Publication:
Quantifying the economic cost of antibiotic resistance and the impact of related interventions: Rapid methodological review, conceptual framework and recommendations for future studies

dc.contributor.authorMark Jiten_US
dc.contributor.authorDorothy Hui Lin Ngen_US
dc.contributor.authorNantasit Luangasanatipen_US
dc.contributor.authorFrank Sandmannen_US
dc.contributor.authorKatherine E. Atkinsen_US
dc.contributor.authorJulie V. Robothamen_US
dc.contributor.authorKoen B. Pouwelsen_US
dc.contributor.otherPublic Health Englanden_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Edinburghen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Oxforden_US
dc.contributor.otherSingapore General Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherThe University of Hong Kongen_US
dc.contributor.otherHealth Protection Agencyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T04:51:42Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T04:51:42Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-06en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2020 The Author(s). Background: Antibiotic resistance (ABR) poses a major threat to health and economic wellbeing worldwide. Reducing ABR will require government interventions to incentivise antibiotic development, prudent antibiotic use, infection control and deployment of partial substitutes such as rapid diagnostics and vaccines. The scale of such interventions needs to be calibrated to accurate and comprehensive estimates of the economic cost of ABR. Methods: A conceptual framework for estimating costs attributable to ABR was developed based on previous literature highlighting methodological shortcomings in the field and additional deductive epidemiological and economic reasoning. The framework was supplemented by a rapid methodological review. Results: The review identified 110 articles quantifying ABR costs. Most were based in high-income countries only (91/110), set in hospitals (95/110), used a healthcare provider or payer perspective (97/110), and used matched cohort approaches to compare costs of patients with antibiotic-resistant infections and antibiotic-susceptible infections (or no infection) (87/110). Better use of methods to correct biases and confounding when making this comparison is needed. Findings also need to be extended beyond their limitations in (1) time (projecting present costs into the future), (2) perspective (from the healthcare sector to entire societies and economies), (3) scope (from individuals to communities and ecosystems), and (4) space (from single sites to countries and the world). Analyses of the impact of interventions need to be extended to examine the impact of the intervention on ABR, rather than considering ABR as an exogeneous factor. Conclusions: Quantifying the economic cost of resistance will require greater rigour and innovation in the use of existing methods to design studies that accurately collect relevant outcomes and further research into new techniques for capturing broader economic outcomes.en_US
dc.identifier.citationBMC Medicine. Vol.18, No.1 (2020)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12916-020-1507-2en_US
dc.identifier.issn17417015en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85081229858en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/53726
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85081229858&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleQuantifying the economic cost of antibiotic resistance and the impact of related interventions: Rapid methodological review, conceptual framework and recommendations for future studiesen_US
dc.typeReviewen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85081229858&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections