METHODS: A structured, systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IDEAS/REPEC, OSHLINE, HSELINE, and NIOSHTIC-2 were reviewed. Study quality appraisal was performed using the Table of Evidence Levels from Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Joanna Briggs Institute tools, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and Center of Evidence Based Management case study critical appraisal checklist. Quantitative analysis was not attempted due to the heterogeneity of included studies. A qualitative synthesis of primary studies examining socioeconomic impact of airborne and droplet-borne infectious diseases outbreaks in any industry was performed and a framework based on empirical findings was conceptualized.
RESULTS: A total of 55 studies conducted from 1984 to 2021 were included, reporting on 46,813,038 participants working in multiple industries across the globe. The quality of articles were good. On the whole, direct socioeconomic impacts of Coronavirus Disease 2019, influenza, influenza A (H1N1), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, tuberculosis and norovirus outbreaks include increased morbidity, mortality, and health costs. This had then led to indirect impacts including social impacts such as employment crises and reduced workforce size as well as economic impacts such as demand shock, supply chain disruptions, increased supply and production cost, service and business disruptions, and financial and Gross Domestic Product loss, attributable to productivity losses from illnesses as well as national policy responses to contain the diseases.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that airborne and droplet-borne infectious diseases have inflicted severe socioeconomic costs on regional and global industries. Further research is needed to better understand their long-term socioeconomic impacts to support improved industry preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks. Public and private stakeholders at local, national, and international levels must join forces to ensure informed systems and sector-specific cost-sharing strategies for optimal global health and economic security.
METHODS: Data related to awards to UK institutions for pneumonia research from 1997 to 2013 were systematically sourced and categorised by disease area and type of science. Investment was compared to mortality figures in 2010 and 2013 for pneumonia, tuberculosis and influenza. Investment was also compared to publication data.
RESULTS: Of all infectious disease research between 2011 and 2013 (£917.0 million), £28.8 million (3.1%) was for pneumonia. This was an absolute and proportionate increase from previous time periods. Translational pneumonia research (33.3%) received increased funding compared with 1997-2010 where funding was almost entirely preclinical (87.5%, here 30.9%), but high-burden areas such as paediatrics, elderly care and antimicrobial resistance received little investment. Annual investment remains volatile; publication temporal trends show a consistent increase. When comparing investment to global burden with a novel 'investment by mortality observed' metric, tuberculosis (£48.36) and influenza (£484.21) receive relatively more funding than pneumonia (£43.08), despite investment for pneumonia greatly increasing in 2013 compared to 2010 (£7.39). Limitations include a lack of private sector data and the need for careful interpretation of the comparisons with burden, plus categorisation is subjective.
CONCLUSIONS: There has been a welcome increase for pneumonia funding awarded to UK institutions in 2011-2013 compared with 1997-2010, along with increases for more translational research. Published outputs relating to pneumonia rose steadily from 1997 to 2013. Investment relative to mortality for pneumonia has increased, but it remains low compared to other respiratory infections and clear inequities remain. Analyses that measure investments in pneumonia can provide an insight into funding trends and research gaps.
RESEARCH IN CONTEXT: Pneumonia continues to be a high-burden illness around the globe. This paper shows that although research funding is increasing in the UK (between 1997 and 2013), it remains poorly funded compared to other important respiratory infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and influenza. Publications about pneumonia have been steadily increasing over time, indicating continuing academic and clinical interest in the topic. Though global mortality of pneumonia is declining, it should still be an area of high priority for funders, policymakers and researchers.
METHODS: The pharmacology module consisted of a pharmacokinetic distribution of oseltamivir carboxylate daily area under the concentration-time curve at steady state (simulated for 75 mg and 150 mg twice daily regimens for 5 days) and a pharmacodynamic distribution of viral shedding duration obtained from phase II influenza inoculation data. The epidemiological module comprised a susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered (SEIR) model to which drug effect on the basic reproductive number (R0 ), a measure of transmissibility, was linked by reduction of viral shedding duration. The number of infected patients per population of 100 000 susceptible individuals was simulated for a series of pandemic scenarios, varying oseltamivir dose, R0 (1.9 vs. 2.7), and drug uptake (25%, 50%, and 80%). The number of infected patients for each scenario was entered into the health economics module, a decision analytic model populated with branch probabilities, disease utility, costs of hospitalized patients developing complications, and case-fatality rates. Change in quality-adjusted life years was determined relative to base case.
RESULTS: Oseltamivir 75 mg relative to no treatment reduced the median number of infected patients, increased change in quality-adjusted life years by deaths averted, and was cost-saving under all scenarios; 150 mg relative to 75 mg was not cost effective in low transmissibility scenarios but was cost saving in high transmissibility scenarios.
CONCLUSION: This methodological study demonstrates proof of concept that the disciplines of pharmacology, disease epidemiology and health economics can be linked in a single quantitative framework.