Lyme Borreliosis Reviewing Potential Vaccines Clinical Aspects and Health Economics Researchgate

• Review
• Open Access
• Published: 09 July 2020

Clinical and economic outcomes evaluated in Lyme illness: a systematic review

Parasites & Vectors volume 13, Article number:341 (2020) Cite this article

• 1687 Accesses

• 3 Citations

• four Altmetric

• Metrics details

Abstract

Background

The financial implications of Lyme disease (LD) tin can vary widely for both the health system and the individual patients experiencing the disease. The aim of this review was to summarize published data on clinical and economic outcomes associated with LD.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to identify all studies of LD that incorporate both clinical outcomes and costs. Included studies were described and categorized based on costs consequent with best practices used in economic evaluation.

Results

The virtually frequent costs identified focused on formal wellness costs and productivity losses were the most mutual costs identified outside of the wellness system. Travel and breezy intendance costs were less often reported. Clinical and economic outcomes of LD are primarily studied through economic models or observational analyses and focus on formal health intendance.

Conclusions

This review provides and overview of existing evidence and recommendations for future economic analyses in LD.

Background

Exposure to the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato), typically transmitted past blacklegged ticks, is the cause of Lyme affliction (LD) co-ordinate to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [1]. Clinically, LD is categorized by early and late disease manifestations [two]. Post-obit a tick bite, the clinician may consider multiple options, including antimicrobial prophylaxis if the suspected seize with teeth occurred inside the previous 72 hours, to prevent progression to early LD [iii]. After the diagnosis of early on LD has been made, systematic prove and guideline recommendations support oral beta-lactams (amoxicillin, cefuroxime axetil) and oral tetracyclines (doxycycline) as effective first-line agents based on ix randomized, prospective studies where erythema migrans (an expanding blood-red skin rash) was the disease-defining criterion and the resolution of symptoms the nearly common outcome [ii]. Other early manifestations of disease may include meningitis, carditis, arthritis, or neurological symptoms [4].

While antibody treatment of early LD may improve the cutaneous symptoms and forestall other early disease complications, only x–xv% of patients develop a late stage disease, commonly referred to as post-handling Lyme affliction syndrome (PTLDS) or late LD [five]. Despite treatment, some patients volition develop PTLDS characterized by nonspecific symptoms such every bit fatigue, arthralgia and cognitive disturbances. With only a fraction of patients observed in early disease trials progressing on to symptoms synonymous with PTLDS, it is hard to reach an appropriate sample size to critically evaluate effectiveness betwixt comparators or other sub-group questions linking early illness treatment and PTLDS. PTLDS is frequently characterized past symptoms such as musculoskeletal pain, fatigue and cerebral difficulties which may overlap with other diseases such equally fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome [5]. Early disease presentation and treatment is relatively straightforward, with fiddling controversy among practitioners. For the proportion of patients who go on to experience the PTLDS complications, the feel can be especially challenging. A qualitative, phenomenological written report of 12 PTLDS patients reported 4 major themes describing patient experiences and perceptions: (i) changing wellness condition and social impact; (ii) doubts about recovery and the future; (iii) contrasting dr.-patient relationships; and (4) the use of anarchistic therapies [half-dozen].

When wellness economists develop studies to judge costs attributable to a given illness, the methodological arroyo, perspective of the study and source of data may greatly influence the findings and the touch on gene of the journal where the results are published [7,eight,nine]. These "cost-of-illness" evaluations help translate the brunt of disease into dollars, which may exist more than impactful in the policy arena as conclusion-makers fence budget priorities [x]. The variation in methods used in these studies frequently lead to a wide variation of cost estimates for the same disease, limiting the comparability beyond studies, but provide a necessary showtime pace to account for the economical burden of the disease [xi]. In the case of LD, the financial implications of the disease can vary widely for both the health arrangement and the individual patients experiencing the disease. Previous reviews identified both a range in the methods of estimating costs or cost-effectiveness of treatments or vaccinations for LD [12, xiii]. On the one hand, the prevalence of LD reduces the overall burden of LD at the country-level, but from the patient perspective the costs can be quite substantial [thirteen]. The aim of this review was to summarize published data on clinical and economical outcomes associated with LD. We also provide recommendations for time to come toll-effectiveness analyses conducted to evaluate the benefit of LD treatment.

