Karen Wills’s research while affiliated with University of Tasmania and other places

Objective This study aimed to estimate costs of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to patients, government and Australian society. Methods Australian ME/CFS patients and their carers were recruited using convenience sampling. Patients completed an online retrospective cost diary, providing ME/CFS-related direct medical, non-medical and indirect costs. Informal care costs were collected directly from carers. Data from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare Benefits Schedule were linked to participant survey data. Annual per patient and total societal costs were estimated, broken down by category and presented in 2021 AUD. Factors associated with higher costs were investigated using generalised linear models. Results One hundred and seventy five patients (mean age 49 years s.d. 14, 79.4% female) completed the cost diary. Estimated total annual societal costs of ME/CFS in Australia ranged between $1.38 and$10.09 billion, with average annual total costs of $63 400/patient. Three-quarters of these costs were due to indirect costs ($46 731). Disability severity was the key factor associated with higher costs, particularly for indirect costs (being 2.27-fold higher for severe disability than no/mild disability). Conclusions ME/CFS poses a significant economic burden in Australia, owing mainly to high indirect and informal care costs.

Purpose Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic condition with a constellation of symptoms presenting as severe and profound fatigue of ≥ 6 months not relieved by rest. ME/CFS affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be measured using multi-attribute health state utility (HSU) instruments. The aims of this study were to quantify HSUs for people living with ME/CFS, and to identify an instrument that is preferentially sensitive for ME/CFS. Methods Cross-sectional national survey of people with ME/CFS using the AQoL-8D and EQ-5D-5L. Additional questions from the AQoL-8D were used as ‘bolt-ons’ to the EQ-5D-5L (i.e., EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial). Disability and fatigue severity were assessed using the De Paul Symptom Questionnaire-Short Form (DSQ-SF). HSUs were generated using Australian tariffs. Mean HSUs were stratified for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Bland–Altman plots were used to compare the three HSU instruments. Results For the 198 participants, mean HSUs (95% confidence intervals) were EQ-5D-5L: 0.46 (0.42–0.50); AQoL-8D: 0.43 (0.41–0.45); EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial: 0.44 (0.42–0.46). HSUs were substantially lower than population norms: EQ-5D-5L: 0.89; AQoL-8D: 0.77. As disability and fatigue severity increased, HSUs decreased in all three instruments. Bland–Altman plots revealed interchangeability between the AQoL-8D and EQ-5D-5LPsychosocial. Floor and ceiling effects of 13.5% and 2.5% respectively were observed for the EQ-5D-5L instrument only. Conclusions ME/CFS has a profound impact on HRQoL. The AQoL-8D and EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial can be used interchangeably: the latter represents a reduced participant burden.

Background ME/CFS is a disorder characterized by recurrent fatigue and intolerance to exertion which manifests as profound post-exertional malaise. Prevalence studies internationally have reported highly variable results due to the 20 + diagnostic criteria. For Australia, the prevalence of ME/CFS based on current case definitions is unknown. Objectives To report prevalence of ME/CFS in patients aged ≥ 13 years attending Australian primary care settings for years 2015–2019, and provide context for patterns of primary care attendance by people living with ME/CFS. Methodology Conducted in partnership with the Patient Advisory Group, this study adopted a mixed methods approach. De-identified primary care data from the national MedicineInsight program were analyzed. The cohort were regularly attending patients, i.e. 3 visits in the preceding 2 years. Crude prevalence rates were calculated for years 2015–2019, by sex, 10-year age groups, remoteness and socioeconomic status. Rates are presented per 100,000population (95% confidence intervals (CI)). Qualitative data was collected through focus groups and in-depth 1:1 interview. Results Qualitative evidence identified barriers to reaching diagnosis, and limited interactions with primary care due to a lack of available treatments/interventions, stigma and disbelief in ME/CFS as a condition. In each year of interest, crude prevalence in the primary care setting ranged between 94.9/100,000 (95% CI: 91.5–98.5) and 103.9/100,000 population (95%CI: 100.3–107.7), equating to between 20,140 and 22,050 people living with ME/CFS in Australia in 2020. Higher rates were observed for age groups 50-59 years and 40-49 years. Rates were substantially higher in females (130.0–141.4/100,000) compared to males (50.9–57.5/100,000). In the context of the qualitative evidence, our prevalence rates likely represent an underestimate of the true prevalence of ME/CFS in the Australian primary care setting. Conclusion ME/CFS affects a substantial number of Australians. Whilst this study provides prevalence estimates for the Australian primary care setting, the qualitative evidence highlights the limitations of these. Future research should focus on using robust case ascertainment criteria in a community setting. Quantification of the burden of disease can be used to inform health policy and planning, for this understudied condition.