Abstract
Objective Non-disease-specific WHO-CHOICE unit costs are often used in cost and cost-effectiveness studies in the absence of country-specific data. This study aims to compare reported country-specific disease costs and the corresponding WHO-CHOICE estimates. We use generically defined “diarrhea” (including rotavirus diarrhea) and pathogen-specific “respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)” disease as examples.
Methods We updated systematic reviews for both diseases in low-income (LICs), lower-middle-income (LMICs) and upper-middle-income (UMICs) countries. Diarrheal (including a sub-analysis of rotavirus-specific) and RSV-specific outpatient and inpatient costs per episode were extracted and compared with WHO-CHOICE estimates in the same countries. If a consistent pattern of under- or over-estimation was identified, we quantified the magnitude of the discrepancy. All costs were updated to 2022 international dollar values.
Results Out of 1975 new records identified, 23 new cost studies were included. Including previous reviews, we retained 31 diarrhea and 16 RSV studies for comparison. WHO-CHOICE based direct medical costs were similar for diarrheal disease including rotavirus diarrhea, but lower for RSV-related disease. We estimated the cost per episode of diarrhea and RSV in 128 countries. RSV outpatient cost were adjusted by multiplying WHO-CHOICE costs by 6.89 (95% uncertainty interval: 5.58-8.58) in LICs and LMICs and 5.87 (4.95-6.96) in UMICs; RSV inpatient costs were multiplied by 1.43 (1.01-2.01) and 1.36 (0.82-2.27), respectively.
Conclusion WHO-CHOICE based costs should be used cautiously. They aligned well with studies for diarrheal disease, but underestimate costs of RSV-related disease. More country- and disease-specific cost data are needed, especially for RSV in LICs.
Competing Interest Statement
VEP was previously a member of the WHO Immunization and Vaccine-related Implementation Research Advisory Committee (IVIR-AC). Outside the submitted work, PB and LB reports grants from RESCEU and PROMISE, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 of the European Commission, but they have not received any personal fees or other personal benefits. LB is the founding chairman of the ReSViNET Foundation. He also declares that he has regular interaction with pharmaceutical and other industrial partners. He has not received personal fees or other personal benefits. Outside the submitted work, his institute UMCU has received major funding (>100,000 euro per industrial partner) for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Janssen, Pfizer, MSD and MeMed Diagnostics. UMCU has received major funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. UMCU has received major funding by Julius Clinical for participating in clinical studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Merck and Pfizer. UMCU received minor funding (1,000-25,000 euro per industrial partner) for consultation, DSMB membership or invited lectures by Ablynx, Bavaria Nordic, GSK, Novavax, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, MSD, Sanofi, Janssen. Other authors declared no competing interests.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by a grant from National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI112970 and R01AI137093 to VEP).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and supplement
