Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-1471-3636
Der Multiple Sclerosis Health Resource Utilization Survey
The Multiple Sclerosis Health Resource Utilization Survey![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/fdn/20220102/lookinside/thumbnails/0435-09-2020_10-1055-a-1471-3636-1.jpg)
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund In gesundheitsökonomischen Studien sind valide und verlässliche Kostendaten essentiell, um belastbare Schlussfolgerungen zu ziehen und eine höchstmögliche Versorgungsqualität der Patienten sicherzustellen. Im Falle der Multiplen Sklerose (MS) basieren solche Studien häufig auf Primärdaten, deren zugrundeliegende Erhebungsinstrumente nicht publiziert sind. Zudem erschweren heterogene Methoden die Vergleichbarkeit und Interpretation solcher Studienergebnisse. Zur Vereinheitlichung gesundheitsökonomischer Studien in der MS wurde der Multiple Sclerosis Health Resource Utilization Survey (MS-HRS) entwickelt, validiert und frei zugänglich publiziert.
Fragestellung Fokus dieser Übersichtsarbeit bildet der MS-HRS. Wir berichten methodische Grundlagen zur Krankheitskostenerfassung sowie MS-HRS basierte Ergebnisse zu den Kosten der Krankheitsdynamik bei Personen mit MS.
Material/Methodik Dieser Artikel beruht auf einer selektiven Literaturrecherche zum MS-HRS und zu den gesundheitsökonomischen Aspekten der Krankheitskostenerfassung.
Ergebnisse Der MS-HRS erfasst patientenberichtet die gesellschaftliche Inanspruchnahme von direkten medizinischen, direkten nicht-medizinischen sowie indirekten Ressourcen. Indirekte Kosten werden weiterhin zwischen Absentismus, sowohl kurzzeitig (Krankheitstage) als auch langfristig (Erwerbs-/Berufsunfähigkeit), und Präsentismus unterschieden. Der Ressourcenverbrauch wird mit den gesellschaftlichen Opportunitätskosten approximiert. Erste MS-HRS basierte Analysen zeigen, dass neben dem stationären Behinderungsgrad und dem klinischen Verlauf auch die Krankheitsdynamik in Form von Schüben und Progression enorme sozioökonomische Auswirkungen hat.
Diskussion Valide Krankheitskostendaten bringen Transparenz in die ökonomischen Auswirkungen von Erkrankungen. In Ergänzung zu klinischen Daten kann die Kosteneffektivität festgestellt werden und somit Anhaltspunkte für eine effizientere Patientenversorgung aufgedeckt werden. Im Falle der MS steht zur Kostenerfassung ein frei zugängliches Instrument (MS-HRS) zur Verfügung.
Abstract
Background In health economic studies, valid and reliable cost data are essential to reach meaningful conclusions. In the case of multiple sclerosis (MS), such studies are often based on primary data for which the underlying survey instruments have not been published. In addition, heterogeneous methods make the comparability and interpretation of such study results difficult. To standardize health economic studies in MS, the Multiple Sclerosis Health Resource Utilization Survey (MS-HRS) was developed, validated and published in a freely accessible format.
Research question This review focuses on the MS-HRS. We report on the methodological background of studies on the assessment of cost of illness as well as MS-HRS-based results on the costs of disease dynamics in people with MS.
Methods This article is based on a selective literature review on the MS-HRS as well as on health economic aspects of cost assessment.
Results The MS-HRS provides a holistic assessment of direct medical, direct non-medical and indirect resource utilization. Within indirect costs, we considered absenteeism, either short term (sick leave) or long term (disability pension), but also presenteeism, which refers to impaired performance during work. Resources were valued at the societal opportunity cost or the best possible approximation. First analyses based on MS-HRS showed that, in addition to inpatient disease severity and clinical course, disease dynamics in form of relapses and progression have enormous socioeconomic implications.
Conclusion Valid cost data bring transparency to the economic consequences of diseases. In addition to clinical data, cost data can be used to determine cost-effectiveness and thus reveal opportunities for more efficient patient care. For the case of MS, a freely accessible tool is available for cost assessments.
Schlüsselwörter
MS-HRS - Krankheitskosten - Gesundheitsökonomie - Multiple Sklerose - Real world evidencePublication History
Received: 29 September 2020
Accepted: 20 March 2021
Article published online:
18 May 2021
© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
Literatur
- 1 Goodin DS. The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: insights to disease pathogenesis. In Handbook of clinical neurology. Elsevier; 2014: 231-266
- 2 Kobelt G, Thompson A, Berg J. et al. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Mult Scler 2017; 23: 1123-1136 DOI: 10.1177/1352458517694432.
-
3 MSIF Atlas of MS 2013: Mapping Multiple Sclerosis around the World In: Multiple
Sclerosis International Federation ed; 2013
- 4 Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA. et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: The 2013 revisions. Neurology 2014; 83: 278-286 DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560.
- 5 Inojosa H, Schriefer D, Ziemssen T. Clinical outcome measures in multiple sclerosis: A review. Autoimmunity reviews 2020; 19: 5 DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102512 102512.
- 6 Raggi A, Leonardi M. Burden and cost of neurological diseases: a European North–South comparison. Acta Neurol Scand 2015; 132: 16-22 DOI: 10.1111/ane.12339.
-
7 IQWIG. Allgemeine Methoden Version 5.0 vom 10.07.2017 [General Methods Version
5.0 from 10.07.2017]. In: Institut für Qualität und
Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen ed; 2017
- 8 Karampampa K, Gustavsson A, Miltenburger C. et al. Treatment experience, burden and unmet needs (TRIBUNE) in MS study: results from Germany. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 2012; 18: S23-S27 DOI: 10.1177/1352458512441566b.
