Search

Background: Human communities suffered a vast socioeconomic burden in dealing with the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally. Real-word data about these burdens can inform governments about evidence-based resource allocation and prioritization. The aim of this scoping review was to map the cost-of-illness (CoI) studies associated with COVID-19. Methods: This scoping review was conducted from January 2019 to December 2021. We searched cost-of-illness papers published in English within Web of Sciences, PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct and ProQuest. For each eligible study, extracted data included country, publication year, study period, study design, epidemiological approach, costing method, cost type, cost identification, sensitivity analysis, estimated unit cost and national burden. All of the analyses were applied in Excel software. Results: 2352 records were found after the search strategy application, finally 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most of the studies were done in the United States, Turkey, and China. The prevalence-based approach was the most common in the studies, and most of studies also used Hospital Information System data (HIS). There were noticeable differences in the costing methods and the cost identification. The average cost of hospitalization per patient per day ranged from 101$ in Turkey to 2,364$ in the United States. Among the studies, 82.1% estimated particularly direct medical costs, 3.6% only indirect costs, and 14.3% both direct and indirect costs. Conclusion: The economic burden of COVID-19 varies from country to country. The majority of CoI studies estimated direct medical costs associated with COVID-19 and there is a paucity of evidence for direct non-medical, indirect, and intangible costs, which we recommend for future studies. To create homogeneity in CoI studies, we suggest researchers follow a conceptual framework and critical appraisal checklist of cost-of-illness (CoI) studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: "Neglected Tropical Diseases" (NTDs) affect millions of people in Africa, Asia and South America. The two primary ways of strategic interventions are "preventive chemotherapy and transmission control" (PCT), and "innovative and intensified disease management" (IDM). In the last 5 years, phenomenal progress has been achieved. However, it is crucial to intensify research effort into NTDs, because of the emerging drug resistance. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the term NTDs covers 17 diseases, namely buruli ulcer, Chagas disease, dengue, dracunculiasis, echinococcosis, trematodiasis, human African trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis, leprosy, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, rabies, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminthes, taeniasis, trachoma, and yaws. The aim of this study is to map out research and development (R&D) landscape through patent analysis of these identified NTDs. To achieve this, analysis and evaluation have been conducted on patenting trends, current legal status of patent families, priority countries by earliest priority years and their assignee types, technological fields of patent families over time, and original and current patent assignees.Main Body: Patent families were extracted from Patseer, an international database of patents from over 100 patent issuing authorities worldwide. Evaluation of the patents was carried out using the combination of different search terms related to each identified NTD. In this paper, a total number of 12,350 patent families were analyzed. The main countries with sources of inventions were identified to be the United States (US) and China. The main technological fields covered by NTDs patent landscape are pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, organic fine chemistry, analysis of biological materials, basic materials chemistry, and medical technology. Governmental institutions and universities are the primary original assignees. Among the NTDs, leishmaniasis, dengue, and rabies received the highest number of patent families, while human African trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness), taeniasis, and dracunciliasis received the least. The overall trend of patent families shows an increase between 1985 and 2008, and followed by at least 6 years of stagnation.Conclusion: The filing pattern of patent families analyzed undoubtedly reveals slow progress on research and development of NTDs. Involving new players, such as non-governmental organizations may help to mitigate and reduce the burden of NTDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An opinion currently shared by taxonomists and non taxonomists alike is that the work of inventorying biodiversity is unbalanced: firstly, in favour of countries in which taxonomy has been studied for a long time, and, secondly, in favour of vertebrates. In the current context of threats of species extinction, access for taxonomists to biological material and information becomes crucial if the scientific community really aims at a better knowledge of biological diversity before it is severely and irreversibly impoverished. We performed an analysis of 748 papers published in Zootaxa in 2006 and 2007, as well as 434 questionnaires sent to their authors to test these opinions. A generalization of these results to zoological taxonomy as a whole is discussed. Discussion: We found that the disequilibrium is not exactly what it usually considered to be. The USA, China and Brazil are currently the three leading countries in zoological taxonomy. Each of them presents, however, a different pattern. Taxonomists from Asia and South America are younger and mainly work in universities, not museums. A bias in favour of vertebrates still exists if we refer to the effort invested in each group to produce taxonomic data, but not to the number of papers. Finally, we insist on the idea that "describing a species" is very different from "knowing a species". Summary: The taxonomic involvement of a country, in terms of manpower and funding, appears to be a key factor in the development of fruitful taxonomic research. This message seems to have been understood by the countries that recently decided to increase considerably their taxonomic involvement. It still has to be received by those who did not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]