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

The European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2019-11-01 Epub Date: 2019-07-24 DOI:10.1007/s10198-019-01087-6
L M Peña-Longobardo, B Rodríguez-Sánchez, J Oliva-Moreno, I Aranda-Reneo, J López-Bastida
{"title":"How relevant are social costs in economic evaluations? The case of Alzheimer's disease.","authors":"L M Peña-Longobardo, B Rodríguez-Sánchez, J Oliva-Moreno, I Aranda-Reneo, J López-Bastida","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01087-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8149344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01087-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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: 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: 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: 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.

经济评估中的社会成本有多重要?以阿尔茨海默病为例。
背景:本研究的主要目的是分析纳入(排除)社会成本如何改变阿尔茨海默病干预措施的经济评估结果和结论:本研究的主要目的是分析纳入(排除)社会成本如何改变阿尔茨海默病干预领域经济评估的结果和结论:我们设计了一项包括阿尔茨海默病经济评估的系统性综述。检索策略于 2000 年启动,一直持续到 2018 年 11 月。纳入标准为:发表在科学杂志上的原创性研究,对任何与阿尔茨海默病相关的干预措施进行的经济评估,包括社会成本(非正式护理成本和/或生产力损失),以英文撰写,使用 QALYs 作为增量成本效用分析的结果,并根据应用的角度将结果分开:最终纳入了 27 项研究和 55 项经济评价。约 11% 的经济评价改变了其主要结论。更确切地说,其中有三项研究得出结论认为,如果从社会角度考虑,新的干预措施具有成本效益,而如果仅从医疗支付方的角度考虑,新的干预措施不会导致成本效用比低于所考虑的阈值。尽管如此,纳入社会成本也会影响结果,因为在纳入社会成本后,37%的经济评价成为了主导策略,而在医疗保健角度下,这些策略已经具有成本效益:结论:社会成本会极大地改变经济评估的结果。因此,考虑阿尔茨海默氏症等疾病的社会成本可能是公共融资和医疗干预定价决策的关键因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信