HG3 Cost Comparisons and Methodological Heterogeneity in Cost-of-Illness Studies: The Example of Colorectal Cancer

Hanly, Paul; O'Ceilleachair, A; Skally, Máiréad; O’Neill, Ciarán; Sharp, Linda

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.051

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to top‐down approaches, it requires individual patient‐level data; however, it is regarded as more accurate, as it helps to elucidate individual cost drivers with no reliance on assumptions. 57 However, some limitations of our study need to be mentioned. First, the countries included were high‐income ones that may not reflect the lower‐income countries of EU, as well as countries outside the EU.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Cost‐of‐Illness Analysis of Long‐Term Health Care Resource Use and Disease Burden in Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: Insights From the PREFER in VTE Registry

Farmakis

Mavromanoli

Agnelli

et al. 2022

JAHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As mortality from pulmonary embolism (PE) decreases, the personal and societal costs among survivors are receiving increasing attention. Detailing this burden would support an efficient public health resource allocation. We aimed to provide estimates for the economic and disease burden of PE also accounting for long‐term health care use and both direct and indirect costs beyond the acute phase. Methods and Results This is a cost‐of‐illness analysis with a bottom‐up approach based on data from the PREFER in VTE registry (Prevention of Thromboembolic Events—European Registry in Venous Thromboembolism). We calculated direct (clinical events and anticoagulation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) of an acute PE event and its 12‐month follow‐up in 2020 Euros. We estimated a disability weight for the 12‐month post‐PE status and corresponding disability adjusted life years presumably owing to PE. Disease‐specific costs in the first year of follow‐up after an incident PE case ranged between 9135 Euros and 10 620 Euros. The proportion of indirect costs was 42% to 49% of total costs. Costs were lowest in patients with ongoing cancer, mainly because productivity loss was less evident in this already burdened population. The calculated disability weight for survivors who were cancer free 12 months post‐PE was 0.017, and the estimated disability adjusted life years per incident case were 1.17. Conclusions The economic burden imposed by PE to society and affected patients is considerable, and productivity loss is its main driver. The disease burden from PE is remarkable and translates to the loss of roughly 1.2 years of healthy life per incident PE case.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%