4.6 Article

An economic model of Parkinson's disease: Implications for slowing progression in the United States

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 319-326

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mds.25328

关键词

Parkinson's disease; cost; benefit; model; disease modification

资金

  1. Teva Neuroscience

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple studies describe progression, dementia rates, direct and indirect costs, and health utility by Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stage, but research has not incorporated these data into a model to evaluate possible economic consequences of slowing progression. This study aimed to model the course of Parkinson's disease (PD) and describe the economic consequences of slower rates of progression. A Markov model was developed to show the net monetary benefits of slower rates of progression. Four scenarios assuming hypothetical slower rates of progression were compared to a base case scenario. A systematic literature review identified published longitudinal H&Y progression rates. Direct and indirect excess costs (i.e., healthcare costs beyond what similar patients without PD would incur), mortality rates, dementia rates, and health utility were derived from the literature. Ten publications (N = 3,318) were used to model longitudinal H&Y progression. Base case results indicate average excess direct costs of $303,754, life-years of 12.8 years and quality-adjusted life-years of 6.96. A scenario where PD progressed 20% slower than the base case resulted in net monetary benefits of $60,657 ($75,891 including lost income) per patient. The net monetary benefit comes from a $37,927 decrease in direct medical costs, 0.45 increase in quality-adjusted life-years, and $15,235 decrease in lost income. The scenario where PD progression was arrested resulted in net monetary benefits of $442,429 per patient. Reducing progression rates could produce significant economic benefit. This benefit is strongly dependent on the degree to which progression is slowed. (c) 2013 Movement Disorder Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据