Contributions
Abstract: P911
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - Economic burden
Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disease with profound heterogeneity in clinical course. Data from natural history series support the notion that secondary and primary progressions are more similar, than they are different, nevertheless differences exist and these are distinct forms of the disease.
Objectives; To analyse sources and levels of income among MS patients in relation to disease phenotype with a special focus on identifying differences/similarities between primary progressive MS (PPMS) and secondary progressive MS (SPMS).
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted linking data from Statistics Sweden and the Swedish Multiple Sclerosis Register. A total of 6890 MS patients aged 21−64 years and living in Sweden in 2010 were identified. Descriptive statistics, logistic and truncated linear regression models were used to estimate differences in annual income of earnings and social benefits between SPMS, PPMS and relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients, including disability pension, sickness absence, disability allowance, unemployment compensation, and social assistance. Means, medians, and regression coefficients were reported in Swedish Krona (EUR 1 = SEK 9.5 in 2010). Proportions and probabilities, expressed as odds ratios and prevalence ratios, were analysed. Multivariable regression models were adjusted for age, disease duration, sex, geographical region, family composition, type of living area, country of birth, and education.
Results: RRMS patients earned almost twice as much as PPMS and SPMS patients (on average SEK 204,500, SEK 114,500, and SEK 79,800 in 2010, respectively). The difference in earnings between PPMS and SPMS was not statistically significant when analysed with multivariable regression. The estimated odds ratio for PPMS patients for having income from earnings was not significantly different (p >0.05) from SPMS patients (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.59). PPMS and RRMS patients were less likely to receive benefits when compared to SPMS patients (by 6% and 27% lower, respectively).
Conclusion: Controlling for most important confounders, RRMS patients had significantly more earnings and less benefits than PPMS and SPMS patients, who in term differed very little from each other. These findings argue for similarities between PPMS and SPMS and highlight the socioeconomic importance of preventing RRMS patients convert to SPMS.
Disclosure:
Study supported by Biogen.
AK and AM declare that there is no conflict of interest. VDK has received financial support from Stockholm County Council and Biogen´s Multiple Sclerosis Registries Research Fellowship Program. HG was funded from an unrestricted research grant from Biogen. AG has received unrestricted research support from Biogen. KA has received unrestricted research grants from Biogen and from the Swedish Research Council for Working Life, Health and Welfare. JH received honoraria for serving on advisory boards for Biogen and Novartis and speaker´s fees from Biogen, MerckSerono, BayerSchering, Teva and SanofiGenzyme. He has served as P.I. for projects sponsored by, or received unrestricted research support from, Biogen, SanofiGenzyme, MerckSerono, TEVA, Novartis and BayerSchering. His MS research is funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation.
Abstract: P911
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - Economic burden
Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disease with profound heterogeneity in clinical course. Data from natural history series support the notion that secondary and primary progressions are more similar, than they are different, nevertheless differences exist and these are distinct forms of the disease.
Objectives; To analyse sources and levels of income among MS patients in relation to disease phenotype with a special focus on identifying differences/similarities between primary progressive MS (PPMS) and secondary progressive MS (SPMS).
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted linking data from Statistics Sweden and the Swedish Multiple Sclerosis Register. A total of 6890 MS patients aged 21−64 years and living in Sweden in 2010 were identified. Descriptive statistics, logistic and truncated linear regression models were used to estimate differences in annual income of earnings and social benefits between SPMS, PPMS and relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients, including disability pension, sickness absence, disability allowance, unemployment compensation, and social assistance. Means, medians, and regression coefficients were reported in Swedish Krona (EUR 1 = SEK 9.5 in 2010). Proportions and probabilities, expressed as odds ratios and prevalence ratios, were analysed. Multivariable regression models were adjusted for age, disease duration, sex, geographical region, family composition, type of living area, country of birth, and education.
Results: RRMS patients earned almost twice as much as PPMS and SPMS patients (on average SEK 204,500, SEK 114,500, and SEK 79,800 in 2010, respectively). The difference in earnings between PPMS and SPMS was not statistically significant when analysed with multivariable regression. The estimated odds ratio for PPMS patients for having income from earnings was not significantly different (p >0.05) from SPMS patients (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.59). PPMS and RRMS patients were less likely to receive benefits when compared to SPMS patients (by 6% and 27% lower, respectively).
Conclusion: Controlling for most important confounders, RRMS patients had significantly more earnings and less benefits than PPMS and SPMS patients, who in term differed very little from each other. These findings argue for similarities between PPMS and SPMS and highlight the socioeconomic importance of preventing RRMS patients convert to SPMS.
Disclosure:
Study supported by Biogen.
AK and AM declare that there is no conflict of interest. VDK has received financial support from Stockholm County Council and Biogen´s Multiple Sclerosis Registries Research Fellowship Program. HG was funded from an unrestricted research grant from Biogen. AG has received unrestricted research support from Biogen. KA has received unrestricted research grants from Biogen and from the Swedish Research Council for Working Life, Health and Welfare. JH received honoraria for serving on advisory boards for Biogen and Novartis and speaker´s fees from Biogen, MerckSerono, BayerSchering, Teva and SanofiGenzyme. He has served as P.I. for projects sponsored by, or received unrestricted research support from, Biogen, SanofiGenzyme, MerckSerono, TEVA, Novartis and BayerSchering. His MS research is funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation.