Dataset Information

Economic Burden of Multiple Sclerosis in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although the economic burden of multiple sclerosis (MS) in high-income countries (HICs) has been extensively studied, information on the costs of MS in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains scarce. Moreover, no review synthesizing and assessing the costs of MS in LMICs has yet been undertaken.

Objective

Our objective was to systematically identify and review the cost of illness (COI) of MS in LMICs to critically appraise the methodologies used, compare cost estimates across countries and by level of disease severity, and examine cost drivers.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search for original studies in English, French, and Dutch containing prevalence or incidence-based cost data of MS in LMICs. The search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, and CINAHL (EBSCO) on July 2020 without restrictions on publication date. Recommended and validated methods were used for data extraction and analysis to make the results of the COI studies comparable. Costs were adjusted to $US, year 2019 values, using the World Bank purchasing power parity and inflated using the consumer price index.

Results

A total of 14 studies were identified, all of which were conducted in upper-middle-income economies. Eight studies used a bottom-up approach for costing, and six used a top-down approach. Four studies used a societal perspective. The total annual cost per patient ranged between $US463 and 58,616. Costs varied across studies and countries, mainly because of differences regarding the inclusion of costs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), the range of cost items included, the methodological choices such as approaches used to estimate healthcare resource consumption, and the inclusion of informal care and productivity losses. Characteristics and methodologies of the included studies varied considerably, especially regarding the perspective adopted, cost data specification, and reporting of costs per severity levels. The total costs increased with greater disease severity. The cost ratios between different levels of MS severity within studies were relatively stable; costs were around 1-1.5 times higher for moderate versus mild MS and about two times higher for severe versus mild MS. MS drug costs were the main cost driver for less severe MS, whereas the proportion of direct non-medical costs and indirect costs increased with greater disease severity.

Conclusion

MS places a huge economic burden on healthcare systems and societies in LMICs. Methodological differences and substantial variations in terms of absolute costs were found between studies, which made comparison of studies challenging. However, the cost ratios across different levels of MS severity were similar, making comparisons between studies by disease severity feasible. Cost drivers were mainly DMTs and relapse treatments, and this was consistent across studies. Yet, the distribution of cost components varied with disease severity.

SUBMITTER: Dahham J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8200340 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, among all the vector-borne diseases, mosquito-borne diseases are responsible for a substantial number of cases and deaths and amount to an economic cost of US $12 billion per year. However, there is a dearth of systematic research conducted on the economic burden of mosquito-borne diseases. To address the lack of comprehensive information on this topic, a systematic review will be conducted to synthesize evidence for informing targeted policies and strategies addressing this growing burden and for better financial protection of households.ObjectiveThe systematic review aims to review the economic burden of mosquito-borne diseases in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The review estimates the total cost, which is the compilation of both the direct costs and indirect costs. Additionally, it reports cost estimates per disease, country, and patient. The review outcome will also discuss the impact of the economic burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure, catastrophic health expenditure, impoverishment, and gross domestic product impact due to mosquito-borne diseases in LMICs.MethodsSystematic searches will be conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid Embase, Scopus, the cumulative index of nursing and allied health literacy, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Additionally, websites of the World Bank, World Health Organization, and Asian Development Bank as well as grey literature (eg, Malaria No More and the Ministry of Health websites) will be searched to gather comprehensive information on the topic and identify studies published in the English language. The titles and abstracts will be independently screened by 2 reviewers, followed by a full-text review against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion with a third author. The methodological reporting quality of the studies will be evaluated using the Larg and Moss checklist, Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, and the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction form.ResultsThe protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023427111) prior to the initiation of the search strategy. The review is currently ongoing and will synthesize information from the identified studies through a process involving structured screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal in the form of tables and a narrative summary of studies reporting the economic burden incurred due to mosquito-borne diseases in LMICs.ConclusionsThis review seeks to report the economic burden of mosquito-borne diseases. It will act as evidence for policymakers to prioritize their decisions regarding containing the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases and the means to lowering the incidence of diseases spread by mosquitoes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023427111; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=427111.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/50985.