Methods

Our systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) argument [xiv] (Additional file 1: Table S1). Due to the heterogeneous nature of publications that include both clinical outcomes and cost estimates, this review only provided an assessment of the studies without a summary estimate from a meta-analysis. A literature search was conducted using EMBASE and PubMed, including studies published through nineteen December 2018. The search terms included ((((("lyme*"[Title/Abstract]) OR "borrelia*"[Title/Abstruse]) OR "erythema chronicum migrans*"[Title/Abstruse]) OR "erythema migrans*"[Championship/Abstract])) AND (((((cost*[Title/Abstract]) OR economical*[Title/Abstract]) OR upkeep*[Championship/Abstract]) OR financ*[Championship/Abstract]) OR burden*[Championship/Abstruse]) and results were express to peer-reviewed publications in English. Titles and abstracts were screened by multiple reviewers for relevance to infectious diseases where LD was reported. Abstracts were reviewed by two authors for screening, with any inclusion discrepancies existence discussed for consensus. Original inquiry full-text manuscripts focused on the LD population were included if both clinical and economic outcomes were reported. Studies focused on clinical efficacy or comparative effectiveness without assessing costs or cost-effectiveness were excluded.

Hazard of bias was assessed by considering report rigor, type of assay used, and population as described in the results. Data extraction included the following variables: authors, article title, periodical title, year published, type of study, population, outcomes identified in written report, any costs identified in study, written report funder, and whatsoever bear witness of direct patient engagement used throughout the study. The type of study was categorized by the research approach which may include clinical trial, observational research using existent-world evidence, economic model or simulation-based economic analysis, mixed-methods surveys and qualitative interviews. A narrative synthesis of the findings was structured around the target population characteristics, type of outcome, and type of costs identified. Costs were categorized based on recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine ("Second Console") that include formal health sector, informal wellness sector, non-wellness sector, and other [xv]. Formal wellness sector costs include items such as the costs of medication, inpatient or outpatient care, laboratory tests, or other specialized care direct related to apply or consumption of health services. Informal health sector costs include items such every bit patient or caregiver time or transportation costs that arise when using health services just are often not covered by health insurance. Non-wellness sector costs capture items such as productivity losses that autumn outside the health sector only are often evaluated for the societal perspective in an economical evaluation.

Results

A total of 832 abstracts were institute during the initial search with 327 duplicates, for a total of 505 articles for screening. An additional 476 articles were removed during abstract screening due to lack of relevance or written report type. Reviewer understanding for inclusion during screening was 92.7% (468/505). Disagreements were addressed and a total of 39 manufactures were included in the full-text review. An boosted xv articles were excluded later full-text review for lack of relevance, study type, non a full manuscript, or inappropriate comparators or outcomes assessed. A full of 24 articles were included for qualitative synthesis and full data extraction table is bachelor in Tabular array one [6, 16,17,eighteen,nineteen,twenty,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. The full results of the search strategy are provided in a PRISMA flow chart (Fig. ane) [14].

Table i Summary of characteristics for included studies

Full size table

Fig. 1

Review menses diagram according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA argument [14]

Full size image

Of the articles included for analysis, 68% (xv/22) were based in the Us, 9% (2/22) in Canada, 9% (ii/22) in the Netherlands and only unmarried studies published for populations in Sweden, Scotland and Germany. The bulk (55%, 12/22) of the studies were supported by government funding, with "no funding disclosed" (27%, half-dozen/22) and private funding (18%, 4/22) through either a non-profit foundation or for-profit corporation the other two sources of research funding. In terms of patient engagement, only 32% (7/22) incorporated methods that directly engaged with patients either through in-depth interviews or surveys. No studies listed patients or patient caregivers equally members of the research squad.

