Costs-effectiveness and cost components of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions affecting antibiotic resistance outcomes in hospital patients: a systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Limited information on costs and the cost-effectiveness of hospital interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance (ABR) hinder efficient resource allocation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review for studies evaluating the costs and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions aimed at reducing, monitoring and controlling ABR in patients. Articles published until 12 December 2023 were explored using EconLit, EMBASE and PubMed. We focused on critical or high-priority bacteria, as defined by the WHO, and intervention costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we extracted unit costs, ICERs and essential study information including country, intervention, bacteria-drug combination, discount rates, type of model and outcomes. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars ($), adopting the healthcare system perspective. Country willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds from Woods et al 2016 guided cost-effectiveness assessments. We assessed the studies reporting checklist using Drummond's method. RESULTS: Among 20 958 articles, 59 (32 pharmaceutical and 27 non-pharmaceutical interventions) met the inclusion criteria. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as hygiene measures, had unit costs as low as $1 per patient, contrasting with generally higher pharmaceutical intervention costs. Several studies found that linezolid-based treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were cost-effective compared with vancomycin (ICER up to $21 488 per treatment success, all 16 studies' ICERs

Designing an evidence-informed package of essential health services for Universal Health Coverage: lessons learnt and challenges to implementation in Liberia.

Liberia developed an evidence-informed package of health services for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) based on the Disease Control Priorities 3 evidence. This paper describes the policy decisions, methods and processes adopted for prioritisation, key features of the package and lessons learnt, with special emphasis on feasibility of implementation. Package design was led by the Ministry of Health. Prioritisation of essential services was based on evidence on disease burden, cost-effectiveness, financial risk, equity, budget impact, and feasibility of implementation. Fiscal space analysis was used to assess package affordability and options for expanding the budget envelope. The final adopted package focuses on primary healthcare and comprises a core subpackage of 78 publicly financed interventions and a complementary subpackage of 50 interventions funded through cost-sharing. The estimated per capita cost to the government is US$12.28, averting around 1.2 million DALYs. Key lessons learnt are described: (1) priority setting is essential for designing affordable packages of essential services; (2) the most realistic and affordable option when domestic resources are critically limited is to focus on basic, high-impact primary health services; (3) Liberia and many other countries will continue to rely on donor funding to expand the range of essential services until more domestic resources become available; (4) national leadership and effective engagement of key stakeholders are critical for a successful package design; (5) effective implementation is less likely unless the package cost is affordable and the health system gaps are assessed and addressed. A framework of action was employed to assess the consistency with the prerequisites for an appropriate package design. Based on the framework, Liberia developed a transparent and affordable package for UHC, but the challenges to implementation require further action by the government.