Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 119, Issue 7, July 2015, Pages 964-979
Health Policy

Review
Socio-economic burden of rare diseases: A systematic review of cost of illness evidence

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.12.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We systematically reviewed the socioeconomic cost literature for 10 rare diseases.

  • Direct and indirect costs incurred by patients, carers and society were searched.

  • 77 studies were included with an unequal distribution of studies over disease types.

  • Level of existing evidence is highest for diseases with available drug treatments.

  • Indirect costs are in most cases of similar or higher magnitude than direct costs.

Abstract

Cost-of-illness studies, the systematic quantification of the economic burden of diseases on the individual and on society, help illustrate direct budgetary consequences of diseases in the health system and indirect costs associated with patient or carer productivity losses. In the context of the BURQOL-RD project (“Social Economic Burden and Health-Related Quality of Life in patients with Rare Diseases in Europe”) we studied the evidence on direct and indirect costs for 10 rare diseases (Cystic Fibrosis [CF], Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy [DMD], Fragile X Syndrome [FXS], Haemophilia, Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis [JIA], Mucopolysaccharidosis [MPS], Scleroderma [SCL], Prader-Willi Syndrome [PWS], Histiocytosis [HIS] and Epidermolysis Bullosa [EB]). A systematic literature review of cost of illness studies was conducted using a keyword strategy in combination with the names of the 10 selected rare diseases. Available disease prevalence in Europe was found to range between 1 and 2 per 100,000 population (PWS, a sub-type of Histiocytosis, and EB) up to 42 per 100,000 population (Scleroderma). Overall, cost evidence on rare diseases appears to be very scarce (a total of 77 studies were identified across all diseases), with CF (n = 29) and Haemophilia (n = 22) being relatively well studied, compared to the other conditions, where very limited cost of illness information was available. In terms of data availability, total lifetime cost figures were found only across four diseases, and total annual costs (including indirect costs) across five diseases. Overall, data availability was found to correlate with the existence of a pharmaceutical treatment and indirect costs tended to account for a significant proportion of total costs. Although methodological variations prevent any detailed comparison between conditions and based on the evidence available, most of the rare diseases examined are associated with significant economic burden, both direct and indirect.

Introduction

Most rare diseases are associated with high unmet need due to the lack of available and effective treatments and the relative lack of research to discover and develop such treatments. In the European Union (EU), a rare disease is defined as one affecting less than 1 in 2,000 people, and it is estimated that over 6,000 different, life-threatening or chronic, rare diseases exist today [1]. Although rare diseases are by definition associated with low prevalence, considering that 6–8% of the population are affected by a rare disease, the total number of patients in the EU is estimated to be between 27 and 36 million [2]. With the majority of rare disease patients suffering from less frequent conditions with a prevalence of 1 in 100,000 population, and with many rare diseases being of genetic origin, there is a strong public health interest relating to their cost and broader socioeconomic impact in order to develop sustainable health policy options.

Cost-of-illness (COI) studies measure the socio-economic burden of a disease and can be used as a public policy tool to assist in prioritisation and justification of healthcare and prevention policies [3]. COI studies can indicate which interventions are more valuable by comparing averted economic burden, and consequently lead to shifts in distribution of public and private investments. Different stakeholders can utilise COI studies differently. Governments can estimate the financial impact of a disease on public budgets for resource allocation purposes, whereas pharmaceutical corporations can identify diseases with high management costs to direct research and development (R&D) investments towards accordingly.

In addition, COI studies provide information for other types of economic evaluations, including a framework for cost estimation in cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses, frequently used by policy makers [3], [4]. They are increasingly cited in clinical and epidemiological research to emphasise the importance of studying a particular disease and the scale of a health-related problem, conveying the aggregate burden of illness on society by estimating the maximum amount that could potentially be saved if a disease were to be eradicated [5], [6].