Written report methods varied from economic models (45%, ten/22), observational studies using real earth testify (29%, vii/24), mixed-method surveys and qualitative interviews (21%, 5/24). Economic models used simulation methods to guess costs or cost-effectiveness of different treatments or vaccines. Observational studies included toll-of-illness analyses, prospective cohorts and retrospective cohorts. There were no clinical trials that met the review inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Table two summarizes the most frequent clinical outcomes assessed in LD evaluations with clinical manifestations related to rheumatological, neurological, cardiological and dermatological disorders. Items such as "system challenges" that describe the frustration many LD patients report throughout the grade of diagnosis and treatment were identified in a few studies. Psychological impact of illness related to items such as stress, anxiety, or depression were only identified in ii studies.

Table 2 About frequent outcomes identified in the context of Lyme disease

Full size table

Table 3 summarizes the most frequent costs with formal health sector costs reported in the majority of studies. Productivity losses due to disease were the almost common costs identified outside of the health sector. Health system bug, travel and informal care costs were less frequently identified.

Table 3 Most frequent costs identified in the context of Lyme affliction

Full size tabular array

Discussion

Most studies evaluating both the clinical and economic impact of LD focused on direct medical costs frequently identified as part of the formal health sector perspective in economic evaluations [15]. Non-health sector costs were identified in several studies, but these were limited to productivity losses (absence and presenteeism). Other non-health sector cost categories such as consumption, social services, education, housing, or environs were not identified [fifteen]. In 2018, the International Gild of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Enquiry formed a special task force on value in health care that recognized several elements of value not oft identified in conventional economic evaluations including "reduction in uncertainty, fright of contagion, insurance value, severity of disease, value of hope, real choice value, equity, and scientific spillovers" [37]. When considering potential elements of value that may exist of interest to LD patients, many of these areas have yet to be explored in a more formal, systematic fashion. When LD patients were engaged straight through either structured interviews or surveys, dubiety regarding diagnosis and treatment are mutual themes and sources of frustration for patients [half-dozen, 27, xxx, 36].

Studies that capture both straight and indirect costs of LD demonstrate how perspective impacts costs estimates. For instance, Lohr et al. [21] estimated that median costs for LD hospitalizations in Germany from 2008 to 2011 were €3917 for adolescents and €2843 for adults, or about 23.7 million Euros annually. They further estimated indirect costs based on productivity and work absences to account for an additional 7.1 million Euros [21]. van den Wijngaard et al. [26] included both direct and indirect costs in their cost-of-illness assay of LD in the Netherlands to gauge the mean costs were approximately €5700 per patient annually in 2014. Maes et al. [29] estimated directly and indirect costs of LD in the USA to vary greatly betwixt early and belatedly disseminated disease. They reported direct costs in 1996 ranging from 731–3445 USD per yr and 2740–8270 USD per yr for early and late disseminated affliction, respectively [29]. When extending to indirect costs from fourth dimension or productivity loss, costs ranged from as depression as 89–3152 USD, influenced significantly by the severity of illness [29].

Economic evaluation focusing on the straight costs associated with an intervention and price savings related to formal care are useful for health insurers (public or individual) typically responsible for purchasing these services as part of the medical or chemist's shop benefits in the patient's health program. Direct wellness care costs are frequently assessed to inform this payer perspective. For example, an observational study by Adrion et al. [38] focusing on PTLDS estimated that 52,795 commercially insured patients experienced an boilerplate of 2968 USD higher direct wellness care costs annually compared to matched controls. Unfortunately, this limited focus may miss meaning costs experienced by the patient that also influence controlling at the patient- and provider-level. Additionally, if the evaluation solely focuses on the bear upon on the individual patient, whatever potential spillover effects on the immediate family unit or caregivers involved [39, 40].

In the case of LD, many patients report other factors that are not typically incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses. When an LD patient experiences frustration with the health arrangement due to system challenges such every bit a provider being dismissive of the diagnosis, it is hard to capture the economic consequences that may result from the negative patient-provider interaction [6]. These patient feel variables are unavailable in price-of-illness studies using administrative claims information to capture costs while the cost data are frequently missing from prospective clinical studies where the patient experience may be amend documented.

