Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2018 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2018 Open Access

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control 1/2018

Estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review

Zeitschrift:
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control > Ausgabe 1/2018
Autoren:
Nichola R. Naylor, Rifat Atun, Nina Zhu, Kavian Kulasabanathan, Sachin Silva, Anuja Chatterjee, Gwenan M. Knight, Julie V. Robotham
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13756-018-0336-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Background

Accurate estimates of the burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are needed to establish the magnitude of this global threat in terms of both health and cost, and to paramaterise cost-effectiveness evaluations of interventions aiming to tackle the problem. This review aimed to establish the alternative methodologies used in estimating AMR burden in order to appraise the current evidence base.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, EconLit, PubMed and grey literature were searched. English language studies evaluating the impact of AMR (from any microbe) on patient, payer/provider and economic burden published between January 2013 and December 2015 were included. Independent screening of title/abstracts followed by full texts was performed using pre-specified criteria. A study quality score (from zero to one) was derived using Newcastle-Ottawa and Philips checklists. Extracted study data were used to compare study method and resulting burden estimate, according to perspective. Monetary costs were converted into 2013 USD.

Results

Out of 5187 unique retrievals, 214 studies were included. One hundred eighty-seven studies estimated patient health, 75 studies estimated payer/provider and 11 studies estimated economic burden. 64% of included studies were single centre. The majority of studies estimating patient or provider/payer burden used regression techniques. 48% of studies estimating mortality burden found a significant impact from resistance, excess healthcare system costs ranged from non-significance to $1 billion per year, whilst economic burden ranged from $21,832 per case to over $3 trillion in GDP loss. Median quality scores (interquartile range) for patient, payer/provider and economic burden studies were 0.67 (0.56-0.67), 0.56 (0.46-0.67) and 0.53 (0.44-0.60) respectively.

Conclusions

This study highlights what methodological assumptions and biases can occur dependent on chosen outcome and perspective. Currently, there is considerable variability in burden estimates, which can lead in-turn to inaccurate intervention evaluations and poor policy/investment decisions. Future research should utilise the recommendations presented in this review.

Trial registration

This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (PROSPERO CRD42016037510).
Zusatzmaterial
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

23.10.2020 | COVID-19 | Podcast | Nachrichten

Wie SARS-CoV-2 den Nerven gefährlich wird

Mit Prof. Peter Berlit über neurologische Aspekte von COVID-19

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Innere Medizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

© Springer Medizin 

Bildnachweise