This Systematic Review assesses the economic impact of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in relation to healthcare resource utilization and associated costs. We searched online databases from January 2012 to November 2022 to identify eligible publications. We identified 12 publications that reported direct costs, indirect costs, and resources associated with RSV and its complications. The primary direct medical resources reported were medical services, diagnostics tests and procedures, and length of stay (LOS). Direct total costs per patient ranged widely from $563 to $19,076. Direct costs are, on average, 98% higher than indirect costs. Brazil reported a higher total cost per patient than Colombia, El Salvador, México, Panamá, and Puerto Rico, while for indirect costs per patient, El Salvador and Panamá had higher costs than Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. The mean LOS in the general ward due to RSV was 6.9 days (range 4 to 20 days) and the mean Intensive Care Unit LOS was 9.1 days (range 4 to 16 days). In many countries of the LAC region, RSV represents a considerable economic burden on health systems, but significant evidence gaps were identified in the region. More rigorous health economic studies are essential to better understand this burden and to promote effective healthcare through an informed decision-making process. Vaccination against RSV plays a critical role in mitigating this burden and should be a priority in public health strategies.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is currently the leading cause of global cancer incidence. Breast cancer has negative consequences for society and economies internationally due to the high burden of disease which includes adverse epidemiological and economic implications. Our aim is to systematically review the estimated economic burden of breast cancer in the United States (US), Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Switzerland), with an objective of discussing the policy and practice implications of our results.
METHODS: We included English-language published studies with cost as a focal point using a primary data source to inform resource usage of women with breast cancer. We focussed on studies published since 2017, but with reported costs since 2012. A systematic search conducted on 25 January 2023 identified studies relating to the economic burden of breast cancer in the countries of interest. MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched via Ovid. Study quality was assessed based on three aspects: (1) validity of cost findings; (2) completeness of direct cost findings; and (3) completeness of indirect cost findings. We grouped costs based on country, cancer stage (early compared to metastatic), and four resource categories: healthcare/medical, pharmaceutical drugs, diagnosis, and indirect costs. Costs were standardized to the year 2022 in US (US$2022) and International (Int$2022) dollars.
RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were included. Studies in the US (n = 19) and Canada (n = 9) were the majority (53%), followed by Western European countries (42%). Healthcare/medical costs were the focus for the majority (89%), followed by pharmaceutical drugs (25%), then diagnosis (17%) and indirect (17%) costs. Thirty-six (68%) included early-stage cancer costs, 17 (32%) included metastatic cancer costs, with 23% reporting costs across these cancer stages. No identified study explicitly compared costs across countries. Across cost categories, cost ranges tended to be higher in the US than any other country. Metastatic breast cancer was associated with higher costs than earlier-stage cancer. When indirect costs were accounted for, particularly in terms of productivity loss, they tended to be higher than any other estimated direct cost (e.g., diagnosis, drug, and other medical costs).
CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial heterogeneity both within and across countries for the identified studies\' designs and estimated costs. Despite this, current empirical literature suggests that costs associated with early initiation of treatment could be offset against potentially avoiding or reducing the overall economic burden of later-stage and more severe breast cancer. Larger scale, national, economic burden studies are needed, to be updated regularly to ensure there is an ongoing and evolving perspective of the economic burden of conditions such as breast cancer to inform policy and practice.

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a highly prevalent non-communicable disease with high mortality and morbidity, which imposes a significant financial impact on individuals and the healthcare system. The identification of various cost components through cost of illness analysis could be helpful in health-care policymaking. The current systematic review aims to summarize the economic burden of DM in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) countries. The original studies published in the English language between January 2010 and June 2023 reported the cost of DM was identified by searching four different databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane Central). Two reviewers independently screened the search results and extracted the data according to a predefined format, whereas the third reviewer\'s opinion was sought to resolve any discrepancies. The costs of DM reported in the included studies were converted to USD dates reported in the studies. After the systematic search and screening process, only 10 articles from EMR countries met the eligibility criteria to be included in the study. There are substantial variations in the reported costs of DM and the methodologies used in the included studies. The mean annual cost per patient of DM (both direct and indirect cost) ranged from 555.20 USD to 1707.40 USD. The average annual direct cost ranged from 155.8 USD to 5200 USD and indirect cost ranged from 93.65 USD to 864.8 USD per patient. The studies included in the review obtained a median score of 8.65 (6.5 ─ 11.5) on the quality assessment tool based on Alison\'s checklist for evaluation of cost of illness studies. There is a significant economic burden associated with DM, which directly affects the patients and healthcare system. Future research should focus on refining cost estimation methodologies, improving the understanding of study findings, and making it easier to compare studies.

