Global systematic review of cost of illness and economic evaluation studies associated with snakebite

BACKGROUND: Snakebite envenoming, a high priority Neglected Tropical Disease categorized by the World Health Organization (WHO), has been considered as a poverty-related disease that requires greater global awareness and collaboration to establish strategies that effectively decrease economic burdens. This prompts the need for a comprehensive review of the global literature that summarizes the global economic burden and a description of methodology details and their variation. This study aimed to systematically identify studies on cost of illness and economic evaluation associated with snakebites, summarize study findings, and evaluate their methods to provide recommendations for future studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Econlit for articles published from inception to 31 July 2019. Original articles reporting costs or full economic evaluation related with snakebites were included. The methods and reporting quality were assessed. Costs were presented in US dollars (US$) in 2018. RESULTS: Twenty-three cost of illness studies and three economic evaluation studies related to snakebites were included. Majority of studies (18/23, 78.26%) were conducted in Low- and Middle-income countries. Most cost of illness studies (82.61%) were done using hospital-based data of snakebite patients. While, four studies (17.39%) estimated costs of snakebites in communities. Five studies (21.74%) used societal perspective estimating both direct and indirect costs. Only one study (4.35%) undertook incidence-based approach to estimate lifetime costs. Only three studies (13.04%) estimated annual national economic burdens of snakebite which varied drastically from US$126 319 in Burkina Faso to US$13 802 550 in Sri Lanka. Quality of the cost of illness studies were varied and substantially under-reported. All three economic evaluation studies were cost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree model. Two of them assessed cost-effectiveness of having full access to antivenom and reported cost-effective findings. CONCLUSIONS: Economic burdens of snakebite were underestimated and not extensively studied. To accurately capture the economic burdens of snakebites at both the global and local level, hospital data should be collected along with community survey and economic burdens of snakebites should be estimated both in short-term and long-term period to incorporate the lifetime costs and productivity loss due to premature death, disability, and consequences of snakebites.