低收入和中等收入国家人类耐药细菌感染的经济成本计算方法:系统综述。

IF 3.3 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Edward Masoambeta, Charity Mkwanda, Edna Ibrahim, Kenneth Chizani, Chikondi Chapuma, Priscilla Dzanja, Edson Mwinjiwa, Raphael Chanda, Mirfin Mpundu, Luigia Scudeller, Tomislav Kostyanev, Finola Leonard, Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar, Fiammetta Bozzani, Eric Umar, Rajab Mkakosya, Chantal Morel, Chisomo Msefula, Jobiba Chinkhumba
{"title":"低收入和中等收入国家人类耐药细菌感染的经济成本计算方法:系统综述。","authors":"Edward Masoambeta, Charity Mkwanda, Edna Ibrahim, Kenneth Chizani, Chikondi Chapuma, Priscilla Dzanja, Edson Mwinjiwa, Raphael Chanda, Mirfin Mpundu, Luigia Scudeller, Tomislav Kostyanev, Finola Leonard, Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar, Fiammetta Bozzani, Eric Umar, Rajab Mkakosya, Chantal Morel, Chisomo Msefula, Jobiba Chinkhumba","doi":"10.1186/s13561-025-00644-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This review examined methodologies used to cost the impact of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) infections in humans from household and health system perspectives. Although extensive research has been conducted on the clinical AMR burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in terms of prevalence and other drivers of antimicrobial resistance, there is increased misuse and overuse of antibiotics which increases the risk of AMR infections compared to high-income countries. Lack of comprehensive estimates on economic costs of AMR in LMICs due to lack of standard methodologies that incorporate time biases and inference for instance, may negatively affect accuracy and robustness of results needed for reliable and actionable policies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of studies searched in PubMed and other electronic databases. Only studies from LMICs were included. Data were extracted via a modified Covidence template and a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) assessment tool for economic evaluations to assess the quality of the papers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using PRISMA, 2542 papers were screened at the title and abstract levels, of which 148 were retrieved for full-text review. Of these, 62 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles had a quality assessment score averaging 85%, ranging from 63 to 100%. Most studies, 13, were from China (21%), followed by 8 from South Africa (13%). Tuberculosis (TB), general bacterial, and nosocomial infection costs are the most studied, accounting for 40%, 39%, and 6%, respectively with TB common in South Africa than the rest of the countries. The majority of the papers used a microcosting approach (71%), followed by gross costing (27%), while the remainder used both. Most studies analyzed costs descriptively (61%), followed by studies using regression-based techniques (17%) and propensity score matching (5%), among others.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, the use of descriptive statistics without justification, limited consideration for potential data challenges, including confounders, and short-term horizons suggest that the full AMR cost burden in humans in LMICs has not been well accounted for. Given the limited data available for these studies, the use of a combination of methodologies may help triangulate more accurate and policy-relevant estimates. While the resources to conduct such cost studies are limited, the use of modeling costs via regression techniques while adjusting for cofounding could help maximize robustness and better estimate the vast and varied burden derived directly and indirectly from AMR.</p>","PeriodicalId":46936,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Review","volume":"15 1","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139254/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic costing methodologies for drug-resistant bacterial infections in humans in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Edward Masoambeta, Charity Mkwanda, Edna Ibrahim, Kenneth Chizani, Chikondi Chapuma, Priscilla Dzanja, Edson Mwinjiwa, Raphael Chanda, Mirfin Mpundu, Luigia Scudeller, Tomislav Kostyanev, Finola Leonard, Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar, Fiammetta Bozzani, Eric Umar, Rajab Mkakosya, Chantal Morel, Chisomo Msefula, Jobiba Chinkhumba\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13561-025-00644-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This review examined methodologies used to cost the impact of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) infections in humans from household and health system perspectives. Although extensive research has been conducted on the clinical AMR burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in terms of prevalence and other drivers of antimicrobial resistance, there is increased misuse and overuse of antibiotics which increases the risk of AMR infections compared to high-income countries. Lack of comprehensive estimates on economic costs of AMR in LMICs due to lack of standard methodologies that incorporate time biases and inference for instance, may negatively affect accuracy and robustness of results needed for reliable and actionable policies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of studies searched in PubMed and other electronic databases. Only studies from LMICs were included. Data were extracted via a modified Covidence template and a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) assessment tool for economic evaluations to assess the quality of the papers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using PRISMA, 2542 papers were screened at the title and abstract levels, of which 148 were retrieved for full-text review. Of these, 62 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles had a quality assessment score averaging 85%, ranging from 63 to 100%. Most studies, 13, were from China (21%), followed by 8 from South Africa (13%). Tuberculosis (TB), general bacterial, and nosocomial infection costs are the most studied, accounting for 40%, 39%, and 6%, respectively with TB common in South Africa than the rest of the countries. The majority of the papers used a microcosting approach (71%), followed by gross costing (27%), while the remainder used both. Most studies analyzed costs descriptively (61%), followed by studies using regression-based techniques (17%) and propensity score matching (5%), among others.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, the use of descriptive statistics without justification, limited consideration for potential data challenges, including confounders, and short-term horizons suggest that the full AMR cost burden in humans in LMICs has not been well accounted for. Given the limited data available for these studies, the use of a combination of methodologies may help triangulate more accurate and policy-relevant estimates. While the resources to conduct such cost studies are limited, the use of modeling costs via regression techniques while adjusting for cofounding could help maximize robustness and better estimate the vast and varied burden derived directly and indirectly from AMR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46936,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Economics Review\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139254/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Economics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-025-00644-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-025-00644-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本综述从家庭和卫生系统的角度研究了用于评估人类抗菌素耐药性(AMR)感染影响的方法。尽管就抗菌素耐药性的流行率和其他驱动因素对低收入和中等收入国家的临床抗菌素耐药性负担进行了广泛研究,但与高收入国家相比,抗生素的滥用和过度使用有所增加,从而增加了抗菌素耐药性感染的风险。由于缺乏纳入时间偏差和推理的标准方法,因此缺乏对中低收入国家抗菌素耐药性经济成本的全面估计,可能会对可靠和可行政策所需结果的准确性和稳健性产生负面影响。方法:我们对PubMed和其他电子数据库中检索的研究进行了系统综述。仅纳入了中低收入国家的研究。通过修改的covid模板和乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)的经济评估工具提取数据,以评估论文的质量。结果:使用PRISMA软件,在标题和摘要层面共筛选2542篇论文,其中148篇被检索到进行全文审阅。其中,62篇文章符合纳入标准。文章的质量评估得分平均为85%,范围从63到100%。大多数研究(13项)来自中国(21%),其次是8项来自南非(13%)。结核病、一般细菌感染和医院感染成本是研究最多的,分别占40%、39%和6%,其中结核病在南非比其他国家更常见。大多数论文使用微观成本法(71%),其次是总成本法(27%),其余的论文两者都使用。大多数研究对成本进行了描述性分析(61%),其次是使用基于回归的技术(17%)和倾向评分匹配(5%)等研究。结论:总体而言,没有正当理由的描述性统计的使用,对潜在数据挑战的有限考虑,包括混杂因素,以及短期的视野表明,中低收入国家人类的全部抗菌素耐药性成本负担尚未得到很好的解释。鉴于这些研究可用的数据有限,使用多种方法的组合可能有助于三角测量更准确和与政策相关的估计。虽然进行这种成本研究的资源是有限的,但通过回归技术对成本进行建模,同时对共同创立进行调整,可以帮助最大限度地提高稳健性,并更好地估计直接和间接从AMR中产生的巨大而多变的负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Economic costing methodologies for drug-resistant bacterial infections in humans in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Economic costing methodologies for drug-resistant bacterial infections in humans in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Economic costing methodologies for drug-resistant bacterial infections in humans in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Economic costing methodologies for drug-resistant bacterial infections in humans in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Background: This review examined methodologies used to cost the impact of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) infections in humans from household and health system perspectives. Although extensive research has been conducted on the clinical AMR burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in terms of prevalence and other drivers of antimicrobial resistance, there is increased misuse and overuse of antibiotics which increases the risk of AMR infections compared to high-income countries. Lack of comprehensive estimates on economic costs of AMR in LMICs due to lack of standard methodologies that incorporate time biases and inference for instance, may negatively affect accuracy and robustness of results needed for reliable and actionable policies.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies searched in PubMed and other electronic databases. Only studies from LMICs were included. Data were extracted via a modified Covidence template and a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) assessment tool for economic evaluations to assess the quality of the papers.