Financial burden is a common phenomenon, often noticed in the caregivers of children with Down syndrome. It echoes adverse effects on the caregiver\'s mental and physical health. The economic burden covers direct healthcare costs, direct non-health-care costs, and indirect costs and is substantial for the family of a person with Down syndrome, as well as for society. Evidence, in this area, is necessary to reduce mental stress and promote financial well-being among caregivers.
In this review, quantitative studies that assess the economic burden on caregivers of children with Down syndrome will be considered. We will perform a systematic literature search conducted from the year 2000 to 2022 on electronic databases CINAHL, EBSCO, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EconLit. An additional gray literature search will be carried out. Two researchers will independently conduct the screening and data extraction and assess the risk of bias.
The review attempts to methodically analyze the economic burden among caregivers of children with Down syndrome from the societal perspective and individual perspectives. The current study will provide an evidence base to researchers, academicians, and society in identifying need-based learning to caregivers, and the selection of appropriate therapies for children suffering from Down syndrome.
PROSPERO CRD42021265312.

This systematic review describes herpes zoster (HZ) economic burden in terms of healthcare resource use and cost outcomes in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region. We searched online databases from 1 January 2000 to 20 February 2020 to identify eligible publications. We identified 23 publications that reported direct costs, indirect costs, and resources associated with HZ and its complications. The primary direct medical resources reported in the different studies were visits to doctors, transportation, days in the hospital, nursing, medication schedules, and physical therapy. Direct total costs per patient ranged from $99.99 to $4177.91. The highest cost was found in Brazil. Direct costs are, in average, 81.39% higher than indirect costs. The cost per patient that includes postherpetic neuralgia treatment is 115% higher on average for the directs and 73% for the indirect costs. Brazil reported a higher total cost per patient than Argentina and Mexico, while for indirect costs per patient, Brazil and Argentina had higher costs than Mexico, respectively. A meta-analysis on the number of days due to HZ hospitalization, performed on non-immunosuppressed patients over 65 years of age from three studies, resulted in a cumulative measure of 4.5 days of hospitalization. In the LAC region, the economic burden of HZ and associated complications is high, particularly among high-risk populations and older age groups. Preventative strategies such as vaccination could help avoid or reduce the HZ-associated disease economic burden in the LAC region.

BACKGROUND: The rising incidence of breast cancer places a financial burden on national health services and economies. The objective of this review is to present a detailed analysis of the research and literature on indirect costs of breast cancer.
METHODS: English literature databases from 2000 to 2020 were searched to find studies related to the objective of the present review. Study selection and data extraction was undertaken independently by two authors. Also, quality assessment was done using a checklist designed by Stunhldreher et al. RESULTS: The current study chose 33 studies that were eligible from a total of 2825 records obtained. The cost of lost productivity due to premature death based on human capital approach ranged from $22,386 to $52 billion. The cost burden from productivity lost due to premature death based on friction cost approach ranged from $1488.61 to $4,518,628.5. The cost burden from productivity lost due to morbidity with the human capital approach was reported as $126,857,360.69 to $596,659,071.28. The cost of lost productivity arising from informal caregivers with the human capital approach was $297,548.46 to $308 billion.
CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the existing evidence revealed the indirect costs of breast cancer in women to be significantly high. This study did a thorough review on the indirect costs associated with breast cancer in women which could serve as a guide to help pick the appropriate method for calculating the indirect costs of breast cancer based on existing methods, approach and data. There is a need for calculations to be standardised since the heterogeneity of results in different domains from various studies makes it impossible for comparisons to be made among different countries.

