Societal costs of illegal drug use in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Illegal drug use is a public health concern with far-reaching consequences for people who use them and for society. In Sweden, the reported use of illegal drugs has been growing and the number of drug-induced deaths is among the highest in Europe. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date estimation of the societal costs of illegal drug use in Sweden, relying as much as possible on registry and administrative data. METHODS: A prevalence-based cost-of-illness study of illegal drug use in Sweden in 2020 was conducted. A societal approach was chosen and included direct costs (such as costs of health care, social services, and the criminal justice system), indirect costs (such as lost productivity due to unemployment and drug-induced death), and intangible costs (such as reduced quality of life among people who use drugs and their family members). Costs were estimated by combining registry, administrative, and survey data with unit cost data. RESULTS: The estimated societal costs of illegal drug use were 3.7 billion euros in 2020. This corresponded to 355 euros per capita and 0.78 % of the gross domestic product. The direct and intangible costs were of similar sizes, each contributing to approximately 40 % of total costs, whereas indirect costs contributed to approximately 20 %. The largest individual cost components were reduced quality of life among people who use drugs and costs of the criminal justice system. CONCLUSION: Illegal drug use has a negative impact on the societal aim to create good and equitable health in Sweden. The findings call for evidence-based prevention of drug use and treatment for those addicted. It is important to address the co-morbidity of mental ill-health and drug dependence, to develop low-threshold services and measures for early prevention among children and young adults, as well as to evaluate laws and regulations connected to illegal drug use.

The Disease Burden and Economic Burden of Cancer in 9 Countries in the Middle East and Africa.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to characterize the epidemiological development of cancer in the Middle East and Africa since 2000 and to quantify its current economic impact. METHODS: Nine countries were studied: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. Information on causes of death and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) was obtained from the World Health Organization. Information on cancer incidence was collected from local cancer registries and estimations by the World Health Organization. The economic burden of cancer was estimated from local health expenditure data and from age-specific mortality data. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2019, cancer went from third-leading to second-leading cause of death (10% to 13% of all deaths) across these 9 countries. It also climbed from the sixth-leading to third-leading cause of DALYs (6% to 8% of all DALYs). New cancer cases per 100 000 inhabitants increased by 10% to 100% between 2000 and 2019, whereas future increases until 2040 range from 27% in Egypt to 208% in the United Arab Emirates, solely because of expected demographic changes. The economic burden of cancer ranged from around USD 15 per capita in the 4 African countries to USD 79 in Kuwait in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer is becoming one of the leading causes of disease burden in the Middle East and Africa. Patient numbers are expected to rise strongly in the coming decades. Increasing healthcare expenditure on appropriate cancer care is important to improve patient outcomes and can attenuate the economic impact of cancer on society.

A global analysis of the value of precision medicine in oncology - The case of non-small cell lung cancer.

Objectives: Biomarker testing is indispensable for the implementation of precision medicine (PM) in oncology. The aim of this study was to assess the value of biomarker testing from a holistic perspective based on the example of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model was populated with data from pivotal clinical trials of first-line treatments in aNSCLC. Three testing scenarios were considered; "no biomarker testing" encompassing chemotherapy treatment, "sequential testing" for EGFR and ALK encompassing treatment with targeted- or chemotherapy, and "multigene testing" covering EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, MET, RET and encompassing treatment with targeted- or immuno(chemo)therapy. Analyses of health outcomes and costs were run for nine countries (Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Turkey, United States). A 1-year and 5-year time horizon was applied. Information on test accuracy was combined with country-specific information on epidemiology and unit costs. Results: Compared to the no-testing scenario, survival improved and treatment-related adverse events decreased with increased testing. Five-year survival increased from 2% to 5-7% and to 13-19% with sequential testing and multigene testing, respectively. The highest survival gains were observed in East Asia due to a higher local prevalence of targetable mutations. Overall costs increased with increased testing in all countries. Although costs for testing and medicines increased, costs for treatment of adverse events and end-of-life care decreased throughout all years. Non-health care costs (sick leave and disability pension payments) decreased during the first year but increased over a 5-year horizon. Conclusion: The broad use of biomarker testing and PM in aNSCLC leads to more efficient treatment assignment and improves health outcomes for patients globally, in particular prolonged progression-free disease phase and overall survival. These health gains require investment in biomarker testing and medicines. While costs for testing and medicines would initially increase, cost decreases for other medical services and non-health care costs may partly offset the cost increases.

Systemic anti-cancer therapy patterns in advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) is the recommended treatment modality in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in clinical guidelines. SACT options in aNSCLC have multiplied in recent years with the introduction of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This article presents findings from the first comparative analysis of SACT patterns in Europe. METHODS: SACT rates in aNSCLC were estimated as the ratio between the number of patients treated with SACT (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy) and the number of potentially eligible patients for SACT in 11 countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, UK) between 2014 and 2020. Treated patients were estimated by combining national sales volume data of cancer drugs and average drug use per patient based on clinical trials. Potentially eligible patients were estimated from national epidemiological data. RESULTS: SACT rates in aNSCLC differed greatly, ranging from around 30 % in Hungary, Poland, and the UK to almost 60 % in Ireland, Norway, and Portugal in 2014. SACT rates seemed to increase over time in most countries, but differences were still large by 2020, ranging from around 40 % in the UK to 75 % or more in Belgium, Norway, and Portugal. Even in countries with the highest SACT rates, far from all patients seemed to receive guideline-recommended SACT options, as underuse of immunotherapy and targeted therapy was common. CONCLUSION: Up to 35 % of eligible patients with aNSCLC receives no SACT in certain European countries, although improvements have been achieved over time. The use of immunotherapy and targeted therapy is suboptimal even in countries with high SACT rates, indicating room to improve the quality of care and patient outcomes. POLICY SUMMARY: Measuring if and what kind of therapy cancer patients have access to is vital to assess quality of care. The care of aNSCLC patients seems to be suboptimal in Europe, due to factors such as exclusion of patients with moderate performance status from SACT, limited resources for diagnostic testing, long reimbursement timelines and slow adoption of new medicines in clinical practice.