In some cases, researchers focus on broader land-level economic burden or touch of LD on a total population. This may be very useful for determining whether investing in universal vaccinations for a large population would be cost constructive or if a more targeted strategy would be preferred [12]. Similar to studies focused on the costs attributed to LD, the approach to costing (direct health costs or including non-health costs) plays a role in the evaluation. However, these studies are quite sensitive to incidence rates, then ensuring authentic diagnoses of new cases is critical to the accurateness of these models [12, 35]. Additionally, public perceptions and trust in vaccine recommendations may also influence i'southward willingness-to-pay for a vaccine [41]. Considering advice strategies or efforts to improve these other factors may exist important for economic models that focus on vaccines and prevention.

This review was limited by study type and methodological variation within studies identified for inclusion, limiting the ability for the quantitative synthesis of costs for each category. Including studies from all over the world also limits the generalizability to patients inside any unmarried country's health system. For example, costs of copayments and other out-of-pocket expenditures may not be every bit significant for patients residing in a country with a single-payer system with less coinsurance expectations on the population. Our targeted search strategy focused on abstract and titles for keywords may have express the number of potential abstracts for review. Additionally, we screened to focus on studies that included both clinical and economic outcomes, potentially limiting our inclusion of studies that purely focused on either independently. For example, researchers have estimated other indirect costs attributable to LD such as "spending less time outdoors" and "less outdoor recreation" potentially leading to a substantial welfare loss each year [42].

Recommendations for future economic evaluations of LD

To marshal with all-time practices frequently cited by health economists, nosotros recommend LD researchers consider the following [43]:

• Written report both health sector and societal perspectives – patients with LD experience significant costs exterior of the formal health system (e.g. absenteeism, presenteeism, time, intendance non covered by health insurance) that should be captured in a societal perspective model.

• Perform multiple sensitivity analyses on key assumptions – every bit with any economical model, uncertainty analyses aid test the main assumptions. Misdiagnoses, costs exterior traditional wellness systems, patient heterogeneity, and provider heterogeneity may significantly bear upon the results of any toll-effectiveness or budget impact model in LD but may be hard to ascertain. Expert stance may be the best source for some of these variables and it will be important to exam many of these assumptions independently.

• Engage LD patients throughout the study – by working directly with LD patients equally advisors during economical model development, wellness economists tin gain valuable perspectives that may non be captured in the published literature.

Conclusions

Evaluations of clinical and economic outcomes of LD are primarily economical models or observational analyses and focus on formal wellness intendance. Less evidence exists for the broader impact of breezy care or costs outside of the wellness system oft experienced by LD patients.

Availability of information and materials

All data generated during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

LD:

Lyme disease

PTLDS:

post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome

PRISMA:

preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

References

1. Centers for Disease Command and Prevention. Lyme disease. Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention; 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/index.html. Accessed 13 January 2019.

2. Wormser GP, Dattwyler RJ, Shapiro ED, Halperin JJ, Steere AC, Klempner MS, et al. The clinical assessment, handling, and prevention of Lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: clinical practice guidelines past the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43:1089–134.

   PubMed  Google Scholar

3. Warshafsky S, Lee DH, Francois LK, Nowakowski J, Nadelman RB, Wormser GP. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease: an updated systematic review and meta-assay. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65:1137–44.

   CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

4. Sanchez Due east, Vannier East, Wormser GP, Hu LT. Diagnosis, handling, and prevention of Lyme disease, homo granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: a review. JAMA. 2016;315:1767–77.

   CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

5. Aucott JN, Crowder LA, Kortte KB. Development of a foundation for a case definition of postal service-treatment Lyme disease syndrome. Int J Infect Dis. 2013;17:e443–9.

   PubMed  Google Scholar

6. Ali A, Vitulano Fifty, Lee R, Weiss TR, Colson ER. Experiences of patients identifying with chronic Lyme disease in the healthcare system: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:79.

   PubMed  PubMed Cardinal  Google Scholar

7. Onukwugha Eastward, McRae J, Kravetz A, Varga S, Khairnar R, Mullins CD. Toll-of-illness studies: an updated review of current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;34:43–58.

   Google Scholar

8. Larg A, Moss JR. Cost-of-illness studies: a guide to critical evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:653–71.