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence on the economic burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) remains scarce. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review to establish the magnitude and knowledge gaps in relation to the economic burden of CVD and hypertension on households, health systems and the society.MethodsWe included studies using primary or secondary data to produce original economic estimates of the impact of CVD. We searched sixteen electronic databases from 1990 onwards without language restrictions. We appraised the quality of included studies using a seven-question assessment tool.ResultsEighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, most of which were single centre retrospective cost studies conducted in secondary care settings. Studies in China, Brazil, India and Mexico contributed together 50% of the total number of economic estimates identified. The quality of the included studies was generally low. Reporting transparency, particularly for cost data sources and results, was poor. The costs per episode for hypertension and generic CVD were fairly homogeneous across studies; ranging between $500 and $1500. In contrast, for coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke cost estimates were generally higher and more heterogeneous, with several estimates in excess of $5000 per episode. The economic perspective and scope of the study appeared to impact cost estimates for hypertension and generic CVD considerably less than estimates for stroke and CHD. Most studies reported monthly costs for hypertension treatment around $22. Average monthly treatment costs for stroke and CHD ranged between $300 and $1000, however variability across estimates was high. In most LMICs both the annual cost of care and the cost of an acute episode exceed many times the total health expenditure per capita.ConclusionsThe existing evidence on the economic burden of CVD in LMICs does not appear aligned with policy priorities in terms of research volume, pathologies studied and methodological quality. Not only is more economic research needed to fill the existing gaps, but research quality needs to be drastically improved. More broadly, national-level studies with appropriate sample sizes and adequate incorporation of indirect costs need to replace small-scale, institutional, retrospective cost studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic hepatitis B infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. Economic evaluations are a useful decision tool to assess costs versus benefits of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening. No published study reviewing economic evaluations of HBV screening in LMICs has been undertaken to date. METHODS:The following databases were searched from inception to 21 April 2017: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, the Cochrane Library, Global Health and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry. English-language studies were included if they assessed the costs against the benefits of HBV screening in LMICs. PROSPERO registration: CRD42015024391, 20 July 2015. RESULTS:Nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. One study from Thailand indicated that adding hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) to HBV vaccination for newborns following screening of pregnant women might be cost-effective for some LMICs, though inadequate total funding and health infrastructure were likely to limit feasibility. A similar study from China indicated a benefit to cost ratio of 2.7 from selective HBIG administration to newborns, if benefits were considered from a societal perspective. Of the two studies assessing screening amongst the general adult population, a single cost-benefit analysis from China found a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 1.73 with vaccination guided by HBV screening of adults aged 21-39, compared to 1.42 with vaccination with no screening, both from a societal perspective. Community-based screening of adults in The Gambia with linkage to treatment yielded an incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year averted of $566 (in 2017 USD), less than two-times gross domestic product per capita for that country. CONCLUSIONS:Screening with 'catch-up' vaccination for younger adults yielded benefits above costs, and screening linked with treatment has shown cost-effectiveness that may be affordable for some LMICs. However, interpretation needs to account for total cost implications and further research in LMICs is warranted as there were only nine included studies and evidence from high-income countries is not always directly applicable.

Project description:BackgroundA significant number of women in low and middle income countries (L-MICs) who need any family planning, experience a lack in access to modern effective methods. This study was conducted to review potential cost effectiveness of scaling up family planning interventions in these regions from the published literatures and assess their implication for policy and future research.Study designA systematic review was performed in several electronic databases i.e Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Popline, The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), EBSCOHost, and The Cochrane Library. Articles reporting full economic evaluations of strategies to improve family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, published between 1995 until 2015 were eligible for inclusion. Data was synthesized and analyzed using a narrative approach and the reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.ResultsFrom 920 references screened, 9 studies were eligible for inclusion. Six references assessed cost effectiveness of improving family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, while the rest assessed costs and consequences of integrating family planning and HIV services, concerning sub-Saharan Africa. Assembled evidence suggested that improving family planning interventions is cost effective in a variety of L-MICs as measured against accepted international cost effectiveness benchmarks. In areas with high HIV prevalence, integrating family planning and HIV services can be efficient and cost effective; however the evidence is only supported by a very limited number of studies. The major drivers of cost effectiveness were cost of increasing coverage, effectiveness of the interventions and country-specific factors.ConclusionImproving family planning interventions in low and middle income countries appears to be cost-effective. Additional economic evaluation studies with improved reporting quality are necessary to generate further evidence on costs, cost-effectiveness, and affordability, and to support increased funding and investments in family planning programs.

