Can the Consideration of Societal Costs Change the Recommendation of Economic Evaluations in the Field of Rare Diseases? An Empirical Analysis

Aranda-Reneo, Isaac; Rodríguez-Sánchez, Beatriz; Peña-Longobardo, Luz María; Oliva‐Moreno, Juan; López-Bastida, Julio

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.014

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(159 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Almost half of the articles (47%; 42 out of 90 papers) used the societal perspective. This proportion is notably higher than that found in the area of treatments for rare diseases, where a review found that only 11% of the studies included a societal perspective[ 59 ], a ratio slightly higher than that found for the area of depression (42%) [ 60 ], but lower than that found for interventions in Alzheimer’s disease (58%) [ 61 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Even though the inclusion of social costs did not affect the adoption of the assessed intervention in all the estimations, it is also worth mentioning that it did produce a change in results in 7.5% of the economic evaluations analysed, which changed from having a good cost-effectiveness ratio from a healthcare perspective to being dominant from a societal point of view. When comparing these results with other diseases (such as depression, Alzheimer's and rare diseases), it was observed that, even though consideration of the societal perspective had a positive influence by changing the interventions in those diseases to dominant (cost-saving) [59][60][61], this positive effect was weaker than in the case of MS, in which the inclusion of social costs led to a larger number of changes in the incremental costs. This might be explained by the nature of the interventions performed within these diseases, as in the case of MS they are mainly pharmaceutical interventions with a lifetime horizon.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 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 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 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some limitations should be pointed out. The economic evaluation only considered the healthcare costs from a national health service or healthcare provider perspective in the cost analysis, because differences could have appeared in the recommendations for funding the technology assessed [59,60]. It was not possible to include the non-healthcare costs, such as any informal care the person required and the costs of professionals, such as occupational therapists and physiotherapists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of an Exercise Programme That Provided Group or Individual Training to Reduce the Fall Risk in Healthy Community-Dwelling People Aged 65–80: A Secondary Data Analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has demonstrated that some exercise programs are effective for reducing fall rates in community-dwelling older people; however, the literature is limited in providing clear recommendations of individual or group training as a result of economic evaluation. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Otago Exercise Program (OEP) for reducing the fall risk in healthy, non-institutionalized older people. An economic evaluation of a multicenter, blinded, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial was performed on 498 patients aged over 65 in primary care. Participants were randomly allocated to the treatment or control arms, and group or individual training. The program was delivered in primary healthcare settings and comprised five initial sessions, ongoing encouragement and support to exercise at home, and a reinforcement session after six months. Our hypothesis was that the patients who received the intervention would achieve better health outcomes and therefore need lower healthcare resources during the follow-up, thus, lower healthcare costs. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which used the timed up and go test results as an effective measure for preventing falls. The secondary outcomes included differently validated tools that assessed the fall risk. The cost per patient was USD 51.28 lower for the group than the individual sessions in the control group, and the fall risk was 10% lower when exercises had a group delivery. The OEP program delivered in a group manner was superior to the individual method. We observed slight differences in the incremental cost estimations when using different tools to assess the risk of fall, but all of them indicated the dominance of the intervention group. The OEP group sessions were more cost-effective than the individual sessions, and the fall risk was 10% lower.

show abstract

“…De e gjøres ikke i norske metodevurderinger (8). Å inkludere samfunnsny e fører likevel sjelden til at behandling innføres, grunnet ekstreme medikamentkostnader (19).…”

Section: «Europeisk Samarbeid Bør Også Gjelde Metodevurdering Og Innk...unclassified

Sjeldne sykdommer, dyre medisiner og komplisert helseøkonomi

Brendbekken¹,

Houge²

2023

Tidsskriftet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Audun Brendbekken er medisin-og forskerlinjestudent ved Universitetet i Bergen. Forfa eren har fylt ut ICMJE-skjemaet og oppgir ingen interessekonflikter.Gunnar Douzgos Houge er leder for Regionalt ne verk for presisjonsmedisin i Helse Vest, overlege ved Avdeling for medisinsk genetikk, Haukeland universitetssjukehus og professor II ved Klinisk Institu II, Universitetet i Bergen. Forfa eren har fylt ut ICMJE-skjemaet og oppgir følgende interessekonflikter: Han har i over 20 år behandlet Fabrys sykdom, men har ingen økonomiske eller andre fordeler kny et til de e. Han er konsulent for QED Therapeutics ved utprøving av peroral behandling (infigratinib) for akondroplasi i en fase 1-2-studie utenfor Norge.

show abstract

Can the Consideration of Societal Costs Change the Recommendation of Economic Evaluations in the Field of Rare Diseases? An Empirical Analysis

Cited by 19 publications

References 71 publications

Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease

Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease

Cost-Effectiveness of an Exercise Programme That Provided Group or Individual Training to Reduce the Fall Risk in Healthy Community-Dwelling People Aged 65–80: A Secondary Data Analysis

Sjeldne sykdommer, dyre medisiner og komplisert helseøkonomi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About