Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Italy

  • Gisela Kobelt
  • Jenny Berg
  • Peter Lindgren
  • M. Battaglia
  • C. Lucioni
  • A. Uccelli
Original Paper

Abstract

This cost-of-illness analysis based on information from 921 patients in Italy is part of a Europe-wide cost-of-illness study in multiple sclerosis (MS). The objective was to analyze the costs and quality of life (QOL) related to the level of disease severity and progression. Patients registered with the Italian MS patient organization were asked to participate in a mail survey, and 31% responded. The questionnaire asked for details on the disease (type of disease, relapses, level of functional disability), information on all medical and non-medical resource consumption, and informal care and work capacity (sick leave and early retirement). In addition, patients were asked about their current QOL (in the form of utility) and the level of fatigue. The mean age of respondents was 46 years, and 8.5% were 65 years or older. As many as 20% of patients had severe disease (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score of ≥7), 47% had moderate disease (EDSS score of 4–6.5) and only 31% had mild disease (EDSS score of 0–3). Thus, the mean EDSS score in the sample was 4.6 (median 5.0), with a utility of 0.53 (range: 0 = death to 1 = full health) and a fatigue level of 6.4 (range: 1 = not tired to 10 = extremely tired). Costs and utility are highly correlated with disease severity. Workforce participation decreases from approximately 80% in early disease to less than 10% in the very late stages. Total costs increase fivefold between an EDSS score of 0–1 and a score of 7. Health-care costs, however, show a limited increase with worsening disease – hospitalization increases from € 800 per patient to € 3200, and ambulatory care increases from € 900 to € 1500. Productivity losses, on the other hand, increase by a factor of 12, while informal care increases from € 500 at an EDSS score of 0–1 to nearly € 25 000 at an EDSS score of 7, and € 39 000 at an EDSS score of 8–9. Hence, total mean costs per patient are determined essentially by the distribution of the severity levels in the sample, increasing from € 12 000 at an EDSS score of 0–1 to € 57 000 at an EDSS score of 7, and € 71 000 at an EDSS score of 8–9. The same is true for utility, which decreases from 0.80 to 0.06 as the disease becomes severe. However, the utility loss compared to the age- and gender-matched general population is high at all levels of the disease, leading to an estimated annual loss of 0.3 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) per patient. Relapses for patients with an EDSS score of <5 are associated with a cost of approximately € 4000 and a utility loss of 0.18 during the quarter in which they occur.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis Costs Utility Quality of life Italy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

U. Lilja (Stockholm Health Economics, Stockholm, Sweden)

Conflict of interest

No information supplied.

References

  1. 1.
    Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P, Fredrikson S, Jönsson B (2006) Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Europe. J Neurol. Published online April 2006 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dean G (1994) How many people in the world have multiple sclerosis? Neuroepidemiology 13: 107 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosati G (2001) The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: an update. Neurol Sci 22: 117–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pugliatti M, Rosati R, Carton H et al. (2006) The prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Eur J Neurol 13: 1–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurtzke J (1983) Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis and expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33: 1444–1452 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16: 199–208 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dolan P (1995) A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Centre for Health Economics, University of York: York Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Masterman T, Jönsson B (2001) Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional study in Sweden. Eur J Neurol 8: 27–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Smala A, Jönsson B (2000) Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in Germany. SEE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 398. Stockholm School of Economics; Stockholm, Sweden (www.hhs.se)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Parkin D, Jönsson B (2000) Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in the United Kingdom. SEE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 399. Stockholm School of Economics; Stockholm, Sweden. (www.hhs.se)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eichler H, Kong S, Gerth W et al. (2004) Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Val Health 7: 518–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amato MP, Battaglia MA, Caputo D et al. (2002) The costs of multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional, multicenter cost-of-illness study in Italy. J Neurol 249: 152–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobelt G (2004) Economic evidence in multiple sclerosis: a review. Eur J Health Econ 5: 54–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russo P, Capone A, Paolillo A et al. (2004) Cost analysis of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy after the introduction of new disease-modifying agents. Clin Drug Invest 24: 409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lucioni C, Ravasio R, Monti P, Picceo M (2003) I costi della stipsi cronica non organica in pazienti ricoverti in Centri di assistenza per anziani. PharmacoEconomics, Italian Research Articles 5: 69–80 <<Please provide translation>>Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lucioni C, Garancini MP, Massi-Benedetti M, Mazzi S, Serra G (2003) The costs of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Italy. A CODE-2 sub study. Treat Endocrinol 2: 121–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lucioni C, Mazzi S, Rossi C (2005) Proton pump inhibitors for the acute treatment of reflux oesophagitis. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Clin Drug Invest 26: 325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gisela Kobelt
    • 1
  • Jenny Berg
    • 2
  • Peter Lindgren
    • 2
  • M. Battaglia
    • 3
  • C. Lucioni
    • 4
  • A. Uccelli
    • 5
  1. 1.European Health EconomicsSperacedesFrance
  2. 2.Stockholm Health EconomicsStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Associazione Italiana de Sclerosis Multiple (AISM)MilanoItaly
  4. 4.Adis International LtdMilanoItaly
  5. 5.Università di GenovaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations