The Forgotten Costs of SLE: Estimating Indirect Costs in a National SLE Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Economic analyses of SLE often include only direct healthcare costs. Indirect costs, particularly from lost productivity in unpaid labor, are often overlooked, especially relevant for a disease disproportionately affecting women. We assessed indirect costs due to lost productivity in both paid and unpaid labor, stratified by gender, in a national multicenter SLE cohort. Methods Patients fulfilling ACR or SLICC SLE Classification Criteria completed a validated questionnaire on lost productivity. Total indirect costs included: 1) absenteeism (time lost from paid labor because of illness), 2) presenteeism (degree of productivity impairment in paid/unpaid labor), 3) opportunity costs (additional time patients would be working in paid/unpaid labor if not ill). Opportunity costs were calculated as the difference between the time patients worked versus an age, sex, and geographic-matched general population in paid and unpaid labor. Indirect costs from paid and unpaid labor were valued using age-and-sex-specific wages from Statistics Canada. The association of gender with annual indirect costs was assessed (adjusted for race/ethnicity, age, disease duration, and the SLICC/ACR Damage Index [SDI]) using random effects linear regression modeling. Results 1804 patients participated, 90.8% female, 66.9% white, mean age at diagnosis 33.7 (SD 13.9) years, mean SLE duration 14.7 (11.7) years, and mean SDI 1.3 (range 0-12.0). Patients were followed a mean of 4.9 (range 1.0-9.6) years with 48.9% employed (49.5% among females, 44.0% among males) at the initial and 37.0% (37.1% among females, 36.7% among males) at the final observation. Overall, total annual indirect costs were $36 405 (absenteeism: $829; presenteeism in paid labor: $4624; presenteeism in unpaid labor: $8922; opportunity costs in paid labor: $8512; opportunity costs in unpaid labor: $13 519). Among women, opportunity costs from unpaid labor were 38.8% ($14 175/$36 538) and from paid labor 21.3% ($7802/$36 538) of total indirect costs; among men, opportunity costs from unpaid labor were 19.3% ($6765/$35 064) and from paid labor 44.7% ($15 685/$35 064) of total indirect costs (Figure 1). Regression modeling showed that women incurred higher opportunity costs from unpaid labor (coefficient $7309, 95% CI $3514, $11 105), and lower opportunity costs from paid labor (coefficient −$8336, 95% CI −$12 524, −$4147). Figure 1a: Components of Annual Indirect Costs: Female Total: $36 538 (2023 Canadian Dollars) Figure 1b: Components of Annual Indirect Costs: Male Total: $35 064 (2023 Canadian Dollars) Conclusion Indirect costs, particularly from unpaid labor, are substantial, especially in women, where they represent 38.8% of total indirect costs versus 19.3% in men. Hence, economic analyses weighing costs and benefits of novel/emerging therapies should incorporate costs resulting from lost productivity, particularly important for a disease that disproportionately affects women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".