While COI studies can identify and measure all costs of a particular disease, they do not address issues of inefficiency or waste; nor do they weigh up costs and benefits of interventions [6]. Caution is also advisable when interpreting COI estimates as potential savings if a disease were systematically targeted, because not all conditions can be fully eradicated, and some proportion of economic burden will remain despite effective interventions [6]. For optimal resource allocation, COI studies should be used in combination with full economic evaluations such as cost-benefit or cost-utility analyses which assess both costs and outcomes [7].

COI studies employ a wide range of different designs and methodologies, often limiting comparability and usefulness of results [8]. Variations include data sources, perspectives (healthcare, societal, etc.), cost types, costing approach and discount rate [9]. While standardisation of methodology through implementation of guidelines is becoming increasingly important, some flexibility may be required for diseases with special characteristics to be adequately described [3], [9].

Numerous COI studies have been conducted over the past three decades across a range of diseases, however few have addressed rare diseases. In this context, the aim of the BURQOL-RD project (“Social Economic Burden and Health-Related Quality of Life in patients with Rare Diseases in Europe”) was to provide new tools and knowledge for 10 rare diseases (RDs), including socio-economic burden and health related quality of life for patients and their caregivers [10].

As part of this initiative, the objective of this study is to systematically review the relevant literature on the socioeconomic burden of RDs and identify all costs, both direct and indirect, related to ten specifically identified RDs from the perspective of patients, families and society.

Section snippets

Data and methods

The BURQOL-RD project participants adopted a Delphi consensus approach in combination with a Carroll diagram for the selection of the 10 RDs to be studied [10]. An expert panel involved 23 individuals as representatives of each associated and collaborating project partner. Initially, the selection criteria for the potential RDs were defined and were summarised under the acronym BOSCARE and included: a broad spectrum of RDs being suitably represented, including some ultra-rare and less

Disease characteristics and prevalence in Europe

By reviewing the available evidence on disease characteristics and their prevalence/rarity, a better understanding of the burden of the different diseases can be gained. In turn, the limited availability of COI evidence suggests the need for further research on the selected RDs. Prevalence for each disease is shown in Table 1.

CF is the most frequent paediatric autosomal recessive disease in Caucasian populations [13], [14], [15], occurring in 1 in 2,500–3,600 births, with a European Union (EU)

Evidence and policy implications

In this review, we identified 77 studies that provide some level of information on the economic burden of ten selected RDs. An overall summary of the cost results is shown in Table 3. For some conditions (PWS and EB) no COI information was available despite relatively high prevalence (see Table 2). For other conditions (DMD, MPS I and VI, histiocytosis, FXS, scleroderma) COI information was very limited, and with the exception of MPS for which rhASB has undergone clinical trials as a treatment,

Conclusions

Although methodological variations prevent any detailed comparison between conditions, most of the rare diseases examined in this study are associated with significant economic burden. Indirect costs associated with loss of productivity in most cases approach or exceed the level of direct costs. The level of evidence available is highest for conditions that have specific pharmaceutical treatments available and is not necessarily associated with disease rarity. The study raises awareness about

Acknowledgements

This paper is an output from the BURQOL-RD project, funded by the 2nd Programme of Community Action in the Field of Public Health, promoted by the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs (DG Sanco) of the European Commission. The views represented in the paper do not reflect the views of the European Commission. We are grateful to the BURQOL partner network for comments and feedback on earlier versions of this paper as well as to two anonymous referees for constructive comments. We

References (109)

  • Eurordis. About rare diseases 2014. Available from:...
  • Council of the European Union

    Council Recommendation on action in the field of rare diseases – 2947th Employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs – council meeting

    (2009)
  • D. Rice

    Cost of illness studies: what is good about them?

    Injury Prevention

    (2000)
  • B. Luce et al.

    Standards for the socioeconomic evaluation of healthcare services

    (1990)
  • J. Segel

    Cost-of-illness studies – a primer

    (2006)
  • S. Byford et al.

