Dataset Information

Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To date, a multi-country review evaluating the cost-of-illness (COI) studies from the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region has not yet been published. Our main objective was to provide a general description about published COI studies from CEE.

Methods

A systematic search was performed between 1 January 2006 and 1 June 2017 in Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify all relevant COI studies from nine CEE countries. COI studies reporting costs without any restrictions by age, co-morbidities, or treatment were included. Methodology, publication standards, and cost results were analysed.

Results

We identified 58 studies providing 83 country-specific COI results: Austria (n?=?9), Bulgaria (n?=?16), Croatia (n?=?3), the Czech Republic (n?=?10), Hungary (n?=?24), Poland (n?=?11), Romania (n?=?3), Slovakia (n?=?3), and Slovenia (n?=?4). Endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (18%), neoplasms (12%), infections (11%), and neurological disorders (11%) were the most frequently studied clinical areas, and multiple sclerosis was the most commonly studied disease. Overall, 57 (98%) of the studies explicitly stated the source of resource use data, 45 (78%) the study perspective, 34 (64%) the costing method, and 24 (58%) reported at least one unit costs. Regardless of methodological differences, a positive relationship was observed between costs of diseases and countries' per capita GDP.

Conclusions

Cost-of-illness studies varied considerably in terms of methodology, publication practice, and clinical areas. Due to these heterogeneities, transferability of the COI results is limited across Central and Eastern European countries.

SUBMITTER: Brodszky V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6544593 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries.

Brodszky Valentin V Beretzky Zsuzsanna Z Baji Petra P Rencz Fanni F Péntek Márta M Rotar Alexandru A Tachkov Konstantin K Mayer Susanne S Simon Judit J Niewada Maciej M Hren Rok R Gulácsi László L

The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care 20190518 Suppl 1

<h4>Background</h4>To date, a multi-country review evaluating the cost-of-illness (COI) studies from the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region has not yet been published. Our main objective was to provide a general description about published COI studies from CEE.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search was performed between 1 January 2006 and 1 June 2017 in Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify all relevant COI studies from nine CEE countries. COI studies ...[more]

PMID: 31104219

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cost-of-illness data from empirical studies provide insights into the use of healthcare resources including both expenditures and the opportunity cost related to receiving treatment. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this systematic review was to gather cost data and relevant parameters for hepatitis B, pneumonia, meningitis, encephalitis caused by Japanese encephalitis, rubella, yellow fever, measles, influenza, and acute gastroenteritis in children in low- and middle-income countries. DATA SOURCES:Peer-reviewed studies published in public health, medical, and economic journals indexed in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and EconLit. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS:Studies must (1) be peer reviewed, (2) be published in 2000-2016, (3) provide cost data for one of the nine diseases in children aged under 5 years in low- and middle-income countries, and (4) generated from primary data collection. LIMITATIONS:We cannot exclude missing a few articles in our review. Measures were taken to reduce this risk. Several articles published since 2016 are omitted from the systematic review results, these articles are included in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS:The review yielded 37 articles and 267 sets of cost estimates. We found no cost-of-illness studies with cost estimates for hepatitis B, measles, rubella, or yellow fever from primary data. Most estimates were from countries in Gavi preparatory (28%) and accelerated (28%) transition, followed by those who are initiating self-financing (22%) and those not eligible for Gavi support (19%). Thirteen articles compared household expenses to manage illnesses with income and two articles with other household expenses, such as food, clothing, and rent. An episode of illness represented 1-75% of the household's monthly income or 10-83% of its monthly expenses. Articles that presented both household and government perspectives showed that most often governments incurred greater costs than households, including non-medical and indirect costs, across countries of all income statuses, with a few notable exceptions. Although limited for low- and middle-income country settings, cost estimates generated from primary data collection provided a 'real-world' estimate of the economic burden of vaccine-preventable diseases. Additional information on whether common situations preventing the application of official clinical guidelines (such as medication stock-outs) occurred would help reveal deficiencies in the health system. Improving the availability of cost-of-illness evidence can inform the public policy agenda about healthcare priorities and can help to operationalize the healthcare budget in local health systems to respond adequately to the burden of illness in the community.

