Steven Simoens

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to calculate costs and health-related quality of life of women with endometriosis-associated symptoms treated in referral centres. METHODS: A prospective, multi-centre, questionnaire-based survey measured costs and quality of life in ambulatory care and in 12 tertiary care centres in 10 countries. The study enrolled women with a diagnosis of endometriosis and with at least one centre-specific contact related to endometriosis-associated symptoms in 2008. The main outcome measures were health care costs, costs of productivity loss, total costs and quality-adjusted life years. Predictors of costs were identified using regression analysis. RESULTS: Data analysis of 909 women demonstrated that the average annual total cost per woman was €9579 (95% confidence interval €8559-€10 599). Costs of productivity loss of €6298 per woman were double the health care costs of €3113 per woman. Health care costs were mainly due to surgery (29%), monitoring tests (19%) and hospitalization (18%) and physician visits (16%). Endometriosis-associated symptoms generated 0.809 quality-adjusted life years per woman. Decreased quality of life was the most important predictor of direct health care and total costs. Costs were greater with increasing severity of endometriosis, presence of pelvic pain, presence of infertility and a higher number of years since diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study invited women to report resource use based on endometriosis-associated symptoms only, rather than drawing on a control population of women without endometriosis. Our study showed that the economic burden associated with endometriosis treated in referral centres is high and is similar to other chronic diseases (diabetes, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis). It arises predominantly from productivity loss, and is predicted by decreased quality of life.

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent do the management of endometriosis and the symptoms that remain after treatment affect the quality of life in women with the disease? SUMMARY ANSWER: Many women with endometriosis had impaired quality of life and continued to suffer from endometriosis-associated symptoms even though their endometriosis has been managed in tertiary care centres. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The existing literature indicates that quality of life and work productivity is reduced in women with endometriosis. However, most studies have small sample sizes, are treatment related or examine newly diagnosed patients only. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey among 931 women with endometriosis treated in 12 tertiary care centres in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women diagnosed with endometriosis who had at least one contact related to endometriosis-associated symptoms during 2008 with a participating centre were enrolled into the study. The study investigated the effect of endometriosis on education, work and social wellbeing, endometriosis-associated symptoms and health-related quality of life, by using questions obtained from the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) GSWH instrument (designed and validated for the WERF Global Study on Women's Health) and the Short Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 3216 women invited to participate in the study, 1450 (45%) provided informed consent and out of these, 931 (931/3216 = 29%) returned the questionnaires. Endometriosis had affected work in 51% of the women and affected relationships in 50% of the women at some time during their life. Dysmenorrhoea was reported by 59%, dyspareunia by 56% and chronic pelvic pain by 60% of women. Quality of life was decreased in all eight dimensions of the SF-36v2 compared with norm-based scores from a general US population (all P < 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis showed that number of co-morbidities, chronic pain and dyspareunia had an independent negative effect on both the physical and mental component of the SF-36v2. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The fact that women were enrolled in tertiary care centres could lead to a possible over-representation of women with moderate-to-severe endometriosis, because the participating centres typically treat more complex and referred cases of endometriosis. The response rate was relatively low. Since there was no Institute Review Board approval to do a non-responder investigation on basic characteristics, some uncertainty remains regarding the representativeness of the investigated population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This international multicentre survey represents a large group of women with endometriosis, in all phases of the disease, which increases the generalizability of the data. Women still suffer from frequent symptoms, despite tertiary care management, in particular chronic pain and dyspareunia. As a result their quality of life is significantly decreased. A patient-centred approach with extensive collaboration across disciplines, such as pain specialists, psychologists, sexologists and social workers, may be a valuable strategy to improve the long-term care of women with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The WERF EndoCost study is funded by the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) through grants received from Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Takeda Italia Farmaceutici SpA, Pfizer Ltd and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. The sponsors did not have a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. L.H. is the chief executive and T.D. was a board member of WERF at the time of funding. T.D. holds the Merck-Serono Chair in Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, and the Ferring Chair in Reproductive Medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium and has served as consultant/research collaborator for Merck-Serono, Schering-Plough, Astellas and Arresto.

BACKGROUND: In the European Union (EU), between 44 and 76 million individuals of the 217 million EU employees suffer from allergic disease of the airways or the skin. Up to 90% of these persons are untreated or insufficiently treated. This has major socio-economic consequences such as absence from work (absenteeism), particularly reduced productivity at work (presenteeism). METHODS: We used published literature and online statistical information from Eurostat and Eurofound to assess the costs of allergic disease to society. RESULTS: Allergies have an impact on direct, indirect, intangible and opportunity costs. Most importantly, for the EU, avoidable indirect costs per patient insufficiently treated for allergy range between €55 and €151 billion per annum due to absenteeism and presenteeism, that is, €2405 per untreated patient per year. On the other hand, appropriate therapy for allergic diseases is available at comparatively low costs at an average of €125 per patient annually, equalling only 5% of the costs of untreated disease, allowing potential savings of up to €142 billion. CONCLUSIONS: A better care for allergies based on guideline-based treatment would allow Europe's economy substantial savings. In addition, allergies have an impact on learning and performance at school and university, leading to opportunity costs for society. This cannot be calculated moneywise but will have an impact in a modern knowledge-based society. Still allergies are trivialized in society, noting that the costs of therapy are paid by patients and healthcare services, whereas economic savings are made by employers and society. A change of this mindset is urgently needed.

This article aims to provide a systematic review of estimates and methodology of studies quantifying the costs of endometriosis. Included studies were cost-of-illness analyses quantifying the economic impact of endometriosis and cost analyses calculating diagnostic and treatment costs of endometriosis. Annual healthcare costs and costs of productivity loss associated with endometriosis have been estimated at $2801 and $1023 per patient, respectively. Extrapolating these findings to the US population, this study calculated that annual costs of endometriosis attained $22 billion in 2002 assuming a 10% prevalence rate among women of reproductive age. These costs are considerably higher than those related to Crohn's disease or to migraine. To date, it is not possible to determine whether a medical approach is less expensive than a surgical approach to treating endometriosis in patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain. Evidence of endometriosis costs in infertile patients is largely lacking. Cost estimates were biased due to the absence of a control group of patients without endometriosis, inadequate consideration of endometriosis recurrence and restricted scope of costs. There is a need for more and better-designed studies that carry out longitudinal analyses of patients until the cessation of their symptoms or that model the chronic nature of endometriosis.