Results: Using PRISMA, 2542 papers were screened at the title and abstract levels, of which 148 were retrieved for full-text review. Of these, 62 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles had a quality assessment score averaging 85%, ranging from 63 to 100%. Most studies, 13, were from China (21%), followed by 8 from South Africa (13%). Tuberculosis (TB), general bacterial, and nosocomial infection costs are the most studied, accounting for 40%, 39%, and 6%, respectively with TB common in South Africa than the rest of the countries. The majority of the papers used a microcosting approach (71%), followed by gross costing (27%), while the remainder used both. Most studies analyzed costs descriptively (61%), followed by studies using regression-based techniques (17%) and propensity score matching (5%), among others.

Conclusion: Overall, the use of descriptive statistics without justification, limited consideration for potential data challenges, including confounders, and short-term horizons suggest that the full AMR cost burden in humans in LMICs has not been well accounted for. Given the limited data available for these studies, the use of a combination of methodologies may help triangulate more accurate and policy-relevant estimates. While the resources to conduct such cost studies are limited, the use of modeling costs via regression techniques while adjusting for cofounding could help maximize robustness and better estimate the vast and varied burden derived directly and indirectly from AMR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.20%
发文量
59
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Economics Review is an international high-quality journal covering all fields of Health Economics. A broad range of theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy with a health economic focus will be considered for publication. Its scope includes macro- and microeconomics of health care financing, health insurance and reimbursement as well as health economic evaluation, health services research and health policy analysis. Further research topics are the individual and institutional aspects of health care management and the growing importance of health care in developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信