   PubMed  Google Scholar

9. Mattingly TJ Two, Mullins CD, Onukwugha E. Publication of cost-of-disease studies: does methodological complication matter? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:1067–seventy.

   PubMed  Google Scholar

10. Rice DP. Cost of illness studies: what is good about them? Inj Prev. 2000;6:177–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Fundamental  Google Scholar

11. Bloom BS, Bruno DJ, Maman DY, Jayadevappa R. Usefulness of US price-of-illness studies in healthcare determination making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:207–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

12. Šmit R, Postma MJ. Lyme borreliosis: reviewing potential vaccines, clinical aspects and health economics. Skillful Rev Vaccines. 2015;14:1549–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

13. Mac South, da Silva SR, Sander B. The economical burden of Lyme illness and the cost-effectiveness of Lyme disease interventions: a scoping review. PLoS I. 2019;14:e0210280.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Fundamental  Google Scholar

14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA argument. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

    PubMed  PubMed Key  Google Scholar

15. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn Yard, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 2016;316:1093–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

16. Berende A, Nieuwenhuis L, Ter Hofstede HJM, Vos FJ, Vogelaar ML, Tromp Chiliad, et al. Price-effectiveness of longer-term versus shorter-term provision of antibiotics in patients with persistent symptoms attributed to Lyme disease. PLoS 1. 2018;thirteen:e0195260.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

17. Johnson L, Wilcox S, Mankoff J, Stricker RB. Severity of chronic Lyme disease compared to other chronic weather condition: a quality of life survey. PeerJ. 2014;2:e322.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

18. Joss AWL, Davidson MM, Ho-Yen DO, Ludbrook A. Lyme disease—what is the toll for Scotland? Public Health. 2003;117:264–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

19. Lantos PM, Brinkerhoff RJ, Wormser GP, Clemen R. Empiric antibiotic treatment of Erythema migrans-like skin lesions as a function of geography: a clinical and toll effectiveness modeling study. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013;13:877–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

20. Lightfoot RW Jr, Luft BJ, Rahn DW, Steere Air conditioning, Sigal LH, Zoschke DC, et al. Empiric parenteral antibiotic treatment of patients with fibromyalgia and fatigue and a positive serologic result for Lyme disease: a price-effectiveness assay. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:503–ix.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

21. Lohr B, Müller I, Mai M, Norris DE, Schöffski O, Hunfeld G-P. Epidemiology and price of hospital care for Lyme borreliosis in Deutschland: lessons from a health care utilization database analysis. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;half-dozen:56–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

22. Magid D, Schwartz B, Craft J, Schwarts JS. Prevention of Lyme illness later on tick bites: a cost-effectiveness analysis. North Engl J Med. 1992;327:534–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

23. Meltzer Yard, Dennis D, Orloski Chiliad. The toll effectiveness of vaccinating confronting Lyme disease. Emerg Infect Dis. 1999;5:321–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Primal  Google Scholar

24. Nichol K, Dennis DT, Steere Ac, Lightfoot R, Wells G, Shea B, et al. Examination-treatment strategies for patients suspected of having Lyme affliction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:37–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

25. Shadick NA, Liang MH, Phillips CB, Fossel One thousand, Kuntz KM. The price-effectiveness of vaccination against Lyme illness. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:554–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

26. van den Wijngaard CC, Hofhuis A, Wong A, Harms MG, de Wit GA, Lugnér AK, et al. The cost of Lyme borreliosis. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27:538–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

27. Boudreau CR, Lloyd VK, Gould ON. Motivations and experiences of Canadians seeking treatment for Lyme disease outside of the conventional Canadian wellness-care organization. J Patient Exp. 2017;five:120–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Cardinal  Google Scholar

28. Zhang X, Meltzer MI, Peña CA, Hopkins AB, Wroth L, Set AD. Economic impact of Lyme disease. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:653–sixty.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

29. Maes E, Lecomte P, Ray Northward. A cost-of-illness study of Lyme disease in the United States. Clin Ther. 1998;20:993–1008.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

30. Drew D, Hewitt H. A qualitative approach to agreement patients' diagnosis of Lyme disease. Public Health Nurs. 2006;23:twenty–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

31. Eckman MH, Steere Ac, Kalish RA, Pauker SG. Toll effectiveness of oral as compared with intravenous antibiotic therapy for patients with early Lyme illness or Lyme arthritis. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:357–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

32. Fix AD, Strickland GT, Grant J. Tick bites and Lyme disease in an owned: setting problematic employ of serologic testing and safe antibiotic therapy. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;279:206–x.

