Background Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. Method We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. Results Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). Conclusions Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.

We have developed a Europe-wide approach to investigating the economic impact of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), facilitating acquisition of information on the economic burden of ME/CFS, and international comparisons of economic costs between countries. The economic burden of ME/CFS in Europe appears large, with productivity losses most significant, giving scope for substantial savings through effective prevention and treatment. However, economic studies of ME/CFS, including cost-of-illness analyses and economic evaluations of interventions, are problematic due to different, arbitrary case definitions, and unwillingness of doctors to diagnose it. We therefore lack accurate incidence and prevalence data, with no obvious way to estimate costs incurred by undiagnosed patients. Other problems include, as for other conditions, difficulties estimating direct and indirect costs incurred by healthcare systems, patients and families, and heterogeneous healthcare systems and patterns of economic development across countries. We have made recommendations, including use of the Fukuda (CDC-1994) case definition and Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC), a pan-European common symptom checklist, and implementation of prevalence-based cost-of-illness studies in different countries using an agreed data list. We recommend using purchasing power parities (PPP) to facilitate international comparisons, and EuroQol-5D as a generic measure of health status and multi-attribute utility instrument to inform future economic evaluations in ME/CFS.

Background and Objectives: The socioeconomic working group of the European myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) Research Network (EUROMENE) has conducted a review of the literature pertaining to GPs’ knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS; Materials and Methods: A MEDLINE search was carried out. The papers identified were reviewed following the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) methodology, and were classified according to the focus of the enquiry (patients, GPs, database and medical record studies, evaluation of a training programme, and overview papers), and whether they were quantitative or qualitative in nature; Results: Thirty-three papers were identified in the MEDLINE search. The quantitative surveys of GPs demonstrated that a third to a half of all GPs did not accept ME/CFS as a genuine clinical entity and, even when they did, they lacked confidence in diagnosing or managing it. It should be noted, though, that these papers were mostly from the United Kingdom. Patient surveys indicated that a similar proportion of patients was dissatisfied with the primary medical care they had received. These findings were consistent with the findings of the qualitative studies that were examined, and have changed little over several decades; Conclusions: Disbelief and lack of knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS among GPs is widespread, and the resultant diagnostic delays constitute a risk factor for severe and prolonged disease. Failure to diagnose ME/CFS renders problematic attempts to determine its prevalence, and hence its economic impact.

Background: Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a poorly understood, complex, multisystem disorder, with severe fatigue not alleviated by rest, and other symptoms, which lead to substantial reductions in functional activity and quality of life. Due to the unclear aetiology, treatment of patients is complicated, but one of the initial problems is the insufficient diagnostic process. The increase in the number of undiagnosed ME/CFS patients became specifically relevant in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this research was to investigate the issues of undiagnosed potential ME/CFS patients, with a hypothetical forecast of the expansion of post-viral CFS as a consequence of COVID-19 and its burden on society. Methods: The theoretical research was founded on the estimation of classic factors presumably affecting the diagnostic scope of ME/CFS and their ascription to Latvian circumstances, as well as a literature review to assess the potential interaction between ME/CFS and COVID-19 as a new contributing agent. The empirical study design consisted of two parts: The first part was dedicated to a comparison of the self-reported data of ME/CFS patients with those of persons experiencing symptoms similar to ME/CFS, but without a diagnosis. This part envisaged the creation of an assumption of the ME/CFS shadow burden “status quo”, not addressing the impact of COVID-19. The second part aimed to investigate data from former COVID-19 patients’ surveys on the presence of ME/CFS symptoms, 6 months after being affected by COVID-19. Descriptive and analytical statistical methods were used to analyse the obtained data. Results: The received data assumed that the previously obtained data on the ME/CFS prevalence of 0.8% in the Latvian population are appropriate, and the literature review reports a prevalence of 0.2–1.0% in developed countries. Regarding the reciprocity of ME/CFS and COVID-19, the literature review showed a lack of research in this field. The empirical results show quite similar self-esteem among ME/CFS patients and undiagnosed patients with longstanding disease experience, while former COVID-19 patients show a significantly lower severity of these problems. Notably, “psychological distress (anxiety)” and “episodic fatigue” are significantly predominant symptoms reported by former COVID-19 patients in comparison with ME/CFS patients and undiagnosed patients prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of our analysis predict that the total amount of direct medical costs for undiagnosed patients (out-of-pocket payments) is more than EUR 15 million p.a. (in Latvia), and this may increase by at least 15% due to the consequences of COVID-19. Conclusions: ME/CFS creates a significant shadow burden on society, even considering only the direct medical costs of undiagnosed patients—the number of whom in Latvia is probably at least five times higher than the number of discerned patients. Simultaneously, COVID-19 can induce long-lasting complications and chronic conditions, such as post-viral CFS, and increase this burden. The Latvian research data assume that ME/CFS patients are not a high-risk group for COVID-19; however, COVID-19 causes ME/CFS-relevant symptoms in patients. This increases the need for monitoring of patients for even longer after recovering from COVID-19′s symptoms, in order to prevent complications and the progression of chronic diseases. In the context of further epidemiological uncertainty, and the possibility of severe post-viral consequences, preventive measures are becoming significantly more important; an integrated diagnostic approach and appropriate treatment could reduce this burden in the future.

Background and Objectives: We have conducted a survey of academic and clinical experts who are participants in the European ME/CFS Research Network (EUROMENE) to elicit perceptions of general practitioner (GP) knowledge and understanding of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and suggestions as to how this could be improved. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all national representatives and members of the EUROMENE Core Group and Management Committee. Survey responses were collated and then summarized based on the numbers and percentages of respondents selecting each response option, while weighted average responses were calculated for questions with numerical value response options. Free text responses were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Overall there were 23 responses to the survey from participants across 19 different European countries, with a 95% country-level response rate. Serious concerns were expressed about GPs’ knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS, and, it was felt, about 60% of patients with ME/CFS went undiagnosed as a result. The vast majority of GPs were perceived to lack confidence in either diagnosing or managing the condition. Disbelief, and misleading illness attributions, were perceived to be widespread, and the unavailability of specialist centres to which GPs could refer patients and seek advice and support was frequently commented upon. There was widespread support for more training on ME/CFS at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Conclusion: The results of this survey are consistent with the existing scientific literature. ME/CFS experts report that lack of knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS among GPs is a major cause of missed and delayed diagnoses, which renders problematic attempts to determine the incidence and prevalence of the disease, and to measure its economic impact. It also contributes to the burden of disease through mismanagement in its early stages.

Background and Objectives The socioeconomics working group of the European ME/CFS Research Network (EUROMENE) has conducted a review of the literature pertaining to GPs’ knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS. Materials and Methods A MEDLINE search was carried out. The papers identified were reviewed following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) methodology, and were classified according to the focus of the enquiry (patients, GPs, database and medical record studies, evaluation of a training programme, and overview papers), and whether they were quantitative or qualitative in nature. Results 33 papers were identified in the MEDLINE search. The quantitative surveys of GPs demonstrated that a third to a half of all GPs did not accept ME/CFS as a genuine clinical entity and, even when they did, they lacked confidence in diagnosing or managing it. Patient surveys indicated that a similar proportion of patients was dissatisfied with the primary medical care they had received. These findings were consistent with the findings of the qualitative studies that were examined, and have changed little over several decades. Conclusions Lack of knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS among GPs is widespread, and the resultant diagnostic delays constitute a risk factor for severe and prolonged disease. Failure to diagnose ME/CFS renders problematic attempts to determine its prevalence, and hence its economic impact.