Bridging the gap: aligning economic research with disease burden

Area of Science:

• Health Economics
• Global Health
• Public Health Policy

Background:

• Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is vital for resource allocation in healthcare.
• Understanding the alignment between disease burden and CEA study volume is crucial for identifying research priorities.
• Disparities in CEA research may exist across different disease categories and income levels.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess if the volume of CEA studies correlates with the burden of 21 major disease categories.
• To identify understudied disease areas and essential health interventions lacking cost-effectiveness evidence.
• To examine regional and income-based disparities in CEA literature.

Main Methods:

• Searched CEA registries for studies published 2010-2019 measuring cost per quality-adjusted life-year or cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY).
• Analyzed the relationship between literature volume and disease burden (DALYs) using regression analysis, stratified by region and income.
• Assessed the availability of CEA evidence for essential health interventions.

Main Results:

• Identified understudied disease areas with high burden but low CEA volume, varying by region.
• Found significantly higher CEA volume for non-communicable diseases in higher-income countries compared to lower-income countries.
• Only 33 out of 60 essential interventions had supporting CEA evidence, with only 21 relevant to low- or middle-income countries.

Conclusions:

• Significant research gaps in CEA exist for prevalent, lethal, or disabling diseases and essential interventions.
• Disparities in CEA research between high-income and low-income countries highlight opportunities for improving health system efficiency.
• Policy attention is needed to address understudied areas and enhance allocative efficiency in global health.