Display options
Cite
Knight T, Schaefer C, Chandran A, et al. Health-resource use and costs associated with fibromyalgia in France, Germany, and the United States. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;5:171-80doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S41111.
Knight, T., Schaefer, C., Chandran, A., Zlateva, G., Winkelmann, A., & Perrot, S. (2013). Health-resource use and costs associated with fibromyalgia in France, Germany, and the United States. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 5171-80. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S41111
Knight, Tyler, et al. "Health-resource use and costs associated with fibromyalgia in France, Germany, and the United States." ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR vol. 5 (2013): 171-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S41111
Knight T, Schaefer C, Chandran A, Zlateva G, Winkelmann A, Perrot S. Health-resource use and costs associated with fibromyalgia in France, Germany, and the United States. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013 Apr 23;5:171-80. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S41111. Print 2013. PMID: 23637545; PMCID: PMC3637123.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013 Apr 23;5:171-80. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S41111. Print 2013.

Health-resource use and costs associated with fibromyalgia in France, Germany, and the United States.

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR

Tyler Knight, Caroline Schaefer, Arthi Chandran, Gergana Zlateva, Andreas Winkelmann, Serge Perrot

Affiliations

  1. Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Covance Market Access Services, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

PMID: 23637545 PMCID: PMC3637123 DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S41111

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic disorder characterized by widespread, persistent pain. Prospective and retrospective studies have demonstrated substantial health-care costs associated with FM in a number of countries. This study evaluated and compared health-resource use (HRU) and associated costs related to FM in routine clinical practice across the US, France, and Germany.

METHODS: Two separate, cross-sectional, observational studies of subjects with FM were conducted: one in the US and one in France and Germany. HRU related to prescription medication, physician office visits, diagnostic tests, and hospitalizations was abstracted from chart review; patient out-of-pocket costs and lost productivity were collected via subject self-report. Costs were assigned to HRU based on standard algorithms. Direct and indirect costs were evaluated and compared by simple linear regression.

RESULTS: A total of 442 subjects (203 US, 70 France, 169 Germany) with FM were analyzed. The mean (standard deviation) age in the US, France, and Germany was 47.9 (10.9), 51.2 (9.5), and 49.2 (9.8), respectively (P = 0.085). Most subjects were female (95% US, 83% France, 80% Germany) (P < 0.001). Adjusted annual direct costs per subject for FM were significantly higher in the US ($7087) than in France ($481, P < 0.001) or Germany ($2417, P < 0.001). Adjusted mean annual indirect costs per subject for FM were lower in the US ($6431) than in France ($8718) or Germany ($10,001), but represented a significant proportion of total costs in all countries.

CONCLUSION: The significant HRU and costs associated with FM in the US, France, and Germany documented in this study highlight the substantial global economic burden of FM. Indirect costs represented a significant proportion of the total costs, particularly in Europe. Comparisons between the three countries show differences in HRU, with significantly higher direct costs in the US compared with France and Germany.

Keywords: France; Germany; United States; burden of illness; cost; fibromyalgia

References

  1. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2010 Jun;39(6):448-53 - PubMed
  2. J Rheumatol. 2003 May;30(5):1054-9 - PubMed
  3. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011 Mar 1;9(2):125-36 - PubMed
  4. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011 Aug 22;9:71 - PubMed
  5. J Rheumatol. 2009 Jun;36(6):1304-11 - PubMed
  6. Arthritis Rheum. 1990 Feb;33(2):160-72 - PubMed
  7. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70 - PubMed
  8. J Rheumatol. 2003 Jun;30(6):1318-25 - PubMed
  9. Nurs Res. 1993 Mar-Apr;42(2):93-9 - PubMed
  10. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010 Nov-Dec;28(6 Suppl 63):S64-70 - PubMed
  11. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012 Jul-Aug;18(6):415-26 - PubMed
  12. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Jan;54(1):177-83 - PubMed
  13. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Mar;64(3):396-402 - PubMed
  14. J Occup Environ Med. 2008 Jan;50(1):13-24 - PubMed
  15. J Rheumatol. 1991 May;18(5):728-33 - PubMed
  16. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;67(8):1219-25 - PubMed
  17. J Rheumatol. 2000 Aug;27(8):1984-8 - PubMed
  18. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 May 18;13:74 - PubMed
  19. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(7):547-59 - PubMed
  20. Cancer. 1982 Nov 1;50(9):1913-8 - PubMed
  21. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Oct 07;12:224 - PubMed
  22. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007 Mar 09;8:27 - PubMed
  23. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2003 Aug;17(4):685-701 - PubMed
  24. Arthritis Rheum. 1997 Sep;40(9):1560-70 - PubMed
  25. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Sep;24(9):2489-99 - PubMed
  26. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Jan;90(1):40-6 - PubMed
  27. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Mar;27(3):673-83 - PubMed
  28. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jan;58(1):26-35 - PubMed
  29. J Med Econ. 2012;15(1):32-44 - PubMed
  30. Pain Pract. 2011 May-Jun;11(3):204-16 - PubMed
  31. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jan;38(1):19-28 - PubMed
  32. J Med Econ. 2012;15(1):19-31 - PubMed
  33. Br J Med Psychol. 2001 Dec;74(Pt 4):523-37 - PubMed
  34. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jul 15;59(7):961-7 - PubMed
  35. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Feb 17;13:22 - PubMed
  36. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208 - PubMed
  37. J Rheumatol. 2004 Jul;31(7):1391-8 - PubMed
  38. Int J Clin Pract. 2010 Jul;64(8):1100-8 - PubMed

Publication Types