 32444986
Mult Scler. 2007 Sep;13(8):1054-64
pubmed: 17623729
J Manag Care Pharm. 2007 Apr;13(3):245-61
pubmed: 17407391
Health Econ Rev. 2017 Oct 10;7(1):36
pubmed: 29019158
Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2020 Jan 22;6(1):2055217320901727
pubmed: 32030197
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Apr;36(2):72-74
pubmed: 32000868
Neurology. 2015 Jul 21;85(3):240-7
pubmed: 26019190
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Apr;37(4):451-456
pubmed: 30328563
Neurology. 2011 Jul 26;77(4):355-63
pubmed: 21775734
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 May;30:9-16
pubmed: 30711764
Mult Scler. 2010 May;16(5):627-36
pubmed: 20305044
J Med Econ. 2019 Jan;22(1):71-84
pubmed: 30380350
Iran J Neurol. 2012;11(3):87-90
pubmed: 24250871
Clin Ther. 2017 Mar;39(3):537-557.e10
pubmed: 28209373