1
|
Aluzaite K, Soares MO, Hewitt C, Robotham J, Painter C, Woods B. Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Reduce Antimicrobial Resistance: A Systematic Literature Review of Methods. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2025; 43:631-646. [PMID: 40048093 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01468-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/17/2024] [Indexed: 05/16/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Economic evaluation of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) interventions is complicated by the multisectoral, inter-temporal and international aspects of the problem, further hindered by a lack of available data and theoretical understanding of the emergence and transmission of AMR. Despite the substantial global focus on the problem, there is a lack of comprehensive economic evaluation literature on AMR policies. The goal of this work is to review the available literature on the economic evaluation of AMR interventions focusing on methods used to quantify the effects on AMR and the associated health consequences and costs. METHODS The studies included in the review were identified by a previous study by Painter et al. that included all full economic evaluations of AMR policies in the peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2000 and 2020. The current review extracted additional information to (1) summarise the types and the key features of the AMR intervention economic evaluation literature available; (2) systemise the types of intervention effects on AMR quantified and describe these across the dimensions of AMR burden: time, space, wider pathogen pool and different sectors (One Health framework); and (3) categorise the methods used to derive these outcomes and how were these linked to health consequences and costs. RESULTS Thirty-one studies were included within this review, of which 18 evaluated interventions that aimed to reduce infection rates and 11 evaluated interventions that aimed to optimise antimicrobial use. Almost all were conducted with a high-income and/or upper-middle income country perspective and focused on human health. Thirteen of 31 studies were cost-utility analyses. Fifteen of 31 and 7/31 studies estimated the AMR effects through decision tree and/or Markov models and transmission models, respectively. Transmission models and linkage of AMR outcomes to quality-adjusted life-years and costs were more common in evaluations of interventions aimed at reducing infection rates. Most of the included studies restricted the scope of evaluation to a short time horizon and a narrow geographical scope and did not consider the wider impact on other pathogens and other settings, potentially resulting in an incomplete capture of the effects of interventions. CONCLUSIONS This review found limited available literature that mainly focused on high-income countries and infection prevention/reduction strategies. Most evaluations used a narrow study scope, which might have prevented the full capture of the costs and outcomes associated with interventions. Finally, despite the known complexities associated with quantifying AMR effects, and the corresponding methodological challenges, the implications of these choices were rarely discussed explicitly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina Aluzaite
- Centre for Health Economics, Alcuin a Block, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
- UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
| | - Marta O Soares
- Centre for Health Economics, Alcuin a Block, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK
| | - Catherine Hewitt
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | | | - Chris Painter
- Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand
- Lao-Oxford-Mahosot Hospital-Welcome Trust Research Unit (LOMWRU), Mahosot Hospital, Vientiane, Lao PDR
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Beth Woods
- Centre for Health Economics, Alcuin a Block, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Painter C, Faradiba D, Chavarina KK, Sari EN, Teerawattananon Y, Aluzaite K, Ananthakrishnan A. A systematic literature review of economic evaluation studies of interventions impacting antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2023; 12:69. [PMID: 37443104 PMCID: PMC10339577 DOI: 10.1186/s13756-023-01265-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2023] [Accepted: 06/08/2023] [Indexed: 07/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is accelerated by widespread and inappropriate use of antimicrobials. Many countries, including those in low- and middle- income contexts, have started implementing interventions to tackle AMR. However, for many interventions there is little or no economic evidence with respect to their cost-effectiveness. To help better understand the scale of this evidence gap, we conducted a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive summary on the value for money of different interventions affecting AMR. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted of economic evaluations on interventions addressing AMR. a narrative synthesis of findings was produced. Systematic searches for relevant studies were performed across relevant databases and grey literature sources such as unpublished studies, reports, and other relevant documents. All identified economic evaluation studies were included provided that they reported an economic outcome and stated that the analysed intervention aimed to affect AMR or antimicrobial use in the abstract. Studies that reported clinical endpoints alone were excluded. Selection for final inclusion and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. A quality assessment of the evidence used in the included studies was also conducted. RESULTS 28,597 articles were screened and 35 articles were identified that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The review attempted to answer the following questions: (1) What interventions to address AMR have been the subject of an economic evaluation? (2) In what types of setting (e.g. high-income, low-income, regions etc.) have these economic evaluations been focused? (3) Which interventions have been estimated to be cost-effective, and has this result been replicated in other settings/contexts? (4) What economic evaluation methods or techniques have been used to evaluate these interventions? (5) What kind and quality of data has been used in conducting economic evaluations for these interventions? DISCUSSION The review is one of the first of its kind, and the most recent, to systematically review the literature on the cost-effectiveness of AMR interventions. This review addresses an important evidence gap in the economics of AMR and can assist AMR researchers' understanding of the state of the economic evaluation literature, and therefore inform future research. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42020190310).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Painter
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Dian Faradiba
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
| | - Kinanti Khansa Chavarina
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
| | - Ella Nanda Sari
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
| | - Yot Teerawattananon
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
- National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | - Aparna Ananthakrishnan
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rice S, Carr K, Sobiesuo P, Shabaninejad H, Orozco-Leal G, Kontogiannis V, Marshall C, Pearson F, Moradi N, O'Connor N, Stoniute A, Richmond C, Craig D, Allegranzi B, Cassini A. Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control health-care-associated infections: a systematic review. THE LANCET. INFECTIOUS DISEASES 2023; 23:e228-e239. [PMID: 37001543 DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00877-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2022] [Revised: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 12/14/2022] [Indexed: 03/30/2023]
Abstract
Almost 9 million health-care-associated infections have been estimated to occur each year in European hospitals and long-term care facilities, and these lead to an increase in morbidity, mortality, bed occupancy, and duration of hospital stay. The aim of this systematic review was to review the cost-effectiveness of interventions to limit the spread of health-care-associated infections), framed by WHO infection prevention and control core components. The Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Cinahl, Scopus, Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation, and Global Index Medicus databases, plus grey literature were searched for studies between Jan 1, 2009, and Aug 10, 2022. Studies were included if they reported interventions including hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, national-level or facility-level infection prevention and control programmes, education and training programmes, environmental cleaning, and surveillance. The British Medical Journal checklist was used to assess the quality of economic evaluations. 67 studies were included in the review. 25 studies evaluated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outcomes. 31 studies evaluated screening strategies. The assessed studies that met the minimum quality criteria consisted of economic models. There was some evidence that hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, surveillance, and multimodal interventions were cost-effective. There were few or no studies investigating education and training, personal protective equipment or monitoring, and evaluation of interventions. This Review provides a map of cost-effectiveness data, so that policy makers and researchers can identify the relevant data and then assess the quality and generalisability for their setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Rice
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
| | - Katherine Carr
- Dental School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Pauline Sobiesuo
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Hosein Shabaninejad
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Giovany Orozco-Leal
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Christopher Marshall
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Fiona Pearson
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Najmeh Moradi
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Nicole O'Connor
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Akvile Stoniute
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Catherine Richmond
- NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Dawn Craig
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Benedetta Allegranzi
- Infection Prevention and Control Technical and Clinical Hub, Department of Integrated Health Services, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Alessandro Cassini
- Infection Prevention and Control Technical and Clinical Hub, Department of Integrated Health Services, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|