Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 6/2013

01-06-2013 | Systematic Review

Transferability of Indirect Cost of Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors: Fei-Li Zhao, Feng Xie, Hao Hu, Shu-Chuen Li

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 6/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Indirect cost is an important component in economic evaluations. The variation in the magnitude of indirect costs across studies and countries is substantial and affects the transferability of results across jurisdictions.

Objective

This study explored the factors involved in the variation of reported indirect cost and investigated the feasibility of transferring indirect costs across settings.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies estimating indirect costs for four selected chronic diseases, namely, asthma (AS), diabetes (DI), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and schizophrenia (SC). A multiple linear regression analysis was run to identify the factors that potentially explain the variation in reported indirect costs. Parametric (fixed- and random-effect models) and non-parametric (bootstrapping method) meta-analyses were applied to local gross domestic product (GDP)/capita-adjusted indirect costs for each disease. Results from the three different analytical methods were compared to ascertain the robustness of estimation.

Results

The systematic literature review identified 77 articles that reported indirect costs of AS (n = 18), DI (n = 20), RA (n = 25) and SC (n = 14) for literature synthesis. Substantial inter- and intra-disease variations among the indirect cost studies were observed with respect to geographic distribution, methodology and magnitude of cost estimation. Regression analysis showed that disease categories and local GDP/capita significantly (p < 0.001) contributed to the variance of indirect cost. The range of intra-disease variation in indirect costs was substantially reduced after adjusting by and expressing values as local GDP/capita. The GDP-adjusted indirect cost in terms of percentage of local GDP/capita of AS was the lowest and that of SC was the highest. Bootstrapping estimation was relatively conservative, with slightly wider confidence intervals (CIs) than the parametric method, with a mean (95 % CI) of 2.12 % (1.4089–2.9332) for AS, 10.65 % (7.215–14.7438) for DI, 21.98 % (17.4360–27.0631) for RA, and 79.19 % (52.4243–117.833) for SC.

Conclusion

It would be convenient and feasible to construct a universal reference range of indirect cost for a specific disease based on existing data and present this as a percentage of local GDP to assist local decision making in jurisdictions where indirect cost data are not available.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
2.
Knies S, Severens JL, Ament AJ, Evers SM. The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. Differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health. 2010;13(5):519–27.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, Glick HA, Lis J, Malik F, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Barbieri M, Drummond M, Rutten F, Cook J, Glick HA, Lis J, et al. What do international pharmacoeconomic guidelines say about economic data transferability? Value Health. 2010;13(8):1028–37.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Barbieri M, Drummond M, Willke R, Chancellor J, Jolain B, Towse A. Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: lessons for inferring generalizability. Value Health. 2005;8(1):10–23.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(49):iii–iv, 1–192.
7.
Rosery H, Bergemann R, Maxion-Bergemann S. International variation in resource utilisation and treatment costs for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(3):243–57.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Arredondo A, Zuniga A. Economic consequences of epidemiological changes in diabetes in middle-income countries: the Mexican case. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(1):104–9.PubMedCrossRef
9.
van Roijen L, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van der Maas PJ. Indirect costs of disease; an international comparison. Health Policy. 1995;33(1):15–29.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(1 Pt 1):1–7.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4(6):446–54.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Krol M, Papenburg J, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W. Do productivity costs matter? the impact of including productivity costs on the incremental costs of interventions targeted at depressive disorders. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(7):601–19.PubMed
13.
Xie F, Thumboo J, Li SC. True difference or something else? Problems in cost of osteoarthritis studies. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2007;37(2):127–32.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Xie F. The need for standardization: a literature review of indirect costs of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(7):1027–33.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
18.
Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jacknife. Annu Statist. 1979;7(1):1–26.CrossRef
19.
Adams DC, Gurevitch J, Rosengerg MS. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology. 1997;78(5):1277–83.CrossRef
20.
Lai CKW, Kim YY, Kuo SH, Spencer M, Williams AE. Cost of asthma in the Asia-Pacific region. Eur Respir Rev. 2006;15(98):10–6.CrossRef
21.
Serra-Batlles J, Plaza V, Morejon E, Comella A, Brugues J. Costs of asthma according to the degree of severity. Eur Respir J. 1998;12(6):1322–6.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Abel AB, Bernanke BS, Croushore D. Macroeconomics. 6th ed. Boston: Addison Wesley; 2007.
23.
Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Spoorenberg A, Schouten H, Rutten-van Mölken M, et al. Work status and productivity costs due to ankylosing spondylitis: comparison of three European countries. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61:429–37.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. The consequence of production loss or increased costs of production. Med Care. 1996;34(12 Suppl):DS59–68.
25.
Marin-Martinez F, Sanchez-Meca J. Weighting by inverse variance or by sample size in random-effects meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010;70(56):56–73.CrossRef
26.
Liu GG, Eggleston K, Hu TW. Emerging health economics and outcomes research in the Asia-Pacific region. Value Health. 2008;11(Suppl 1):S1–2.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Doherty J, Kamae I, Lee KK, Li H, Li SC, Liu GG, et al. What is next for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Asia? Value Health. 2004;7(2):118–32.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Koopmanschap M, Burdorf A, Jacob K, Meerding W, Brouwer W, Severens H. Measuring productivity changes in economic evaluation: setting the research agenda. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:47–54.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Transferability of Indirect Cost of Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors
Fei-Li Zhao
Feng Xie
Hao Hu
Shu-Chuen Li
Publication date
01-06-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing AG
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0053-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

PharmacoEconomics 6/2013 Go to the issue

Practical Application

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis

Review Article

Trabectedin for the Treatment of Advanced Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Review Article

Cabazitaxel for the Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Original Research Article

Simulating Lifetime Outcomes Associated with Complications for People with Type 1 Diabetes

CORRESPONDENCE

A Comment on Craig et al.: ‘‘Retigabine for the Adjunctive Treatment of Adults with Partial-Onset Seizures in Epilepsy with and without Secondary Generalization: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal’’

Systematic Review

Disutility of Illness for Caregivers and Families: A Systematic Review of the Literature