, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 347–355 | Cite as

The Cost of Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease, Dyspepsia and Peptic Ulcer Disease in Sweden

  • Lars AgréusEmail author
  • Lars Borgquist
Original Research Article


Background and objective: Dyspepsia, peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and gastrooesophageal reflux disease (GORD) involve a substantial cost to Swedish society. There is a lack of up-to-date nationwide cost estimates after 1985. This study was conducted to present a comprehensive and updated cost analysis and study the change over time of the national cost of these disorders.

Design and setting: Primarily, data from National Swedish databases and secondly, data from databases from the County of Uppsala for 1997 were used for the calculations and estimations.

Perspective: Swedish societal perspective.

Results: The total cost to Swedish society of dyspepsia, PUD and GORD in 1997 was $US424 million, or $US63 per adult. Direct costs totalled $US258 million (61%) while indirect costs totalled $US166 million (39%). The highest proportions of costs were due to drugs and sick leave, these being 37 and 34%, respectively.

Conclusions: The cost of dyspepsia and GORD is substantial for patients, health providers and society. Since 1985, drug costs have increased substantially while the cost of sick leave has decreased.


Sick Leave Dyspepsia Peptic Ulcer Disease Functional Dyspepsia Disability Pension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was supported by the Medical Faculty of Uppsala University, and Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.