In light of the lack of an agreed international standard for how to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), including cost-utility analyses (CUAs) from a societal perspective, there is uncertainty regarding to what extent the inclusion of productivity losses/gains in economic evaluations can affect cost-effectiveness results and subsequently decisions on whether to recommend new health technologies. To investigate this, we conducted a systematic review of CEAs and CUAs of drug-based therapies for a set of chronic immune-mediated disorders to understand how cost elements and calculation methods related to productivity losses/gains are used, examine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of including productivity costs, and explore factors that affect the inclusion of productivity loss.
Databases (MEDLINE® In-process, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2010 to October 2020 by two independent reviewers for all CEAs and CUAs in adults with any of the following conditions: ankylosing spondylitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, Crohn\'s disease, fibromyalgia, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and ulcerative colitis. Relevant study data were extracted and evidence was synthesized for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Productivity cost elements including absenteeism, presenteeism, unemployment/early retirement, premature mortality and informal care were extracted, along with the method used to determine them. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the inclusion of productivity loss.
Our searches identified 5016 records, culminating in 198 unique studies from 234 publications following screening. Most of the studies investigated rheumatoid arthritis (37.0%) or psoriasis (32.0%). The majority were CUAs, with some including both a CEA and a CUA (73.0%). Most studies used a payer perspective only (28.5%) or a societal perspective only (21.0%). Of the 49 studies incorporating productivity losses/gains, 42 reported the type of cost element used; all of these used patient absenteeism, either alone or in addition with other elements. Only 16 studies reported the method used to value productivity changes, of which eight used a human capital approach, four used a friction cost approach and four used both approaches. Twenty-eight of the 49 studies (57.1%) reported inclusion of productivity losses/gains as contributing to more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes and ICERs, while 12 (24.5%) reported no substantial impact. On the basis of a multivariate analysis, rheumatoid arthritis as the target disease had a statistically significant association with the inclusion of productivity loss compared with psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease.
The results of our review suggest that incorporating productivity cost elements may positively affect cost-effectiveness outcomes in evaluations of therapeutics for immune-mediated disorders. Our work highlights the continued need for clarity when reporting how CEAs and CUAs in this disease area are conducted, in order to better inform healthcare decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of studies estimating the cost of illness of lung cancer to compare costs between studies and examine cost drivers, emphasizing generalizability and methodological choices.
METHODS: A systematic search on studies published in English on cost of illness of lung cancer was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Databases were searched in January 2017, and records were screened based on eligibility criteria. The systematic search was updated on May 7, 2020. The quality of included studies was appraised using a modified Drummond checklist.
RESULTS: Of the 4891 records screened, 19 records were included. Most of the studies were cross-sectional and retrospective and used a prevalence-based approach and a bottom-up approach. Direct medical costs ranged from 4484.13 US dollars purchasing power parity to 45 364.48 US dollars purchasing power parity. Total medical costs as a percentage of total gross domestic product (GDP) ranged from 0.00248 to 0.1326 (median 0.0217), and total medical costs as a percentage of total health expenditure ranged from 0.038 to 0.836 (median 0.209).
CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable methodological heterogeneity that made it difficult to compare results between studies. The costs of lung cancer are substantial and impose a substantial economic burden on patients, healthcare systems, and societies. By comparing cancer costs with total health expenditures and GDP per capita, it can be concluded that lung cancer imposes a considerable economic burden on patients and healthcare systems in countries with lower GDP per capita and higher incidence rate.

A literature review of peer-reviewed articles published 2000-2019 was conducted to determine the types and extent of hypertension-associated productivity loss among adults in the United States. All monetary outcomes were standardized to 2019 $ by using the Employment Cost Index. Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Nearly half of the articles (12 articles) presented monetary outcomes of productivity loss. Absenteeism (14 articles) and presenteeism (8 articles) were most frequently assessed. Annual absenteeism was estimated to cost more than $11 billion, nationally controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. The annual additional costs per person were estimated at $63 for short-term disability, $72-$330 for absenteeism, and $53-$156 for presenteeism, controlling for participant characteristics; and may be as high as $2362 for absenteeism and presenteeism when considered in combination. The annual additional time loss per person was estimated as 1.3 days for absenteeism, controlling for common hypertension comorbidities, including stroke and diabetes; and 15.6 days for work and home productivity loss combined, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. The loss from absenteeism alone might be more than 20% of the total medical expenditure of hypertension. Although the differences in estimation methods and study populations make it challenging to synthesize the costs across the studies, this review provides detailed information on the various types of productivity loss. In addition, the ways in which methods could be standardized for future research are discussed. Accounting for the costs from productivity loss can help public health officials, health insurers, employers, and researchers better understand the economic burden of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare, chronic autoimmune disease associated with a substantial economic burden. This study aimed to assess the costs associated with SSc and to identify major cost drivers.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase to identify relevant studies. Two independent reviewers evaluated studies based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and performed data extraction. Costs were converted into 2017 US dollars by purchasing power parity. The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline.
RESULTS: The original literature search identified 113 potentially relevant citations, of which 10 articles met all the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the data extraction and analysis. The identified studies evaluated costs associated with SSc in 11 countries from North America, Europe, and Australia published between 2009 and 2018. Eight studies reported direct costs and seven studies reported indirect costs. Direct costs varied from $3356 (Hungary) to $27 032 (Germany) with hospitalization and medication being two of the biggest components of direct medical costs in most studies. The indirect costs for lost productivity varied from $2433 (Italy) to $20 663 (UK), accounting for a significant portion of the total economic burden.
CONCLUSIONS: Large variations existed in annual costs of SSc, but all studies found that SSc imposed a substantial economic burden on patients and their families. The identified studies were mostly from high-income countries and there is still a knowledge gap regarding the cost of SSc in other parts of the world.