- 9 Reese JP, John A, Wienemann G. et al. Economic burden in a German cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis. Eur Neurol 2011; 66: 311-321 DOI: 10.1159/000331043.
- 10 Flachenecker P, Kobelt G, Berg J. et al. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe: Results for Germany. Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) 2017; 23: S78-S90 DOI: 10.1177/1352458517708141.
- 11 Kobelt G, Berg J, Lindgren P. et al. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Germany. The European journal of health economics 2006; 7: 34-44
- 12 Paz-Zulueta M, Parás-Bravo P, Cantarero-Prieto D. et al. A literature review of cost-of-illness studies on the economic burden of multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders 2020; 43: 102162 DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102162.
- 13 Naci H, Fleurence R, Birt J. et al. Economic burden of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 2010; 28: 363-379 DOI: 10.2165/11532230-000000000-00000.
- 14 Ernstsson O, Gyllensten H, Alexanderson K. et al. Cost of Illness of Multiple Sclerosis – A Systematic Review. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0159129 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159129.
- 15 Hawton AJ, Green C. Multiple sclerosis: relapses, resource use, and costs. The European Journal of Health Economics 2016; 17: 875-884 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-015-0728-3.
- 16 Iannazzo S, Iliza AC, Perrault L. Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies. Pharmacoeconomics 2018; 36: 189-204 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0577-2.
- 17 Ness N-H, Haase R, Kern R. et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Health Resource Utilization Survey (MS-HRS): Development and Validation Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2020; 22: e17921
- 18 van Lier LI, Bosmans JE, van Hout HPJ. et al. Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations: a European Delphi study. Eur J Health Econ 2018; 19: 993-1008 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0947-x.
- 19 Drummond MF. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4. Aufl Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015
- 20 Gansen FM. Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 2018; 18: 268 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3080-3.
- 21 Reinhold T, Andersohn F, Hessel F. et al. Die Nutzung von Routinedaten der gesetzlichen Krankenkassen (GKV) zur Beantwortung gesundheitsökonomischer Fragestellungen – eine Potenzialanalyse. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 2011; 16: 153-159 DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245615.
- 22 Gothe H, Matteucci Gothe R, Arvandi M. et al. Linkage von klinischen Primärdaten und Krankenkassenabrechnungsdaten in der Evaluation der Schlaganfallversorgung – SeDaStro: Erfahrungen aus dem Tiroler StrokeCard-Programm. Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) 2020; 82: S122-S130 DOI: 10.1055/a-1101-8949.
- 23 Stull DE, Leidy NK, Parasuraman B. et al. Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 929-942 DOI: 10.1185/03007990902774765.
- 24 Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4: 353-365 DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006.
- 25 Scholz S, Biermann-Stallwitz J, Brettschneider C. et al. Standardisierte Kostenberechnungen im deutschen Gesundheitswesen: Bericht der Arbeitsgruppe „Standardkosten“ des Ausschusses „ökonomische Evaluation“ der dggö. Gesundh ökon Qual manag 2020; 25: 52-59 DOI: 10.1055/a-1107-0665.
- 26 Bock JO, Brettschneider C, Seidl H. et al. Calculation of standardised unit costs from a societal perspective for health economic evaluation. Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) 2015; 77: 53-61 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1374621.
- 27 Inojosa H, Rauser B, Ettle B. et al. The transitional phase of multiple sclerosis: The concept of PANGAEA 2.0 evolution study. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2020; 46: 102523 DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102523.
- 28 Vormfelde SV, Ortler S, Ziemssen T. Multiple Sclerosis Therapy With Disease-Modifying Treatments in Germany: The PEARL (ProspEctive phArmacoeconomic cohoRt evaluation) Noninterventional Study Protocol. JMIR Res Protoc 2016; 5: e23 DOI: 10.2196/resprot.4473.
- 29 Ziemssen T, Hoffmann O, Klotz L. et al. Gaining First Insights on Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Patients Treated With Siponimod in Clinical Routine: Protocol of the Noninterventional Study AMASIA. J Med Internet Res 2020; 9: e19598 DOI: 10.2196/19598.
- 30 Ziemssen T, Kern R, Cornelissen C. The PANGAEA study design – a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional, long-term study on fingolimod for the treatment of multiple sclerosis in daily practice. BMC Neurol 2015; 15 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-015-0342-0.
- 31 Ziemssen T, Kern R, Cornelissen C. Study design of PANGAEA 2.0, a non-interventional study on RRMS patients to be switched to fingolimod. BMC Neurol 2016; 16: 129 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-016-0648-6.
- 32 Ness N-H, Schriefer D, Haase R. et al. Differentiating societal costs of disability worsening in multiple sclerosis. Journal of neurology 2019; 267: 1035-1042 DOI: 10.1007/s00415-019-09676-4.
- 33 Ness N-H, Schriefer D, Haase R. et al. Real-World Evidence on the Societal Economic Relapse Costs in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics 2020; 38: 883-892
- 34 Schriefer D, Ness N-H, Haase R. et al. Gender disparities in health resource utilization in patients with relapsing – remitting multiple sclerosis: a prospective longitudinal real-world study with more than 2000 patients. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2020; 13: 1756286420960274 DOI: 10.1177/1756286420960274.
- 35 Lorscheider J, Buzzard K, Jokubaitis V. et al. Defining secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 2016; 139: 2395-2405 DOI: 10.1093/brain/aww173.