Economic burden of herpes zoster in Latin America: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

This systematic review describes herpes zoster (HZ) economic burden in terms of healthcare resource use and cost outcomes in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region. We searched online databases from 1 January 2000 to 20 February 2020 to identify eligible publications. We identified 23 publications that reported direct costs, indirect costs, and resources associated with HZ and its complications. The primary direct medical resources reported in the different studies were visits to doctors, transportation, days in the hospital, nursing, medication schedules, and physical therapy. Direct total costs per patient ranged from $99.99 to $4177.91. The highest cost was found in Brazil. Direct costs are, in average, 81.39% higher than indirect costs. The cost per patient that includes postherpetic neuralgia treatment is 115% higher on average for the directs and 73% for the indirect costs. Brazil reported a higher total cost per patient than Argentina and Mexico, while for indirect costs per patient, Brazil and Argentina had higher costs than Mexico, respectively. A meta-analysis on the number of days due to HZ hospitalization, performed on non-immunosuppressed patients over 65 years of age from three studies, resulted in a cumulative measure of 4.5 days of hospitalization. In the LAC region, the economic burden of HZ and associated complications is high, particularly among high-risk populations and older age groups. Preventative strategies such as vaccination could help avoid or reduce the HZ-associated disease economic burden in the LAC region.

KEYWORDS:

• Herpes zoster
• health economics
• Latin America
• and the caribbean
• postherpetic neuralgia
• direct cost
• indirect cost

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Business & Decision Life Sciences platform for editorial assistance and manuscript coordination, on behalf of GSK. Amrita Ostawal provided medical writing support.

Disclosure statement

AB, AC, TA, CP, MS, DB reports grants from GSK during the conduct of the study.

JG and JNG are employees and hold shares in GSK.

Author’s contributions

AB, AC, JNG and JG participated to the conception/design of the review; AB, AC, TA, CP, MS, JG and DB and FA participated to the collection/assembling of the data; AB, AC, TA, CP, MS, and DB performed/supervised the analysis; AB, AC, TA, CP, MS, and DB participated to the interpretation of the data in the application of the methodology. All authors agreed to the publication of the present work.

Data availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2022.2131167.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA funded this study and was involved in all stages of study conduct, including analysis of the data. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA also covered all costs associated with the development and publication of this manuscript.