    CAS  Google Scholar

33. Gasmi South, Ogden NH, Leighton PA, Adam-Poupart A, Milord F, Lindsay LR, et al. Practices of Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment by full general practitioners in Quebec, 2008–2015. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;eighteen:65.

    PubMed  PubMed Fundamental  Google Scholar

34. Henningsson AJ, Malmvall Be, Ernerudh J, Matussek A, Forsberg P. Neuroborreliosis—an epidemiological, clinical and healthcare price report from an endemic area in the southward-east of Sweden. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16:1245–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

35. Hsia EC, Chung JB, Schwartz JS, Albert DA. Toll-effectiveness analysis of the Lyme disease vaccine. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46:1651–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

36. Johnson Fifty, Aylward A, Stricker RB. Healthcare admission and burden of care for patients with Lyme disease: a large United states survey. Wellness Policy. 2011;102:64–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

37. Lakdawalla DN, Doshi JA, Garrison LP, Phelps CE, Basu A, Danzon PM. Defining elements of value in health care—a health economic science approach: an ISPOR Special Task Strength Report [three]. Value Health. 2018;21:131–nine.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

38. Adrion ER, Aucott J, Lemke KW, Weiner JP. Wellness care costs, utilization and patterns of intendance following Lyme disease. PLoS ONE. 2015;x:e0116767.

    PubMed  PubMed Cardinal  Google Scholar

39. Brouwer WBF. The inclusion of spillover effects in economic evaluations: non an optional extra. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;37:451–half dozen.

    Google Scholar

40. Lin P-J, D'Cruz B, Leech AA, Neumann PJ, Sanon Aigbogun M, Oberdhan D, et al. Family unit and caregiver spillover effects in cost-utility analyses of Alzheimer's illness interventions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:597–608.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

41. Slunge D. The willingness to pay for vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis and implications for public health policy: evidence from Sweden. PLoS ONE. 2015;x:e0143875.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

42. Drupe K, Bayham J, Meyer SR, Fenichel EP. The resource allotment of fourth dimension and run a risk of Lyme: a instance of ecosystem service income and substitution effects. Environ Resour Econ. 2018;70:631–50.

    Google Scholar

43. Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG. Price-effectiveness in health and medicine. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This enquiry did non receive whatever specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Affiliations

1. Academy of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

   T. Joseph Mattingly Two

2. University of Maryland Constitute of Human Virology, Baltimore, Maryland, The states

   Kalpana Shere-Wolfe

Contributions

All authors had full admission to all the data in the review and take responsibility for the integrity of analysis. TJM and KS-Westward conceived and designed the study. TJM and KS-West caused, analyzed and interpreted data. TJM drafted the manuscript and supervised the study. KS-Westward provided critical revisions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Joseph Mattingly 2.

Ethics declarations

Ideals approval and consent to participate

Non applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

TJM reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Health Quango and the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission for piece of work unrelated to this inquiry. KS-W declares that she has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Notation

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary data

Rights and permissions

Open Access This commodity is licensed under a Creative Eatables Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits apply, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in whatever medium or format, equally long as you give appropriate credit to the original writer(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Eatables licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third political party textile in this commodity are included in the commodity's Artistic Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the fabric. If fabric is not included in the article'southward Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission straight from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Artistic Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zip/1.0/) applies to the information made available in this commodity, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mattingly, T.J., Shere-Wolfe, K. Clinical and economical outcomes evaluated in Lyme disease: a systematic review. Parasites Vectors 13, 341 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04214-y

Download citation

• Received: 10 December 2019

• Accepted: 02 July 2020

• Published: 09 July 2020

• DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1186/s13071-020-04214-y

Keywords

• Lyme disease
• Value
• Outcomes
• Toll

monroecionew.blogspot.com

Source: https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-020-04214-y

Share this post