PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES AND HEALTHCARE RESOURCE UTILISATION: A COMPARISON BETWEEN PATIENTS WITH CIDP AND THE GENERAL POPULATION
Author(s)
Clémence Arvin-Berod, PharmD1, Perseverence Savieri, PhD2, Febe M. Brackx, Ir, MSc3, Sandra Paci, PhD4, Yasmin Taylor, MSc5, Jack Wright, MSc6, Sarah Dewilde, PhD7.
1argenx, Ghent, Belgium, 2Services in Health Economics BV, Brussels, Belgium, 3Analyst and Satistician, Services in Health Economics (SHE) BV, Brussels, Belgium, 4argenx, Zwijnaarde, Belgium, 5ADELPHI REAL WORLD, Bollington, United Kingdom, 6Adelphi Real World, London, United Kingdom, 7Services in Health Economics (SHE) BV, Brussels, Belgium.
1argenx, Ghent, Belgium, 2Services in Health Economics BV, Brussels, Belgium, 3Analyst and Satistician, Services in Health Economics (SHE) BV, Brussels, Belgium, 4argenx, Zwijnaarde, Belgium, 5ADELPHI REAL WORLD, Bollington, United Kingdom, 6Adelphi Real World, London, United Kingdom, 7Services in Health Economics (SHE) BV, Brussels, Belgium.
OBJECTIVES: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is associated with functional impairment that may translate into reduced work productivity and increased healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU). However, quantitative comparisons with the general population and across severity levels remain limited. This study compared work productivity and HCRU between patients with CIDP and the general population, and evaluated how burden varies by disability level.
METHODS: Data were drawn from two surveys: (1) Adelphi’s CIDP Disease Specific Programme™ (N=936), and (2) GENESIS (GENEral population normS-An International Survey; N=21,000). Outcomes included work productivity ( Work Productivity and Activity Impairment [WPAI]), mobility aid use, and caregiver need. Regression models adjusted for age and sex were used to estimate adjusted mean differences (continuous outcomes) and adjusted odds ratios (binary outcomes). Work productivity analyses were restricted to employed respondents. Severity-stratified analyses compared patients with mild, moderate, and severe disability (INCAT score) with the general population.
RESULTS: Compared with the general population, employment was lower among patients with CIDP (58.7 % vs 69.3%; adjusted OR=0.6, p<0.001). Mobility aid use (46.9% vs 7.2%; adjusted OR 10.2, p<0.001) and caregiver need (26.5% vs 7.6%; adjusted OR 4.7, p<0.001) were substantially higher in CIDP. CIDP was associated with greater presenteeism (+8.9%, p<0.001), overall work impairment (+7.9%, p=0.011), and activity impairment (+14.1%, p<0.001), while absenteeism did not differ significantly (-2.1%, p=0.314).
A clear severity gradient was observed, with differences versus the general population increasing progressively with disability level. Patients with severe disability demonstrated the greatest burden, including substantially higher overall work and activity impairment and markedly increased odds of mobility aid use and caregiver need compared with the general population.
CONCLUSIONS: CIDP imposes a substantial societal and healthcare burden, characterised by reduced work productivity and increased HCRU. This burden rises with increasing disability, underscoring the impact of functional impairment on patients and healthcare systems.
METHODS: Data were drawn from two surveys: (1) Adelphi’s CIDP Disease Specific Programme™ (N=936), and (2) GENESIS (GENEral population normS-An International Survey; N=21,000). Outcomes included work productivity ( Work Productivity and Activity Impairment [WPAI]), mobility aid use, and caregiver need. Regression models adjusted for age and sex were used to estimate adjusted mean differences (continuous outcomes) and adjusted odds ratios (binary outcomes). Work productivity analyses were restricted to employed respondents. Severity-stratified analyses compared patients with mild, moderate, and severe disability (INCAT score) with the general population.
RESULTS: Compared with the general population, employment was lower among patients with CIDP (58.7 % vs 69.3%; adjusted OR=0.6, p<0.001). Mobility aid use (46.9% vs 7.2%; adjusted OR 10.2, p<0.001) and caregiver need (26.5% vs 7.6%; adjusted OR 4.7, p<0.001) were substantially higher in CIDP. CIDP was associated with greater presenteeism (+8.9%, p<0.001), overall work impairment (+7.9%, p=0.011), and activity impairment (+14.1%, p<0.001), while absenteeism did not differ significantly (-2.1%, p=0.314).
A clear severity gradient was observed, with differences versus the general population increasing progressively with disability level. Patients with severe disability demonstrated the greatest burden, including substantially higher overall work and activity impairment and markedly increased odds of mobility aid use and caregiver need compared with the general population.
CONCLUSIONS: CIDP imposes a substantial societal and healthcare burden, characterised by reduced work productivity and increased HCRU. This burden rises with increasing disability, underscoring the impact of functional impairment on patients and healthcare systems.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
PCR234
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Neurological Disorders, No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)