The methodological quality of economic evaluations of measles outbreaks: A systematic review of cost-of-illness studies

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCI LTD
Citação
VACCINE, v.41, n.7, p.1319-1332, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objectives: To identify the main cost components included in the economic evaivations of measles outbreaks, their items and cost drivers, and evaluate the quality of costing methodology, analyzing the key features that may affect the validity of these studies in countries with different income leveis Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Biblioteca Virtual em Saude do Ministerio da Saude (BVS MS), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and NHS Health Technology Assessment (NHS HTA) (via The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Library - CRD), and EconLit, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, selecting cost analysis and cost of illness studies (COI) of measles outbreaks. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and extracted the data. The quality of costing methods was assessed using a guide to critical evaluation of COI studies. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Results: Twenty-two studies were reviewed. Most studies evaluated outbreaks that occurred from 2011 to 2013 and 2017 to 2019. Total costs varied from $40,147 to $39.3 million. Per case cost varied from $168 to $49,439. The main drivers of measles outbreak costs were outbreak response, personnel, and productivity losses. Most studies (20/22) did not report the costing methodology adonted, the degree of disaggregation used in the identification and measurement of resource and costs components and the method for the valuation of resource and cost components. Conclusions: The quality of the costing methodology, its transparency and accuracy are essential to the validity of these studies results and their potential use to allocate public health resources in the most efficient manner and to inform measles outbreak control strategies, with rapid and effective response. (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Palavras-chave
Measle, Disease outbreaks, Cost of illness, Economic burden of disease, Costs and cost analysis, Cost analysis
Referências
  1. Adeagbo CU, 2018, VALUE HEALTH, V21, P569, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.003
  2. [Anonymous], 2001, ADV HDB METHODS EVID, P215
  3. [Anonymous], 2020, MEASL RUB STRAT FRAM
  4. [Anonymous], 2009, SYST REV EC EV CRD G
  5. Moura ADA, 2018, EPIDEMIOL SERV SAUDE, V27, DOI [10.5123/S1679-49742018000100010, 10.5123/s1679-49742018000100010]
  6. Coleman MS, 2017, HUM VACC IMMUNOTHER, V13, P1084, DOI 10.1080/21645515.2016.1271518
  7. Da'ar OB, 2019, EPIDEMIOL INFECT, V147, DOI 10.1017/S0950268819001420
  8. Damm O, 2016, INT J PUBLIC HEALTH, V61, P847, DOI 10.1007/s00038-016-0842-8
  9. de Broucker G, 2020, BMC HEALTH SERV RES, V20, DOI 10.1186/s12913-020-05880-5
  10. De Broucker G, 2020, VACCINE-X, V6, DOI 10.1016/j.jvacx.2020.100077
  11. Deng X, 2019, HUM VACC IMMUNOTHER, V15, P2571, DOI 10.1080/21645515.2019.1599673
  12. Dixon MG, 2021, MMWR-MORBID MORTAL W, V70, P1563, DOI 10.15585/mmwr.mm7045a1
  13. Flego KL, 2013, COMMUN DIS INTELL, V37, pE240
  14. Fukuda H, 2009, J EVAL CLIN PRACT, V15, P451, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01033.x
  15. Ghebrehewet S, 2016, VACCINE, V34, P1823, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.02.029
  16. Griffiths UK, 2016, HEALTH ECON, V25, P29, DOI 10.1002/hec.3312
  17. Hester G, 2019, PEDIATR INFECT DIS J, V38, P547, DOI 10.1097/INF.0000000000002221
  18. Hiller U, 2019, VACCINE, V37, P1905, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.02.068
  19. Hubschen JM, 2022, LANCET, V399, P678, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02004-3
  20. Husereau D, 2022, VALUE HEALTH, V25, P10, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008
  21. Kohlmaier B, 2020, EUROSURVEILLANCE, P25
  22. Larg A, 2011, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V29, P653, DOI 10.2165/11588380-000000000-00000
  23. Ma R, 2017, VACCINE, V35, P1117, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.01.021
  24. Mac McCullough J, 2019, J PUBLIC HEALTH MAN, V25, P357, DOI 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000818
  25. Mbivnjo EL, 2021, Z GESUNDH WISS, P1
  26. Mogyorosy Z, 2005, 7 CHE U YORK
  27. Njau J, 2019, EMERG INFECT DIS, V25, P1101, DOI 10.3201/eid2506.180339
  28. OPAS OP-AdS, 25 REUN GRUP TECN AS, P74
  29. Ortega-Sanchez IR, 2014, VACCINE, V32, P1311, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.10.012
  30. Ouzzani M, 2016, SYST REV-LONDON, V5, DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  31. Page MJ, 2022, REV PANAM SALUD PUBL, V46, DOI [10.1136/bmj.n160, 10.26633/RPSP.2022.112]
  32. Pike J, 2021, SOC COSTS MEASLES OU
  33. Pike J, 2020, CLIN INFECT DIS, V71, P1568, DOI 10.1093/cid/ciaa070
  34. Pike J, 2017, VACCINE, V35, P5905, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.08.075
  35. Pitt C, 2016, HEALTH ECON, V25, P9, DOI 10.1002/hec.3305
  36. Lemos DRQ, 2017, VACCINE, V35, P1721, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.02.023
  37. Rosen JB, 2018, JAMA PEDIATR, V172, P811, DOI 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1024
  38. S It Outbreak observatory, 2021, WORLDW MEASL CAS CLI
  39. Sodjinou VD, 2020, PAN AFR MED J, V36, DOI 10.11604/pamj.2020.36.304.24514
  40. Spacirova Z, 2020, EUR J HEALTH ECON, V21, P529, DOI 10.1007/s10198-019-01157-9
  41. Suijkerbuijk AWM, 2015, EMERG INFECT DIS, V21, P2067, DOI 10.3201/eid2111.150410
  42. Thielen FW, 2016, EXPERT REV PHARM OUT, V16, P705, DOI 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246962
  43. van Mastrigt GAPG, 2016, EXPERT REV PHARM OUT, V16, P689, DOI 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246960
  44. Wallace AS, 2014, VACCINE, V32, P4505, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.06.035
  45. Wijnen BFM, 2016, EXPERT REV PHARM OUT, V16, P723, DOI 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961
  46. Zhou RR, 2021, HUM VACC IMMUNOTHER, V17, P1347, DOI 10.1080/21645515.2020.1815488
  47. Zucker JR, 2020, NEW ENGL J MED, V382, P1009, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1912514