Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40048093›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2025

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Reduce Antimicrobial Resistance: A Systematic Literature Review of Methods.

Kristina Aluzaite, Marta O Soares, Catherine Hewitt, Julie Robotham, Chris Painter, Beth Woods

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kristina AluzaiteCentre for Health Economics, Alcuin a Block, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. aluzaitekristina@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9779-7340
Marta O SoaresCentre for Health Economics, Alcuin a Block, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1579-8513
Catherine HewittYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0415-3536
Julie RobothamUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Chris PainterMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-7970-039X
Beth WoodsCentre for Health Economics, Alcuin a Block, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7669-9415

Funding

Wellcome Trust 220211/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveEconomic evaluation of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) interventions is complicated by the multisectoral, inter-temporal and international aspects of the problem, further hindered by a lack of available data and theoretical understanding of the emergence and transmission of AMR. Despite the substantial global focus on the problem, there is a lack of comprehensive economic evaluation literature on AMR policies. The goal of this work is to review the available literature on the economic evaluation of AMR interventions focusing on methods used to quantify the effects on AMR and the associated health consequences and costs.

methodsThe studies included in the review were identified by a previous study by Painter et al. that included all full economic evaluations of AMR policies in the peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2000 and 2020. The current review extracted additional information to (1) summarise the types and the key features of the AMR intervention economic evaluation literature available; (2) systemise the types of intervention effects on AMR quantified and describe these across the dimensions of AMR burden: time, space, wider pathogen pool and different sectors (One Health framework); and (3) categorise the methods used to derive these outcomes and how were these linked to health consequences and costs.

resultsThirty-one studies were included within this review, of which 18 evaluated interventions that aimed to reduce infection rates and 11 evaluated interventions that aimed to optimise antimicrobial use. Almost all were conducted with a high-income and/or upper-middle income country perspective and focused on human health. Thirteen of 31 studies were cost-utility analyses. Fifteen of 31 and 7/31 studies estimated the AMR effects through decision tree and/or Markov models and transmission models, respectively. Transmission models and linkage of AMR outcomes to quality-adjusted life-years and costs were more common in evaluations of interventions aimed at reducing infection rates. Most of the included studies restricted the scope of evaluation to a short time horizon and a narrow geographical scope and did not consider the wider impact on other pathogens and other settings, potentially resulting in an incomplete capture of the effects of interventions.

conclusionsThis review found limited available literature that mainly focused on high-income countries and infection prevention/reduction strategies. Most evaluations used a narrow study scope, which might have prevented the full capture of the costs and outcomes associated with interventions. Finally, despite the known complexities associated with quantifying AMR effects, and the corresponding methodological challenges, the implications of these choices were rarely discussed explicitly.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.