Project description:BackgroundEastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) is one of the regions where the HIV epidemic continues to grow at a concerning rate. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage in EECA countries has significantly increased during the last decade, which can lead to an increase in the risk of emergence, transmission, and spread of HIV variants with drug resistance (DR) that cannot be controlled. Because HIV genotyping cannot be performed in these countries, data about HIV DR are limited or unavailable.ObjectivesTo monitor circulating HIV-1 genetic variants, assess the prevalence of HIV DR among patients starting antiretroviral therapy, and reveal potential transmission clusters among patients in six EECA countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.Materials and methodsWe analyzed 1071 HIV-1 pol-gene fragment sequences (2253-3369 bp) from patients who were initiating or reinitiating first-line ART in six EECA counties, i.e., Armenia (n = 120), Azerbaijan (n = 96), Belarus (n = 158), Russia (n = 465), Tajikistan (n = 54), and Uzbekistan (n = 178), between 2017 and 2019. HIV Pretreatment DR (PDR) and drug resistance mutation (DRM) prevalence was estimated using the Stanford HIV Resistance Database. The PDR level was interpreted according to the WHO standard PDR survey protocols. HIV-1 subtypes were determined using the Stanford HIV Resistance Database and subsequently confirmed by phylogenetic analysis. Transmission clusters were determined using Cluster Picker.ResultsAnalyses of HIV subtypes showed that EECA, in general, has the same HIV genetic variants of sub-subtype A6, CRF63_02A1, and subtype B, with different frequencies and representation for each country. The prevalence of PDR to any drug class was 2.8% in Uzbekistan, 4.2% in Azerbaijan, 4.5% in Russia, 9.2% in Armenia, 13.9% in Belarus, and 16.7% in Tajikistan. PDR to protease inhibitors (PIs) was not detected in any country. PDR to nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) was not detected among patients in Azerbaijan, and was relatively low in other countries, with the highest prevalence in Tajikistan (5.6%). The prevalence of PDR to nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) was the lowest in Uzbekistan (2.8%) and reached 11.1% and 11.4% in Tajikistan and Belarus, respectively. Genetic transmission network analyses identified 226/1071 (21.1%) linked individuals, forming 93 transmission clusters mainly containing two or three sequences. We found that the time since HIV diagnosis in clustered patients was significantly shorter than that in unclustered patients (1.26 years vs 2.74 years). Additionally, the K103N/S mutation was mainly observed in clustered sequences (6.2% vs 2.8%).ConclusionsOur study demonstrated different PDR prevalence rates and DR dynamics in six EECA countries, with worrying levels of PDR in Tajikistan and Belarus, where prevalence exceeded the 10% threshold recommended by the WHO for immediate public health action. Because DR testing for clinical purposes is not common in EECA, it is currently extremely important to conduct surveillance of HIV DR in EECA due to the increased ART coverage in this region.

Project description:We undertook an epidemiological survey of the annual incidence of pertussis reported from 2000 to 2013 in ten Central and Eastern European countries to ascertain whether increased pertussis reports in some countries share common underlying drivers or whether there are specific features in each country. The annual incidence of pertussis in the participating countries was obtained from relevant government institutions and/or national surveillance systems. We reviewed the changes in the pertussis incidence rates in each country to explore differences and/or similarities between countries in relation to pertussis surveillance; case definitions for detection and confirmation of pertussis; incidence and number of cases of pertussis by year, overall and by age group; population by year, overall and by age group; pertussis immunization schedule and coverage, and switch from whole-cell pertussis vaccines (wP) to acellular pertussis vaccines (aP). There was heterogeneity in the reported annual incidence rates and trends observed across countries. Reported pertussis incidence rates varied considerably, ranging from 0.01 to 96 per 100,000 population, with the highest rates generally reported in Estonia and the lowest in Hungary and Serbia. The greatest burden appears for the most part in infants (<1 year) in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, and Serbia, but not in the other participating countries where the burden may have shifted to older children, though surveillance of adults may be inappropriate. There was no consistent pattern associated with the switch from wP to aP vaccines on reported pertussis incidence rates. The heterogeneity in reported data may be related to a number of factors including surveillance system characteristics or capabilities, different case definitions, type of pertussis confirmation tests used, public awareness of the disease, as well as real differences in the magnitude of the disease, or a combination of these factors. Our study highlights the need to standardize pertussis detection and confirmation in surveillance programs across Europe, complemented with carefully-designed seroprevalence studies using the same protocols and methodologies.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Peripartum hysterectomy is a surgical procedure performed for severe obstetric complications such as major obstetric hemorrhage. The prevalence of peripartum hysterectomy in high-resource settings is relatively low. Hence, international comparisons and studying indications and associations with mode of birth rely on the use of national obstetric survey data. Objectives were to calculate the prevalence and indications of peripartum hysterectomy and its association with national cesarean section rates and mode of birth in nine European countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS:We performed a descriptive, multinational, population-based study among women who underwent peripartum hysterectomy. Data were collected from national or multiregional databases from nine countries participating in the International Network of Obstetric Survey Systems. We included hysterectomies performed from 22 gestational weeks up to 48 hours postpartum for obstetric hemorrhage, as this was the most restrictive, overlapping case definition between all countries. Main outcomes were prevalence and indications of peripartum hysterectomy. Additionally, we compared prevalence of peripartum hysterectomy between women giving birth vaginally and by cesarean section, and between women giving birth with and without previous cesarean section. Finally, we calculated correlation between prevalence of peripartum hysterectomy and national cesarean section rates, as well as national rates of women giving birth after a previous cesarean section. RESULTS:A total of 1302 peripartum hysterectomies were performed in 2 498 013 births, leading to a prevalence of 5.2 per 10 000 births ranging from 2.6 in Denmark to 10.7 in Italy. Main indications were uterine atony (35.3%) and abnormally invasive placenta (34.8%). Relative risk of hysterectomy after cesarean section compared with vaginal birth was 9.1 (95% CI 8.0-10.4). Relative risk for hysterectomy for birth after previous cesarean section compared with birth without previous cesarean section was 10.6 (95% CI 9.4-12.1). A strong correlation was observed between national cesarean section rate and prevalence of peripartum hysterectomy (ρ = 0.67, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS:Prevalence of peripartum hysterectomy may vary considerably between high-income countries. Uterine atony and abnormally invasive placenta are the commonest indications for hysterectomy. Birth by cesarean section and birth after previous cesarean section are associated with nine-fold increased risk of peripartum hysterectomy.

Dataset Information

Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets