Dagna Constenla1,2, Cristina Garcia3, Noah Lefcourt3. 1. Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 855 N. Wolfe Street, Suite 600, Baltimore, 21205, USA. dconste1@jhu.edu. 2. Dengue Vaccine Initiative (DVI), Baltimore, USA. dconste1@jhu.edu. 3. Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 855 N. Wolfe Street, Suite 600, Baltimore, 21205, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The economics of dengue is complex and multifaceted. OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review of the literature to provide a critical overview of the issues related to dengue economics research and to form a background with which to address the question of cost. METHODS: Three literature databases were searched [PubMed, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS)], covering a period from 1980 to 2013, to identify papers meeting preset inclusion criteria. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality on the basis of a quality checklist developed for this purpose. An expert survey was designed to identify priority areas in dengue economics research and to identify gaps between the methodology and actual practice. Survey responses were combined with the literature review findings to determine stakeholder priorities in dengue economics research. RESULTS: The review identified over 700 papers. Forty-two of these papers met the selection criteria. The studies that were reviewed presented results from 32 dengue-endemic countries, underscoring the importance of dengue as a global public health problem. Cost analyses were the most common, with 21 papers, followed by nine cost-effectiveness analyses and seven cost-of-illness studies, indicating a relatively strong mix of methodologies. Dengue annual overall costs (in 2010 values) ranged from US$13.5 million (in Nicaragua) to $56 million (in Malaysia), showing cost variations across countries. Little consistency exists in the way costs were estimated and dengue interventions evaluated, making generalizations around costs difficult. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that dengue costs are substantial because of the cost of hospital care and lost earnings. Further research in this area will broaden our understanding of the true economic impact of dengue.
BACKGROUND: The economics of dengue is complex and multifaceted. OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review of the literature to provide a critical overview of the issues related to dengue economics research and to form a background with which to address the question of cost. METHODS: Three literature databases were searched [PubMed, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS)], covering a period from 1980 to 2013, to identify papers meeting preset inclusion criteria. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality on the basis of a quality checklist developed for this purpose. An expert survey was designed to identify priority areas in dengue economics research and to identify gaps between the methodology and actual practice. Survey responses were combined with the literature review findings to determine stakeholder priorities in dengue economics research. RESULTS: The review identified over 700 papers. Forty-two of these papers met the selection criteria. The studies that were reviewed presented results from 32 dengue-endemic countries, underscoring the importance of dengue as a global public health problem. Cost analyses were the most common, with 21 papers, followed by nine cost-effectiveness analyses and seven cost-of-illness studies, indicating a relatively strong mix of methodologies. Dengue annual overall costs (in 2010 values) ranged from US$13.5 million (in Nicaragua) to $56 million (in Malaysia), showing cost variations across countries. Little consistency exists in the way costs were estimated and dengue interventions evaluated, making generalizations around costs difficult. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that dengue costs are substantial because of the cost of hospital care and lost earnings. Further research in this area will broaden our understanding of the true economic impact of dengue.
Authors: Alberto Baly; Steffen Flessa; Marilys Cote; Thirapong Thiramanus; Veerle Vanlerberghe; Elci Villegas; Somchai Jirarojwatana; Patrick Van der Stuyft Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: David P Durham; Martial L Ndeffo Mbah; Jan Medlock; Paula M Luz; Lauren A Meyers; A David Paltiel; Alison P Galvani Journal: Vaccine Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Katie B Anderson; Supamit Chunsuttiwat; Ananda Nisalak; Mammen P Mammen; Daniel H Libraty; Alan L Rothman; Sharone Green; David W Vaughn; Francis A Ennis; Timothy P Endy Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-04-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Baly; M E Toledo; M Boelaert; A Reyes; V Vanlerberghe; E Ceballos; M Carvajal; R Maso; M La Rosa; O Denis; P Van der Stuyft Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2007-03-21 Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: Donald S Shepard; Laurent Coudeville; Yara A Halasa; Betzana Zambrano; Gustavo H Dayan Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Diana L Connor; Sarah B Kitchen; Kristina M Bacon; Mirat Shah; Shawn T Brown; Rachel R Bailey; Yongjua Laosiritaworn; Donald S Burke; Derek A T Cummings Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Donald S Shepard; Eduardo A Undurraga; Rosemary Susan Lees; Yara Halasa; Lucy Chai See Lum; Chiu Wan Ng Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Naveed Heydari; David A Larsen; Marco Neira; Efraín Beltrán Ayala; Prissila Fernandez; Jefferson Adrian; Rosemary Rochford; Anna M Stewart-Ibarra Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca; Andrew Stawasz; Sydney T Johnson; Reiko Sato; David E Bloom Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 3.240