Trending Topic

4 mins

Trending Topic

Developed by Touch
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked

Welcome to this issue of touchREVIEWS in Neurology, where we explore significant advances in neurology, cognitive health, and wearable technology in the management of various chronic conditions. This issue brings together a collection of expert perspectives and research that spans innovative therapies, preventive strategies, and case studies, each offering critical insights for clinicians and researchers. […]

Social and Economic Benefits of Early Optimised Treatment for Parkinson’s Disease Patients – Improved Quality of Life and Greater Productivity

Johan Lökk, Ulf Persson, Michael Wainwright
Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Download as PDF
Published Online: May 15th 2012 European Neurological Review, 2012;7(2):113–7 DOI: http://doi.org/10.17925/ENR.2012.07.02.113
Select a Section…
1

Abstract

Overview

From a broad societal perspective, the economic burden of Parkinson’s disease ranges from direct medication expenses to costs associated with home help and lost production. The last two generally arise in the more advanced stages of the disease. Savings are nevertheless possible and the two main ways of attaining this are by slowing down disease progression and reducing the time patients spend in off-periods. Earlier onset of optimised treatment, both in the initial and later disease stages, has the potential to achieve both. We highlight examples of advanced therapies that alleviate severe motor symptoms and thereby prolong the time patients can remain in their own homes and at their places of work. Health economic calculations for two forms of advanced therapy, continuous dopaminergic stimulation via pumps and deep brain stimulation, are also shown.

Keywords

Parkinson’s disease, quality of life, advanced therapies, onset of treatment, socioeconomic burden, cost-utility

2

Article

Like other chronic neurodegenerative diseases, Parkinson’s disease (PD) is associated with an impaired quality of life (QoL) for patients and costs to society. In Sweden at 2011 prices, the overall average cost per patient and year has been estimated at SEK (Swedish crowns) 148,000 or €16,500.1 In 2005 in Europe, the direct cost was estimated as €10.7 billion per year, but it was considered that the total costs may be around 40 % more.2 Significantly, future costs in developed countries were predicted to double by 2030.

Most of the costs associated with PD fall outside of the healthcare system, e.g. they are due to home care or lost productivity. A growing body of expertise believes that allocating more resources to early, optimised therapy can offset direct medication costs by raising patient QoL. This should reduce their need for home care and prolong the time they spend at work. We provide support for this view and show how economic simulation modelling can help generate meaningful cost-utility data.

Socioeconomic Experiences of Focused Treatment in Haemophilia
In developing countries with a per capita gross national product (GNP) of less than US$2,000, few citizens with haemophilia live beyond the age of nineteen. Many do not survive childhood. However, survival to adulthood and beyond increases approximately fivefold if these people have access to a specific haemophilia treatment centre (HTC).

Data collected by the World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH)3 clearly show that even minimal level treatment at a HTC boosted recovery from bleeding episodes and increased survival to adulthood. This resulted in a quicker return to school or work, as well as preserved functional independence. Absenteeism decreased, productivity improved and the burden on caregivers was reduced.

A relatively modest investment in the health of haemophilia sufferers thus benefits both government and society since as adults they are able to work and contribute to the community. The long-term financial consequences of higher morbidity are avoided.

This simple yet dramatic example has parallels with the treatment of PD in western countries. Although the costs of treating PD may be higher than the expenses of running a basic HTC, the economic resources of industrialised nations are correspondingly greater. So just as it makes economic sense for countries with even limited resources to provide organised haemophilia care, developed countries should evaluate the cost benefits of the therapeutic options available forPD. Expenses associated with providing optimised treatment as early as possible could be more than offset by improved outcome.

To view the full article in PDF or eBook formats, please click on the icons above.

2

References

  1. Lökk J, Borg S, Svensson J, et al., Drug and treatment costs
    in Parkinson’s disease patients in Sweden, Acta Neurol Scand,
    2012;125(2):142–7.

  2. Dodel R, Interpreting health economics data in Parkinson’s
    disease, Eur Neurol Rev, 2011;6(Suppl. 1):13–6.

  3. Brooker M, The World Federation of Hemophilia’s third
    global forum on the Safety and Supply of Hemophilia
    Treatment Products, 22-23 September 2003, Budapest,
    Hungary, Haemophilia, 2004;10(3):290–4.

  4. Lotharius J, Brundin P, Impaired dopamine storage resulting
    from alpha-synuclein mutations may contribute to the
    pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease, Hum Mol Genet,
    2002;11:2395–407.

  5. Tolosa E, Gaig C, Santamaría J, Compta Y, Diagnosis and
    the premotor phase of Parkinson disease, Neurology,
    2009;72(7 Suppl.):S12–20.

  6. Rio LM, Lindvall S, Lökk J, Wainwright M, Redressing the
    balance in Parkinson’s disease management with a greater
    focus on non-motor symptoms and care-giver health,
    Eur Neurol Rev, 2009;4(1):31-34.

  7. Jankovic J, Aguilar LG, Current approaches to the
    treatment of Parkinson’s disease, Neuropsych Dis Treat,
    2008;4(4):743–57.

  8. Rascol O, Fitzer-Attas CJ, Hauser R, et al., A double-blind,
    delayed-start trial of rasagiline in Parkinson’s disease (the
    ADAGIO study): prespecified and post-hoc analyses of the
    need for additional therapies, changes in UPDRS scores,
    and non-motor outcomes, Lancet Neurol, 2011;10(5):415–23.

  9. Lökk J, Reduced life-space of non-professional caregivers to
    Parkinson’s disease patients with increased disease
    duration, Clin Neurol Neurosurgery, 2009;111:583–7.

  10. Sanford M, Scott LJ, Rotigotine transdermal patch: a review
    of its use in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease,
    CNS Drugs, 2011;25(8):699–719.

  11. Antonini A, Continuous dopaminergic stimulation from
    theory to clinical practice, Parkinsonism Relat Disord,
    2007;13 Suppl.:S24–8.

  12. Storch A, Treating patients with deep brain stimulation or
    Duodopa – pros and cons, Eur Neurol Dis, 2007;2:14–7.

  13. Chaudhuri KR, Odin P, Antonini A, et al., Parkinson’s
    disease: the non-motor issues, Parkinsonism Relat Disord,
    2011;17(10):717–23.

  14. Lökk J, Lack of information and access to advanced
    treatment for Parkinson’s disease patients,
    J Multidiscip Healthc, 2011;4:433–9.

  15. Hagell P, Nordling S, Reimer J, et al., Resource use and
    costs in a Swedish cohort of patients with Parkinson’s
    disease, Mov Disord, 2002;17(6)1213–20.

  16. Keränen T, Kaakkola S, Sotaniemi K, Economic burden and
    quality of life impairment increase with severity of PD,
    Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 2003;9:163–8.

  17. Dodel R, The economic burden of Parkinson’s disease,
    Eur Neurol Rev, 2008;3(2):11–4.

  18. Schrag A, Banks P, Time of loss of employment in
    Parkinson’s disease, Mov Disord, 2006;21(11):1839–43.

  19. Willis M, Gradl B, Cost-utility-analysis of orphan drugs: case
    study of duodenal levodopa infusion versus standard
    treatment in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease in
    Sweden, Presented at: ISPOR 13th Annual European
    Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, 6–9 November 2010.

  20. Persson U, Hjelmgren J, Hälso-och sjukvården behöver
    kunskap om hur befolkningen värderar hälsan (The
    healthcare organization needs knowledge of how the
    population values health, J Swed Med Ass, 2003;
    100(43):3436–7.

  21. Puig-Junoy J, Puig Peiro R, Review of the economic
    evidence on the use of deep brain stimulation in late stage
    Parkinson’s disease, Neurologia, 2009;24(4):220–9.

  22. Dams J, Bornschein B, Siebert U, et al., The costeffectiveness
    of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s
    disease, Presented at: the German Parkinson Congress,
    Kiel, Germany, 10–12 March 2011.

3

Article Information

Disclosure

Johan Lökk has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim for lectures and has participated in clinical trials for Boehringer Ingelheim. Ulf Persson and Michael Wainwright have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Correspondence

Johan Lökk, Professor and Head Physician, Geriatric Department, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, SE-141 86 Stockholm, Sweden. E: johan.lokk@karolinska.se

Support

The authors thank Susanna Lindvall for her valuable advice and encouragement.

Received

2012-02-17T00:00:00

4

Further Resources

Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Download as PDF
Close Popup