Project description:IntroductionInfertility, a condition of the reproductive system, affects millions of individuals and couples worldwide. Despite infertility treatment's existence, it is largely unavailable and inaccessible in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) due to the prohibitive costs compounded by an absence of financing. Previous systematic reviews have shown that there is scanty information in LMICs on out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for infertility treatment. This protocol outlines the methodological approach and analytical process to appraise the extent of economic burden due to payments for infertility care services in LMICs.Method and analysisUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach, we will primarily search for articles indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and PsycINFO databases. Grey literature from relevant organisations' virtual libraries shall also be searched. Backward and forward searches on the articles selected will also be done. Quantitative studies on infertility treatment costs from LMICs across the world regions within the last 20 years will be considered. The primary outcome of interest shall include OOP payments, catastrophic health expenditure and direct costs for infertility services. Conversely, informal payments and indirect costs related to infertility treatments shall be considered as secondary outcomes. Integrated quality Criteria for Review Of Multiple Study designs will be used to assess the quality of the studies included in the review. Meta-analysis shall be considered if sufficient studies identified are homogenous in characteristics. Also, the review shall analyse the average cost of infertility treatment against the respective countries' economic indicators like gross domestic product per capita if data permit.Ethics and disseminationResearch and ethics approval will not be required given this will be a review of published articles on the subject. The findings shall be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation to the WHO and its partners.Prospero registration numberCRD42020199312.

Project description:ImportanceSubstandard and falsified medicines burden health systems by diverting resources to ineffective or harmful therapies, causing medical complications and prolonging illnesses. However, the prevalence and economic impact of poor-quality medicines is unclear.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence and estimated economic burden of substandard and falsified essential medicines in low- and middle-income countries.Data sourcesFive databases (PubMed, EconLit, Global Health, Embase, and Scopus) were searched from inception until November 3, 2017.Study selectionPublications were assessed to determine whether they examined medicine quality and the prevalence and/or economic burden of substandard and falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countries. Studies with a sample size of 50 or more were included in the meta-analysis.Data extraction and synthesisThe study is registered in PROSPERO and reported via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Study quality was assessed using an adapted Medicine Quality Assessment Reporting Guidelines scoring metric. Multiple reviewers conducted the data extraction and quality assessment independently.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence and/or estimated economic impact of substandard and falsified medicines.ResultsTwo hundred sixty-five studies that estimated the prevalence of poor-quality essential medicines in low- and middle-income countries were identified. Among 96 studies that tested 50 samples or more (67 839 total drug samples), overall prevalence of poor-quality medicines was 13.6% (95% CI, 11.0%-16.3%), with regional prevalence of 18.7% in Africa (95% CI, 12.9%-24.5%) and 13.7% in Asia (95% CI, 8.2%-19.1%). Of studies included in the meta-analysis, 19.1% (95% CI, 15.0%-23.3%) of antimalarials and 12.4% (95% CI, 7.1%-17.7%) of antibiotics were substandard or falsified. Eight approximations of the economic impact, focused primarily on market size, with poor or undisclosed methods in estimation were identified, ranging from $10 billion to $200 billion.Conclusions and relevancePoor-quality essential medicines are a substantial and understudied problem. Methodological standards for prevalence and rigorous economic studies estimating the burden beyond market size are needed to accurately assess the scope of the issue and inform efforts to address it. Global collaborative efforts are needed to improve supply-chain management, surveillance, and regulatory capacity in low- and middle-income countries to reduce the threat of poor-quality medicines.Trial registrationPROSPERO Identifier: CRD42017080266.