IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i4d10.1007_s10198-020-01256-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2018

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Morgan

    (Deloitte)

  • Sally Hartmanis

    (Deloitte)

  • Emmanuel Tsochatzis

    (UCL Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, Royal Free Hospital)

  • Philip N. Newsome

    (National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham
    University of Birmingham
    University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust)

  • Stephen D. Ryder

    (National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham)

  • Rachel Elliott

    (University of Manchester)

  • Lefteris Floros

    (PHMR Limited)

  • Richard Hall

    (Liver4Life)

  • Victoria Higgins

    (Adelphi Real World)

  • George Stanley

    (Intercept Pharmaceuticals)

  • Sandrine Cure

    (Intercept Pharmaceuticals)

  • Sharad Vasudevan

    (Deloitte)

  • Lynne Pezzullo

    (Deloitte)

Abstract

Background and aims Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) – a progressive subset of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) – is a chronic liver disease that can progress to advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and end-stage liver disease (ESLD) if left untreated. Early-stage NASH is usually asymptomatic, meaning a large proportion of the prevalent population are undiagnosed. Receiving a NASH diagnosis increases the probability that a patient will receive interventions for the purpose of managing their condition. The purpose of this study was to estimate the disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed NASH in the United Kingdom (UK) adult population in 2018. Methods The socioeconomic burden of diagnosed NASH from a societal perspective was estimated using cost-of-illness methodology applying a prevalence approach. This involved estimating the number of adults with diagnosed NASH in the UK in a base period (2018) and the economic and wellbeing costs attributable to diagnosed NASH in that period. The analysis was based on a targeted review of the scientific literature, existing databases and consultation with clinical experts, health economists and patient groups. Results Of the prevalent NASH population in the UK in 2018, an estimated 79.8% were not diagnosed. In particular, of the prevalent population in disease stages F0 to F2, only 2.0% (F0), 2.0% (F1) and 16.5% (F2), respectively, were diagnosed. Total economic costs of diagnosed NASH in the UK ranged from £2.3 billion (lower prevalence scenario, base probability of diagnosis scenario) to £4.2 billion (higher prevalence scenario, base probability of diagnosis scenario). In 2018, people with NASH in the UK were estimated to experience 94,094 to 174,564 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) overall. Total wellbeing costs associated with NASH in 2018 were estimated to range between £5.6 to £10.5 billion. Conclusion The prevention and appropriate management of adult NASH patients could result in reduced economic costs and improvements in wellbeing.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Morgan & Sally Hartmanis & Emmanuel Tsochatzis & Philip N. Newsome & Stephen D. Ryder & Rachel Elliott & Lefteris Floros & Richard Hall & Victoria Higgins & George Stanley & Sandrine Cure & Shar, 2021. "Disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2018," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 505-518, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01256-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01256-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01256-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-020-01256-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cynthia P. Iglesias & Alexander Thompson & Wolf H. Rogowski & Katherine Payne, 2016. "Reporting Guidelines for the Use of Expert Judgement in Model-Based Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1161-1172, November.
    2. Louise Longworth & Stirling Bryan, 2003. "An empirical comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D in liver transplant patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1061-1067, December.
    3. John Paul Gosling, 2018. "SHELF: The Sheffield Elicitation Framework," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Luis C. Dias & Alec Morton & John Quigley (ed.), Elicitation, chapter 0, pages 61-93, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claire Copeland & Britta Turner & Gareth Powells & Kevin Wilson, 2022. "In Search of Complementarity: Insights from an Exercise in Quantifying Qualitative Energy Futures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    3. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    4. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    5. Anna Chrysafi & Vili Virkki & Mika Jalava & Vilma Sandström & Johannes Piipponen & Miina Porkka & Steven J. Lade & Kelsey Mere & Lan Wang-Erlandsson & Laura Scherer & Lauren S. Andersen & Elena Bennet, 2022. "Quantifying Earth system interactions for sustainable food production via expert elicitation," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(10), pages 830-842, October.
    6. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    7. Ilanca Fraser & Johanita Burger & Martie Lubbe & George Dranitsaris & Mark Sonderup & Tienie Stander, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Modelling of Sofosbuvir-Containing Regimens for Chronic Genotype 5 Hepatitis C Virus Infection in South Africa," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 403-417, April.
    8. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    9. Christopher J. Cadham & Marie Knoll & Luz María Sánchez-Romero & K. Michael Cummings & Clifford E. Douglas & Alex Liber & David Mendez & Rafael Meza & Ritesh Mistry & Aylin Sertkaya & Nargiz Travis , 2022. "The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 684-703, July.
    10. Jeroen P. Jansen & Thomas A. Trikalinos & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2022. "Assessments of the Value of New Interventions Should Include Health Equity Impact," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 489-495, May.
    11. Richard Grieve & Marina Grishchenko & John Cairns, 2009. "SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-23, February.
    12. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    13. Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Louise Longworth, 2015. "EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 927-939, December.
    14. Susanne Schmitz & Tatjana T. Makovski & Roisin Adams & Marjan Akker & Saverio Stranges & Maurice P. Zeegers, 2020. "Bayesian Hierarchical Models for Meta-Analysis of Quality-of-Life Outcomes: An Application in Multimorbidity," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 85-95, January.
    15. Raices Cruz, Ivette & Lindström, Johan & Troffaes, Matthias C.M. & Sahlin, Ullrika, 2022. "Iterative importance sampling with Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling in robust Bayesian analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Danila Azzolina & Paola Berchialla & Silvia Bressan & Liviana Da Dalt & Dario Gregori & Ileana Baldi, 2022. "A Bayesian Sample Size Estimation Procedure Based on a B-Splines Semiparametric Elicitation Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-15, October.
    17. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Paula Ferrara & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 649-662, June.
    18. L. M. Lamers & C. A. M. Bouwmans & A. van Straten & M. C. H. Donker & L. Hakkaart, 2006. "Comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D utilities in mental health patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    19. Richard Huan Xu & Ming Lu & Shuyang Zhang & Dong Dong, 2023. "EQ-5D and SF-6D health utility scores in patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1399-1410, November.
    20. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Olga Theou & Justin Beilby & Matteo Cesari & Renuka Visvanathan, 2019. "Structuring a conceptual model for cost-effectiveness analysis of frailty interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-of-illness analysis; Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); Burden of disease; Economic impact; Health care resource utilisation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I39 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01256-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.