4.6 Article

Economic Cost of Campylobacter, Norovirus and Rotavirus Disease in the United Kingdom

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138526

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U122785837] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U122785837] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MC_U122785837] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To estimate the annual cost to patients, the health service and society of infectious intestinal disease (IID) from Campylobacter, norovirus and rotavirus. Design Secondary data analysis. Setting The United Kingdom population, 2008-9. Main outcome measures Cases and frequency of health services usage due to these three pathogens; associated healthcare costs; direct, out-of-pocket expenses; indirect costs to patients and caregivers. Results The median estimated costs to patients and the health service at 2008-9 prices were: Campylobacter 50 pound million (95% CI: 33m- pound 75m) pound, norovirus 81 pound million (95% CI: 63m- pound 106m) pound, rotavirus 25m pound (95% CI: 18m- pound 35m) pound. The costs per case were approximately 30 pound for norovirus and rotavirus, and 85 pound for Campylobacter. This was mostly borne by patients and caregivers through lost income or out-of-pocket expenditure. The cost of Campylobacter- related Guillain-Barre syndrome hospitalisation was 1.26 pound million (95% CI: 0.4m- pound 4.2m) pound. Conclusions Norovirus causes greater economic burden than Campylobacter and rotavirus combined. Efforts to control IID must prioritise norovirus. For Campylobacter, estimated costs should be considered in the context of expenditure to control this pathogen in agriculture, food production and retail. Our estimates, prior to routine rotavirus immunisation in the UK, provide a baseline vaccine cost-effectiveness analyses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available