    Cost of illness studies

    BMJ

    (2000)
  • R. Robinson

    Economic evaluation and health care: cost-effectiveness analysis

    BMJ

    (1993)
  • M. Drummond

    Cost-of-illness studies: a major headache?

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (1992)
  • T. Hodgson et al.

    Cost of illness methodology: a guide to current practices and procedures

    Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly

    (1982)
  • University of British Columbia. Pacific Exchange Rate Service. Available from: http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/data.html [cited...
  • IMF

    World Economic Outlook Database April 2012

    (2012)
  • M.F. Wildhagen et al.

    The nonhospital costs of care of patients with CF in The Netherlands: results of a questionnaire

    European Respiratory Journal

    (1996)
  • J.A. Johnson et al.

    Cost of care for individuals with cystic fibrosis: a regression approach to determining the impact of recombinant human DNase

    Pharmacotherapy

    (1999)
  • Orphanet Report Series

    Prevalence of rare diseases: bibliographic data

    (2013, June)
  • C. Krauth et al.

    Cystic fibrosis: cost of illness and considerations for the economic evaluation of potential therapies

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (2003)
  • NIH. Duchenne muscular dystrophy 2010. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001724 [cited...
  • NFXF. What is Fragile X 2011 [cited...
  • G. Turner et al.

    Prevalence of fragile X syndrome

    American Journal of Medical Genetics

    (1996)
  • Anaesthesia-UK. Haemophilia 2009. Available from: http://www.frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=100098 [cited...
  • S. Bernatsky et al.

    Economic impact of juvenile idiopathic arthritis

    Arthritis Care & Research

    (2007)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Genetics Home Reference: Mucopolysaccharidosis type I

    (2008)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Genetics Home Reference: Mucopolysaccharidosis type II

    (2008)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Genetics Home Reference: Mucopolysaccharidosis type III

    (2008)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Genetics Home Reference: Mucopolysaccharidosis type IV

    (2008)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Genetics Home Reference: Mucopolysaccharidosis type VI

    (2008)
  • M. Schlander et al.

    Expensive drugs for rare disorders: to treat or not to treat? The case of enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis VI

    Current Medical Research and Opinion

    (2009)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Scleroderma

    (2011)
  • S. Bernatsky et al.

    Scleroderma prevalence: demographic variations in a population-based sample

    Arthritis Care & Research

    (2009)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Prader-Willi Syndrome: PubMed Health

    (2011)
  • J.V. Butler et al.

    Prevalence of, and risk factors for, physical ill-health in people with Prader-Willi syndrome: a population-based study

    Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology

    (2002)
  • R. Krysiak et al.

    Growth hormone therapy in children and adults

    Anglais

    (2007)
  • J. Imrie et al.

    Cost of illness associated with Niemann-Pick disease type C in the UK

    Journal of Medical Economics

    (2009)
  • M. Patterson

    Niemann-Pick disease type C

    (2000)
  • H.B. Wodinsky

    Cost analysis of the Kozak protocol as used in an Ontario hospital in the treatment of children with epidermolysis bullosa

    Canadian Medical Association Journal

    (1984)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Genetic Home Reference: Epidermolysis bullosa simplex

    (2007)
  • M.F. Wildhagen et al.

    Cost of care of patients with cystic fibrosis in The Netherlands in 1990–1

    Thorax

    (1996)
  • G. Ginsberg et al.

    Cost-benefit analysis of a national screening programme for cystic fibrosis in an israeli population

    Health Economics

    (1994)
  • C.T. Baltin et al.

    Drug treatment of cystic fibrosis – cost patterns and savings potential for outpatient treatment

    Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany: 1983)

    (2010)
  • R. Nielsen et al.

    Prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis: an economic analysis

    Health Economics

    (2002)
  • M. Pauly

    The economics of cystic fibrosis

  • Cited by (193)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Present address: World Health Organisation, Representation to the EU, Rue Montoyer, 141,000 Brussels, Belgium.

    View full text