nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.10.2016 | Research Letter

Publication of Cost-of-Illness Studies: Does Methodological Complexity Matter?

verfasst von: T. Joseph Mattingly II, C. Daniel Mullins, Eberechukwu Onukwugha

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 10/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Cost-of-illness (COI) refers to the economic framework researchers have used to measure and describe the costs associated with specific diseases [1]. Expansion in the number as well as the types of methods used to calculate COI have been reported over time; however, utilization of more complex methods has remained unchanged [2‐4]. With this expansion, inconsistencies observed across cost calculations for the same disease state raise questions about the validity and usefulness of these studies [5]. A review of 21 COI studies on Alzheimer’s disease found that total annual costs varied from US$5.6 billion to US$88.3 billion in the United States, demonstrating the wide variability [6]. …

Rice DP. Estimating the cost of illness. Am J Public Health. 1967;57:424–40.CrossRef

Akobundu E, Ju J, Blatt L, Mullins CD. Cost-of-illness studies: a review of current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:869–90.CrossRefPubMed

Onukwugha E, McRae J, Kravetz A, Varga S, Khairnar R, Mullins CD. Cost-of-illness studies: an updated review of current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;34:43–58.CrossRef

Clabaugh G, Ward M. Cost-of-illness in United States: a systematic review of methodologies for direct cost. Value Health. 2008;11:13–21.CrossRefPubMed

Bloom BS, Bruno DJ, Maman DY, Jayadevappa R. Usefulness of US cost-of-illness studies in healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:207–13.CrossRefPubMed

Bloom BS, de Pouvourville N, Straus WL. Cost of illness of Alzheimer’s disease: how useful are current estimates? Gerontologist. 2003;43:158–64.CrossRefPubMed

Mauskopf J, Mucha L. A review of the methods used to estimate the cost of Alzheimer’s disease in the United States. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. [Internet]. 2011;26:298–309. Available from: http://aja.sagepub.com/content/26/4/298.abstract.

Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:479–500.CrossRefPubMed

Su J, Brook RA, Kleinman NL, Corey-Lisle P. The impact of hepatitis C virus infection on work absence, productivity, and healthcare benefit costs. Hepatology [Internet]. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT, USA: Wiley; 2010;52:436–42. Available from: http://survey.hshsl.umaryland.edu/?url= http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=20683943&site=eds-live.

10.

Rein DB, Borton J, Liffmann DK, Wittenborn JS. The burden of hepatitis C to the United States Medicare system in 2009: descriptive and economic characteristics. Hepatology [Internet]. 2015;1–10. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26707033.

11.

McAdam-Marx C, McGarry LJ, Hane CA, Biskupiak J, Deniz B, Brixner DI. All-cause and incremental per patient per year cost associated with chronic hepatitis C virus and associated liver complications in the United States: a managed care perspective. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17:531–46.PubMed

12.

Rein DB, Wittenborn JS, Smith BD, Liffmann DK, Ward JW. The cost-effectiveness, health benefits, and financial costs of new antiviral treatments for hepatitis C virus. Clin Infect Dis [Internet]. 2015;61:157–68. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25778747.

13.

Younossi ZM, Brown A, Buti M, Faiguoli S, Mauss S, Rosenberg W, et al. Impact of eradicating hepatitis C virus on the work productivity of chronic hepatitis C (CH-C) patients: an economic model from five European countries. J Viral Hepat. 2016;23:217-226.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Chahal HS, Marseille EA, Tice JA, Pearson SD, Ollendorf DA, Fox RK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of early treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 1 by stage of liver fibrosis in a US treatment-naive population. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;94118:1–9.

15.

Byford S, Torgerson DJ, Raftery J. Economic note: cost of illness studies. BMJ. 2000;320:1335.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Kymes S. “Can we declare victory and move on?” The case against funding burden-of-disease studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:1153–5.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Donaldson C, Venkat Nararyan K. The cost of diabetes: a useful statistic? Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1370–1.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Currie G, Kerfoot KD, Donaldson C, Macarthur C. Are cost of injury studies useful? Inj. Prev. 2000;6:175–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Rice DP. Cost of illness studies: what is good about them? Inj Prev. 2000;6:177–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Koopmanschap MA. Cost-of-illness studies: useful for health policy? Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;14:143–8.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Tarricone R. Cost-of-illness analysis. What room in health economics? Health Policy (New York). 2006;77:51–63.CrossRef

22.

Larg A, Moss JR. Cost-of-illness studies: a guide to critical evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:653–71.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295:90–3.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kulkarni AV, Busse JW, Shams I. Characteristics associated with citation rate of the medical literature. PLoS One. 2007;2:1–5.CrossRef

Titel: Publication of Cost-of-Illness Studies: Does Methodological Complexity Matter?
verfasst von: T. Joseph Mattingly II
C. Daniel Mullins
Eberechukwu Onukwugha
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0438-4

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Publication of Cost-of-Illness Studies: Does Methodological Complexity Matter?

Excerpt

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Excerpt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2016

Real-World Evidence: A Comparison of the Australian Herceptin Program and Clinical Trials of Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

The Effects of Diagnostic Definitions in Claims Data on Healthcare Cost Estimates: Evidence from a Large-Scale Panel Data Analysis of Diabetes Care in Japan

Daclatasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Critique of the Clinical and Economic Evidence

Performance-Based Agreements in Italy: ‘Trendy Outcomes’ or Mere Illusions?

A Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Biologic and Non-Biologic Options for the Treatment of Adults with Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis after the Failure of Conventional Therapy

Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS® Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3