  1. 1.
    Agréus L, Svärdsudd K, Nyrén O, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome and dyspepsia in the general population: overlap and lack of stability over time. Gastroenterology 1995; 109: 671–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones RH. Clinical economics review: gastrointestinal disease in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1996; 10: 233–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones R. Self-care and primary care of dyspepsia: a review. Fam Pract 1987; 4: 68–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Svärdsudd K, Korpela M. Diagnoses at the primary health care center of Tierp 1997 [in Swedish]. Uppsala: Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, 1998Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swedish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry. Facts 98. Pharmaceutical market and healthcare. Stockholm: Läkemedelsindustriföreningen, 1998Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lööf L, Adami HO, Agenäs I, et al. The Diagnosis and Therapy Survey October 1978–March 1983: health care consumption and current drug therapy in Swedenwith respect to the clinical diagnosis of gastritis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1985; 20 Suppl. 109: 35–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Agréus L. Socio-economic factors, health care consumption and rating of abdominal symptom severity: a report from The Abdominal Symptom Study. Fam Pract 1993; 10: 152–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Götell P, Nyrén O, Graffner H. Self medication with antacids: high prevalence of organic lesions in heavy users. Scand J Gastroenterol 1989; 24 Suppl. 159: 41Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jönsson B, Persson U. New drug yield profit despite increased cost for the health care system [in Swedish]. Läkartidningen 1983; 80: 1165–7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nyrén O, Lindberg G, Lindström E, et al. Economic costs of functional dyspepsia. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 312–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sonnenberg A, Townsend WF, Müller AD. Evaluation of dyspepsia and functional gastrointestinal disorders: a cost-benefit analysis of different approaches. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1995; 7: 655–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levin TR, Schmittdiel JA, Kunz K, et al. Costs of acid-related disorders to a health maintenance organization. Am J Med 1997; 103: 520–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nyrén O, Adami HO, Gustavsson S, et al. Excess sick-listing in nonulcer dyspepsia. J Clin Gastroenterol 1986; 8: 339–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Talley NJ, Colin-Jones D, Koch KJ, et al. Functional Dyspepsia: a classification with guidelines for diagnoses and management. Gastroenterol Int 1991; 4: 145–60Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Colin-Jones D, Bloom B, Bodemar G, et al. Management of dyspepsia: report of a working party. Lancet 1988; 1: 576–9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Statistics Sweden. Statistical Yearbook of Sweden 1999. Örebro: Statistiska Centralbyrån, 1999Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Board of Health and Welfare. Report from National Board of Health and Wellfare No 11/99:General Practitioners in Primary Care. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare, 1999Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Federation of Swedish County Councils. County Council staff 1999. Stockholm: Landstingsförbundet, 1999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Official data base. Sweden: The Primary Health Care Administration, Uppsala County Council, 1998Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies. Pharmaceutical statistics. Stockholm: Apoteket AB, 1997Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Board of Health and Welfare. Yearbook of Health and Medical Care 1998. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen, 1998Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Medical record file. Endoscopy unit, Akademiska Hospital. Uppsala, Sweden 1997Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uppsala County Council. Medical record file, Department of Clinical Physiology, Akademiska hospital: Uppsala, 1997Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Medical record file, surgical departments, Samariterhemmet and Enköping Hospital, Sweden, 1997Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malmeus J. Medical record file, Läkarhuset, Uppsala, 1997Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Board of Health and Welfare. Official data base for 1996. Socialstyrelsen, Epidemiologiskt Centrum (EpC). Stockholm, 1999Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Statistics Sweden. Statistical yearbook for county councils: costs for patient care 1993. Örebro: Statistiska centralbyrån, 1998Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Federation of Swedish County Councils. Cost and inpatient care time 1997 [online]. Stockholm: CPK- Centrum För Patientklassificering, Landstingsförbundet, 2000: Report no. 2000-77-006. Available from URL: [Accessed 2001 Feb]Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sandbu R, Arvidsson D, Gustavsson S, et al. Antireflux surgery in Sweden during 1987-1996: a decade of change [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1998; 114 Suppl.: A–932Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blomqvist AM, Lönroth H, Dalenbäck J, et al. Laparoscopic or open fundoplication? A complete cost analysis. Surg Endosc 1998; 12: 1209–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Uppsala County Council. Medical record file. Öregrund: Primary Health Care Centre, 1997Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uppsala County Council. Medical record files. Departments of Radiology, Uppsala County Council, Uppsala, 1997Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Uppsala County Council. Price list for X-ray examinations. Uppsala: Uppsala County Council, 1997Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Medical Index Sweden. Stockholm: Läkemedelstatistik AB, 1998Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies. Delivery of drugs to the pharmacies 1991-97 Stockholm: Apoteket AB, Statistikenheten, 1998Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Swedish National Social Insurance Board. Sick leave diagnosis 1990. Stockholm: Riksförsäkringsverket redovisar, 1996Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Swedish National Social Insurance Board. Statistics concerning sickness cash benefit days 1996. Stockholm: Riksförsäkringsverket, Statistikenheten, 1998Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Drummond MF, O Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swedish Employers Confederation. Tidsanvändning år 1999 (Statistics onworking hours and absentism1999). Sandviken: SAF s förlagsservice, 2000Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johanesson M, Borgquist L, Elenstål A, et al. Treatment of hypertension at a health center: the patients expenses in connection with transport and time are more than a tenth of the total treatment costs [in Swedish]. Läkartidningen 1991; 88: 1100–3Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Talley N, Stanghellini V, Heading R, et al. Functional Gastroduodenal Disorders: a working team report for the ROME II consensus on functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gut 1999; 45 Suppl. 11: 1137–42Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nyrén O. Non-ulcer dyspepsia: studies on epidemiology, pathophysiology and therapy [thesis]. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1985Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Danielsson å, Agréus L. Disorders in the oesophagus, stomach and duodenum. Läkemedelsboken 97/98. Apoteksbolaget: Stockholm, 1997: 49–62Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goudie BM, McKenzie PE, Cipriano J, et al. Repeat prescribing of ulcer healing drugs in general practice: prevalence and underlying diagnosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1996; 10: 147–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heikkinen M, Pikkarainen P, Takala J, et al. General practitioners’ approach to dyspepsia: survey of frequencies, treatment, and investigations. Scand J Gastroenterol 1996; 31: 648–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schöön IM, Mellström D, Odén A, et al. Incidence of peptic ulcer disease in Gothenburg 1985. BMJ 1989; 299: 1131–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Agréus L, Talley NJ, Svärdsudd K, et al. Natural history of gastroesophageal reflux disease and functional abdominal disorders: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 2905–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Aly A. NSAID-induced ulcer and its complications. Nord Med 1997; 112: 195–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sandbu R, Haglund U, Arvidsson D, et al. Antireflux surgery in Sweden, 1987–1997: a decade of change. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000; 35: 345–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    National Social Insurance Board. Official Statistics of Sweden: National Insurance 1985/86. Stockholm: Riksförsäkringsverket, 1988Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    National Social Insurance Board. Official Statistics of Sweden: Social Insurance of Sweden 1995 and 1996. Stockholm: Riksförsäkringsverket, 1997Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Swedish National Social Insurance Board. RFV information Is-1 1997: 3. Stockholm: Riksförsäkringsverket, 1997Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Family Medicine StockholmKarolinska InstituteHuddingeSweden
  2. 2.Institute of Health, Society and Primary Care, Faculty of Health SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations