Socioeconomic burden of schizophrenia: a targeted literature review of types of costs and associated drivers across 10 countries.

AIMS: Schizophrenia has the highest median societal cost per patient of all mental disorders. This review summarizes the different costs/cost drivers (cost components) associated with schizophrenia in 10 countries, including all cost types and stakeholder perspectives, and highlights aspects of disease associated with greatest costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Targeted literature review based on a search of published research from 2006 to 2021 in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, Brazil, and China. RESULTS: Sixty-four published articles (primary studies and literature reviews) were included. Comprehensive data were available on costs in schizophrenia overall, with very limited data for individual countries except the US. Most data is related to direct and not indirect costs, with extremely scarce data for several key cost components (adverse events, suicide, long-term care). Total schizophrenia-related per person per year (PPPY) costs were $2,004-94,229, with considerable variability among countries. Indirect costs were the main cost driver (50-90% of all costs), ranging from $1,852 to $62,431 PPPY. However, indirect costs are not collected systematically or incorporated in health technology assessments. Total schizophrenia-related PPPY direct costs were $4,394-31,798, with inpatient cost as the main cost driver (∼20-99% of direct costs). Intangible costs were not reported. Despite limited evidence, total schizophrenia-related costs were higher in patients with than without negative symptoms, largely due to increased costs of medication and medical visits. LIMITATIONS: As this was not a systematic review, prioritization of studies may have resulted in exclusion of potentially relevant data. All costs were converted to USD but not corrected for inflation or subjected to a gross domestic product deflator. CONCLUSIONS: Direct costs are most commonly reported in schizophrenia. The substantial underreporting of indirect and intangible costs undervalues the true economic burden of schizophrenia from a payer, patient, and societal perspective.

The true costs of diseases such as schizophrenia extend far beyond the obvious direct costs of hospital visits, outpatient appointments and medications to include indirect costs such as loss of productivity among patients and caregivers due to unemployment, early retirement and premature death. This review of literature published between 2006 and 2021 reveals that the indirect costs of schizophrenia actually account for between 50% and 90% of all costs, but are often not taken into account in healthcare planning. In addition, intangible costs, including the pain, suffering, stress, and anxiety experienced by patients and caregivers due to schizophrenia have not been reported in the literature. Costs were also higher for patients with negative symptoms of schizophrenia (where patients appear withdrawn and lacking in emotion, with few social relationships) compared with those with positive symptoms (including delusions or hallucinations). This is largely due to the greater costs for medications and medical visits among patients with negative symptoms. In summary, this review demonstrates that the true cost of schizophrenia, including direct, indirect, and intangible costs, is likely to be substantially higher than the values for the cost of disease currently reported.

Cost-Effectiveness Model for Chemoimmunotherapy Options in Patients with Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Unsuitable for Full-Dose Fludarabine-Based Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (GClb) in untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of GClb versus other chemoimmunotherapy options. The model comprised three mutually exclusive health states: "progression-free survival (with/without therapy)", "progression (refractory/relapsed lines)", and "death". Each state was assigned a health utility value representing patients' quality of life and a specific cost value. Comparisons between GClb and rituximab plus chlorambucil or only chlorambucil were performed using patient-level clinical trial data; other comparisons were performed via a network meta-analysis using information gathered in a systematic literature review. To support the model, a utility elicitation study was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the model-predicted progression-free and overall survival and that from the CLL11 trial. On incorporating data from the indirect treatment comparisons, it was found that GClb was cost-effective with a range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and remained so during deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses under various scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: GClb was estimated to increase both quality-adjusted life expectancy and treatment costs compared with several commonly used therapies, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below commonly referenced UK thresholds. This article offers a real example of how to combine direct and indirect evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis of oncology drugs.

Health state utilities for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: importance of prolonging progression-free survival.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a largely incurable disease which affects patients' health related quality of life (HRQL). Treatment is often initiated when symptoms affect HRQL, and patients can experience many rounds of treatment throughout their life. Therefore, the economic burden of CLL can be high. Utility or preference weights for health states reflect the value of HRQL of a given health state and range from 1 (full health) to 0 (dead) and below (negative values possible). Nine health states were developed representing different CLL treatment lines or disease stages. One hundred members of the UK general public valued each health state using the time trade-off methodology. Progression-free survival (PFS) without therapy (mean utility = 0.82) was the least burdensome, with relapsed lines of treatment (mean utility = 0.42) representing the greatest burden. The results underline the value in maintaining a state of PFS for as long as possible.

Subcutaneous vs intravenous rituximab in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a time and motion study in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Rituximab is part of standard therapy for many non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, and is usually administered as an intravenous (IV) infusion. A formulation for subcutaneous (SC) injection will be available from June 2014. A time and motion study was conducted to investigate the staff time and costs associated with administration of SC and IV rituximab. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The time and motion study was conducted in three UK centers alongside a phase III trial of SC rituximab in patients with NHL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01461928). Active healthcare professional (HCP) time spent on the preparation and administration of IV and SC rituximab was recorded and used to calculate the associated costs. RESULTS: Total active HCP time associated with administration of IV rituximab was 223.3 min (95% CI = 218.0-228.7), vs 48.5 min (95% CI = 45.5-51.6) for SC rituximab, a saving of 174.8 min (95% CI = 172.5-177.1) per session. Patient time in the treatment room was 263.8 min (95% CI = 236.6-294.3) for IV rituximab and 70.0 min (95% CI = 57.1-87.2) for SC rituximab, per session. The SC formulation reduced total mean staff costs by £115.17 (95% CI = 98.95-136.93) per session. Differing monitoring scenarios during infusion consistently showed time and cost savings for SC rituximab. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include the non-interventional design and lack of statistical power, and the investigational nature of SC rituximab. The data collected did not account for patient and center characteristics and variability on active HCP time. CONCLUSIONS: SC rituximab was associated with reduced active HCP time and costs vs IV rituximab, as well as reduced patient time in the treatment room. Switching from IV to SC rituximab could increase treatment room capacity and patient throughput, as well as improving the patient experience.