Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease

Abstract

Background: Multiple sclerosis imposes a heavy burden on the person who suffers from it and on the relatives, due to the caregiving load involved. The objective was to analyse whether the inclusion of social costs in economic evaluations of multiple sclerosis-related interventions changed results and/or conclusions.

Methods: A systematic review was launched using Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of Tufts University (2000-2019). Included studies should: (1) be an original study published in a scientific journal, (2) be an economic evaluation of any multiple sclerosis-related intervention, (3) include productivity losses and/or informal care costs (social costs), (4) be written in English, (5) use quality-adjusted life years as outcome, and (6) separate the results according to the perspective applied.

Results: Twenty-nine articles were selected, resulting in 67 economic evaluation estimations. Social costs were included in 47% of the studies. Productivity losses were assessed in 90% of the estimations (the human capital approach was the most frequently used method), whereas informal care costs were included in nearly two-thirds of the estimations (applying the opportunity and the replacement-cost methods equally). The inclusion of social costs modified the figures for incremental costs in 15 estimations, leading to a change in the conclusions in 10 estimations, 6 of them changing from not recommended from the healthcare perspective to implemented from the societal perspective. The inclusion of social costs also altered the results from cost-effective to dominant in five additional estimations.

Conclusions: The inclusion of social costs affected the results/conclusions in multiple sclerosis-related interventions, helping to identify the most appropriate interventions for reducing its economic burden from a broader perspective.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Cost-utility; Economic evaluation; Health technology assessment; Informal care; Multiple sclerosis; Productivity losses; Social costs; Societal perspective.