Use of Productivity Loss/Gain in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Drugs: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background Inclusion of productivity losses and gains in cost-effectiveness analyses for drugs is recommended by pharmacoeconomic guidelines in some countries and is considered optional in others. Often guidelines recommend analysis based on the payer perspective, but suggest that a supplemental analysis based on the societal perspective may be submitted that includes productivity losses/gains. However, there is no universally recognized framework for the approach to including productivity losses and gains in pharmacoeconomic analyses. Objectives This study aimed to systematically review literature on cost-effectiveness analyses of drug interventions that included costs associated with productivity losses/gains and to summarize the types cost elements included and cost calculation methods employed. Moreover, this study examines variations in the calculation of productivity losses/gains by target disease type, geographic region, income group, period of analysis, and analysis time horizon-as well as the impact of their inclusion on the study outcomes. Methods A search of three databases was performed, including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses that included indirect costs such as productivity losses/gains. Publications from January 2010 to October 2019 were examined and selected for inclusion by two independent reviewers. In addition to the citation details, data on the country of analysis, country income group, target disease area, study sponsorship, type of analysis, study design, time horizon, analysis perspective, productivity loss/gain elements included, the approach used to estimate productivity losses/gains, and the impact of their inclusion on the study outcome-namely the incremental cost effectiveness ratio-were extracted and summarized. Results The search strategy identified 5038 unique studies, and 208 were included in the final analysis. Among the studies reviewed, 165 (79%) were conducted in high-income countries and 160 (77%) were conducted for North American and European/Central Asian countries. The productivity loss/gain elements included in the analysis were reported for 169 studies (81%). Absenteeism only was included for 98 studies (47%), and absenteeism plus presenteeism was included for 29 studies (14%). Absenteeism plus some other element such as costs associated with unemployment and/or early retirement was included for 32 studies (15%) examined. Only one out of four of the studies reviewed included information on the approach used to estimate productivity losses/gains, which was predominantly the human capital approach. One-hundred forty-four studies (69%) reported the impact of including productivity losses/gains on the ICER, with 110 studies (53%) reporting that their inclusion contributed to more favorable cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Although inclusion of productivity losses/gains was shown to have a favorable impact on evaluations for many studies, their impact and method of calculation was often not reported or was u...

Valuation of Lost Productivity in Caregivers: A Validation Study

“…The research team adapted the VOLP to a caregiver version by reviewing existing questionnaires that measured caregiver work productivity losses (iVICQ, CIIQ and WPAI), followed by discussion among the team, including two caregiver partners, two health economists who mainly developed the VOLP patient version, one person-centered outcome expert, one health economist and potential future user of the VOLP, one clinician and potential future user of the VOLP, and two research assistants. In addition to the two caregiver partners and two health economists who mainly developed the VOLP patient version, we believe it is important to include an expert in personcentered outcome measurement and validation as a research team member because productivity loss has been considered and measured not only as a cost component for economic evaluations (Neumann et al, 2016;Yuasa et al, 2021) but also an important person-centered outcome (Hanemoto et al, 2017;Stewart et al, 2018;Zhang and Sun, 2021). The potential future VOLP users to measure productivity loss among caregivers as a person-centered outcome (a clinician investigator) and cost estimates (a health economist) were also included to ensure that VOLP would meet their research purpose.…”

A Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations and Cost Studies of the Treatment of Psoriasis, Atopic Dermatitis, and Chronic Urticaria

“…Some previous studies have conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations for PSO or AD, and at least one has reviewed economic evaluations for a broader range of immunological conditions [ 25 – 27 ]. Those studies have shown that many economic evaluations have been conducted for the US and European region, and many have been conducted from the perspective of the payer—i.e., from the perspective of the national health insurance system or another third-party insurer.…”

“…Those studies have shown that many economic evaluations have been conducted for the US and European region, and many have been conducted from the perspective of the payer—i.e., from the perspective of the national health insurance system or another third-party insurer. While the quality of the economic evaluation studies conducted has been reported to be high, a lack of reporting of study characteristics and variability in methods used across studies despite similar therapy areas have been suggested [ 25 , 27 , 28 ]. For example, studies have failed to report the study perspective (e.g., payer perspective, societal perspective), which is an important consideration when determining the types of costs to include in the analysis.…”

Economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics: a scoping review

“… 17 The aims of these studies were to summarise evidence and find cost-effective alternatives, 17 to provide an evidence base to inform economic evaluations and health technology assessments of COVID-19 treatments, 16 or to investigate the use of productivity costs in health economic evaluations of vaccine programmes and drugs. 15 , 18 Although not restricted to viral pandemic disease, vaccine and immunisation programmes often target viral disease and recent reviews have reported on the inclusion of productivity costs in economic analyses. 15 , 19 However, we have not been able to find reviews describing estimation of productivity costs or indirect costs in economic analyses of interventions against viral pandemics.…”