RESUMO
The global burden of neurological disorders is substantial and increasing, especially in low-resource settings. The current increased global interest in brain health and its impact on population wellbeing and economic growth, highlighted in the World Health Organization's new Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and other Neurological Disorders 2022-2031, presents an opportunity to rethink the delivery of neurological services. In this Perspective, we highlight the global burden of neurological disorders and propose pragmatic solutions to enhance neurological health, with an emphasis on building global synergies and fostering a 'neurological revolution' across four key pillars - surveillance, prevention, acute care and rehabilitation - termed the neurological quadrangle. Innovative strategies for achieving this transformation include the recognition and promotion of holistic, spiritual and planetary health. These strategies can be deployed through co-design and co-implementation to create equitable and inclusive access to services for the promotion, protection and recovery of neurological health in all human populations across the life course.
Assuntos
Encéfalo , Saúde Global , Cooperação Internacional , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso , Neurologia , Humanos , Pesquisa Biomédica , Política Ambiental , Saúde Global/tendências , Objetivos , Saúde Holística , Saúde Mental , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso/epidemiologia , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso/prevenção & controle , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso/reabilitação , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso/terapia , Neurologia/métodos , Neurologia/tendências , Espiritualismo , Participação dos Interessados , Desenvolvimento Sustentável , Organização Mundial da SaúdeRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual cost of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) in the United States of America (US) and Canada from a societal perspective - including costs to the health system, individual and family productivity costs, lost wellbeing and other societal economic costs - by setting and payer. Findings will inform the need for policy action to mitigate the impact of IRDs. METHODS: The costs of IRDs were estimated using a cost-of-illness methodology, based on the prevalence of IRDs in each country. Intangible costs of reduced wellbeing were also estimated using disability-adjusted life years which were then converted to monetary values using the value of a statistical life. RESULTS: Using base prevalence rates, total costs attributable to IRDs in the US were estimated to range between US$13,414.0 and US$31,797.4 million in 2019, comprising both economic costs (between US$4,982 and US$11,753.9 million; 37% of total costs) and wellbeing costs (between US$8,431.7 and US$20,043.6 million; 63%). Total costs attributable to IRDs in Canada were estimated to range between CAN$1637.8 and CAN$6687.5 million in 2019, comprising both economic costs (between CAN$566.6 and CAN$2,305.7 million; 34%) and wellbeing costs (between CAN$1,071.4 and CAN$4,381.9 million; 66% of total costs). CONCLUSION: The impact of IRDs in the US and Canada is substantial when considering both economic costs and reduced wellbeing. The wellbeing costs due to IRDs in the US and Canada are considerable, accounting for over 60% of total costs. Vision loss from IRDs often manifests in childhood, meaning some people live with vision impairment and blindness for their whole lives. Further research into current and emerging cost-effective therapies and interventions is required given the substantial economic burden faced by those living with vision loss.
RESUMO
To date, there has been a global lack of data regarding the prevalence of conditions falling under the Inherited Retinal Diseases (IRD) classification, the impact on the individuals and families affected, and the cost burden to economies. The absence of an international patient registry, and equitable access to genetic testing, compounds this matter. The resulting incomplete knowledge of the impact of IRDs hinders the development and commissioning of clinical services, provision of treatments, and planning and implementation of clinical trials. Thus, there is a need for stronger evidence to support value for money to regulatory bodies for treatments approved, and progressing through clinical trials. To ensure a strategic approach to future research and service provision, it is necessary to learn more about the IRD landscape. This review highlights two recent cost-of-illness reports on the socio-economic impact of 10 IRDs in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and the United Kingdom (UK), which demonstrate the comprehensive impact of IRDs on individuals affected, their families, friends and society. Total costs attributable to IRDs in the ROI were estimated to be £42.6 million in 2019, comprising economic (£28.8 million) and wellbeing costs (£13.8 million). Wellbeing costs were estimated using the World Health Organization (WHO) burden of disease methodology, a non-financial approach, where pain, suffering and premature mortality are measured in terms of disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs). In the UK, wellbeing costs attributable to IRDs were £196.1 million, and economic costs were £327.2 million amounting to £523.3 million total costs in 2019. Accounting for over one-third of total costs, the wellbeing burden of persons affected by IRDs should be emphasized and factored into reimbursement processes for therapies and care pathways. This targeted review presents the most current and relevant data on IRD prevalence in the ROI and the UK, and the impacts (financial and non-financial) of IRDs in terms of diagnosis, wellbeing, employment, formal and informal care, health system costs, deadweight losses and issues surrounding payers and reimbursement. This review demonstrates IRD patients and their families have common issues including, the need for timely equitable access to genetic testing and counselling, equality in accessing employment, and a revision of the assessment process for reimbursement of therapies currently focused on the cost-of-illness to the healthcare system. This review reveals that IRD patients do not frequently engage the healthcare system and as such suggests a cost-of-illness model from a societal perspective may be a better format.