IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v66y2021ics0160791x21001160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health economics matters in the nanomaterial world: Cost-effectiveness of utilizing an inhalable antibacterial nanomaterial for the treatment of multidrug-resistant pneumonia

Author

Listed:
  • Uskoković, Vuk

Abstract

Bacterial pathogens rapidly develop resistance to clinically approved antibiotics. Together with the subsiding economic incentives for the development of newer and more effective antibiotic therapies, this threatens to cause a bacterial disease pandemic in the next 30 years. For this reason, timely analyses of various scientific and socioeconomic aspects of alternatives to traditional antibiotic therapies are needed. Here, pharmacoeconomic cost-of-illness, cost-effectiveness and price sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of multidrug resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa implicated in pneumonia on healthcare systems of the United States and of the developing countries. The assessment was extended to include the effects of various therapies for this condition, one group of which consisted of colistin administered intravenously or with the use of a nebulizer and another therapy coming in the form of an inhalable colloidal formulation comprising biocompatible antibacterial nanoparticles. Both colistin and nanoparticle therapies produced net gain per quality adjusted life year (QALY) saved for patients with pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa in the United States. In the developing world, in contrast, where the pricing sensitivity is shown to be higher, there is a positive cost of $8800 and $3600 per QALY saved associated with the use of colistin at a price adjusted to the local economy and administered through a parenteral route or through a nebulizer, respectively. Simultaneously, thanks to the higher affordability compensating for the 15% lower clinical efficacy assumed in the model, there is a net gain of $10,100 per QALY saved with the use of the nanoparticle formulation, translating to $52,000 gain for each life saved by the treatment. In conclusion, inorganic nanoparticle therapies for infectious disease are not only more immune to eliciting resistance than small-molecule antibiotics, but are also more applicable in low-cost healthcare systems of the developing world. The current generation of antibiotic therapies is cost-effective in high-cost healthcare systems, such as the one of the United States, but its application in more frugal settings, where pricing is as important as efficacy, comes with tremendous costs. These results demonstrate the considerable disparity in profit margin flexibility depending on the wealth and the size of the healthcare economy, which contributes daily to the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.

Suggested Citation

  • Uskoković, Vuk, 2021. "Health economics matters in the nanomaterial world: Cost-effectiveness of utilizing an inhalable antibacterial nanomaterial for the treatment of multidrug-resistant pneumonia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:66:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x21001160
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X21001160
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101641?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fox, Stephen & Griffy-Brown, Charla & Dabic, Marina, 2020. "From socio-technical systems to biosocial technical systems: New themes and new guidance for the field of technology in society," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    2. Carin A. Uyl-de Groot & Elisabeth M. van Rooijen & Cornelis J. A. Punt & Chris P. Pescott, 2018. "Real-world cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on patient chart review in the Netherlands," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    3. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    4. Uskoković, Vuk, 2007. "Nanotechnologies: What we do not know," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 43-61.
    5. Arnall, Alexander & Parr, Douglass, 2005. "Moving the nanoscience and technology (NST) debate forwards: short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 23-38.
    6. Paul Tappenden & Sue Harnan & Lesley Uttley & Matthew Mildred & Martin Walshaw & Christopher Taylor & Keith Brownlee, 2014. "The Cost Effectiveness of Dry Powder Antibiotics for the Treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 159-172, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Husain, Shaiara & Sohag, Kazi & Wu, Yanrui, 2022. "The response of green energy and technology investment to climate policy uncertainty: An application of twin transitions strategy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. de Almeida, Liliane & Augusto de Jesus Pacheco, Diego & Caten, Carla Schwengber ten & Jung, Carlos Fernando, 2021. "A methodology for identifying results and impacts in technological innovation projects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Nuru, Jude T. & Rhoades, Jason L. & Gruber, James S., 2021. "The socio-technical barriers and strategies for overcoming the barriers to deploying solar mini-grids in rural islands: Evidence from Ghana," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Poh Kam Wong & Yuen Ping Ho & Casey K. Chan, 2007. "Internationalization and evolution of application areas of an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 715-737, March.
    5. Ferasso, Marcos & Grenier, Corinne, 2021. "Fostering SME's co-development of innovative projects in biotech clusters: Extending the sets of enablers for the knowledge creation process," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    6. Foley, Rider W. & Wiek, Arnim, 2013. "Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 233-247.
    7. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    8. Masci, Martín Ezequiel, 2012. "Irreversibilidad e incertidumbre de las decisiones financieras en i&d [Irreversibility and uncertainty of the financial investments on r&d]," MPRA Paper 40970, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bowman, Diana M., 2007. "Patently obvious: Intellectual property rights and nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 307-315.
    10. Kuhlmann, Stefan & Stegmaier, Peter & Konrad, Kornelia, 2019. "The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1091-1097.
    11. Vasileios Ntouros & Ioannis Kousis & Dimitra Papadaki & Anna Laura Pisello & Margarita Niki Assimakopoulos, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment on Different Synthetic Routes of ZIF-8 Nanomaterials," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-22, August.
    12. Nazareno, Luísa & Schiff, Daniel S., 2021. "The impact of automation and artificial intelligence on worker well-being," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Uglješa Stankov & Ulrike Gretzel & Miroslav D. Vujičić & Vanja Pavluković & Tamara Jovanović & Milica Solarević & Marija Cimbaljević, 2022. "The pandemic of loneliness: designing smart tourism for combating loneliness," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 439-455, December.
    14. Sheona A. K. Read & Gary S. Kass & Hilary R. Sutcliffe & Steven M. Hankin, 2016. "Foresight Study on the Risk Governance of New Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1006-1024, May.
    15. Wu, Lin & Zhang, Fan & Chang, Sun Joseph & Zhang, Zhiguang, 2021. "How do the internet technological developments shift the consumption pattern of paper products? Evidence from China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    16. Wiek, Arnim & Walter, Alexander I., 2009. "A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 360-370, August.
    17. Mohammad, Taufik & Mohamed Hussin, Nur Atikah & Husin, Mohd Heikal, 2022. "Online safety awareness and human factors: An application of the theory of human ecology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    18. Tyshenko, Michael G., 2014. "Nanotechnology framing in the Canadian national news media," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 38-48.
    19. Boer, Duncan den & Rip, Arie & Speller, Sylvia, 2009. "Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: A methodology that enhances reflexivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 295-304.
    20. Suenaga, Keiichiro, 2020. "The ‘Industrial Enlightenment’ and technological paradigms of the modern steel industry," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:66:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x21001160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.