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021.

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures - namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research - were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.

The cost of cancer in Europe 2018.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care is evolving rapidly, and costs and value of new treatments are frequently debated. Up-to-date evidence on the total cost of cancer is needed to inform policy decisions. This study estimates the cost of cancer in Europe in 2018 and extends a previous analysis for 1995-2014. METHODS: Cancer-specific health expenditure were derived from national estimates. Data on cancer drug sales were obtained from IQVIA. The productivity loss from premature mortality was estimated from data from Eurostat and the World Health Organization. Estimates of the productivity loss from morbidity and informal care costs were based on previous studies. FINDINGS: The total cost of cancer was €199 billion in Europe (EU-27 plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) in 2018. Total costs ranged from €160 per capita in Romania to €578 in Switzerland (after adjustment for price differentials). Health expenditure on cancer care were €103 billion, of which €32 billion were spent on cancer drugs. Informal care costs were €26 billion. The total productivity loss was €70 billion, composed of €50 billion from premature mortality and €20 billion from morbidity. INTERPRETATION: Health expenditure on cancer care were of a similar magnitude as the sum of non-health-care costs in 2018. Over the last two decades, health spending on cancer has increased faster than the increase in cancer incidence. The productivity loss from premature mortality has decreased because of reductions in mortality in the working-age population. Trends in informal care costs and productivity loss from morbidity are uncertain because of lack of comparable data.

Cost effectiveness of implementing ESC guidelines for treatment of iron deficiency in heart failure in the Nordic countries.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend that ferritin and transferrin saturation should be tested in chronic heart failure (HF) and state that iron treatment with ferric carboxymaltose should be considered in HF patients with iron deficiency to alleviate symptoms and improve exercise tolerance and quality of life. This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of the implementation of this recommendation in four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden). DESIGN: We performed a cost-utility analysis comparing ferric carboxymaltose treatment with placebo over a one-year time period in each country. Data on healthcare resource use and health outcomes were taken from the CONFIRM-HF study and combined with country-specific unit costs. Differences in per-patient costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated. RESULTS: QALYs were higher (increase of 0.050 QALYs per patient) in the iron-treated group compared with placebo. Per-patient costs were lower in all countries (with reductions ranging from €36 to €484). Fewer hospitalizations were one key driver of these results. Another important driver was how well the new routines for iron treatment can be integrated into the current healthcare management of HF. A sensitivity analysis confirmed the results to be robust. CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency therapy in HF with ferric carboxymaltose compared with placebo is estimated to both improve health-related quality of life and save healthcare costs in all Nordic countries. A well-organized healthcare management of HF patients can enable the implementation of ESC-recommended treatment of iron deficiency without need for additional resources.

The cost and burden of cancer in the European Union 1995-2014.

BACKGROUND: There is an intense debate about the cost of cancer and the value of new treatments. However, there is limited data on the cost of cancer in the European Union (EU) and how costs relate to the burden of disease. This paper presents new estimates on the development of the cost of cancer in the EU 1995-2014, with a focus on the major cost components: total health expenditure, cancer drugs, and production loss due to premature mortality. METHODS: Data on overall health expenditure were combined with national disease estimates to derive cancer-specific health expenditure. Data on drug sales were obtained from IMS Health, and epidemiological data were used to calculate life years lost due to cancer. FINDINGS: Health expenditure on cancer increased continuously from €35.7 billion in 1995 to €83.2 billion in 2014 in the EU and spending on cancer drugs from €7.6 billion in 2005 to €19.1 billion in 2014 (current prices). Yet the share of total health expenditure devoted to cancer was mostly constant (around 6 per cent). While expenditures on cancer drugs increased in both absolute and relative terms, other expenditures were stable or decreased, despite increases in cancer incidence driven by a growing and ageing population. Reductions in cancer mortality during working age resulted in decreasing production loss due to premature mortality. INTERPRETATION: Health spending on cancer as a share of total health expenditure is rather low and stable despite the growing incidence and relative burden of cancer. Problems to reallocate funding in health care systems under economic pressure may be one explanation and shifting costs from inpatient to ambulatory care another.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ferric carboxymaltose in iron-deficient patients with chronic heart failure in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: Iron deficiency is a common but treatable comorbidity in chronic heart failure (CHF) that is associated with impaired health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the intravenous iron preparation ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) for the treatment of iron deficiency in CHF from a Swedish healthcare perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis with a time horizon of 24 weeks was performed to compare FCM treatment with placebo. Data on health outcomes and medical resource use were mainly taken from the FAIR-HF trial and combined with Swedish cost data. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as well as the change in per-patient costs for primary care and hospital care. RESULTS: In the FCM group compared with placebo, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are higher (difference = 0.037 QALYs), but so are per-patient costs [(difference = SEK 2789 (€303)]. Primary care and hospital care equally share the additional costs, but within hospitals there is a major shift of costs from inpatient care to outpatient care. The ICER is SEK 75,389 (€8194) per QALY. The robustness of the result is supported by sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of iron deficiency in CHF with FCM compared with placebo is estimated to be cost-effective. The ICER in the base case scenario is twice as high as previously thought, but noticeably below SEK 500,000 (€54,300) per QALY, an informal average reference value used by the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. Increased HRQoL and fewer hospitalizations are the key drivers of this result.