AMR is an important cause area for health and wellbeing. It currently causes around 1.27 million deaths per year (47.9 million DALYs) and is associated with 4.95 million deaths per year (192 million DALYs).[i] It killed more people that malaria or HIV/AIDs in 2019.[ii]
Averting all deaths and DALYs from AMR is not feasible, but even with only a 50% success rate on AMR interventions, investing USD 2 per person per year in Europe, North America and Australia would save three out of four deaths from AMR.[iii]
AMR is forecast to kill up to 10 million people per year in 2050 if not controlled.[iv]
Let’s take the 2 USD per person saving 75% of deaths in EU, North America and Australia to hold across the rest of the world as that link is behind paywall.
In that case, this $2 USD * 8bn saves 75% of the 1.27m − 4.96m that currently die per year, so 0.95m - 3.7m lives saved for 16bn USD, or between 16,842 USD / life and 4,323 USD / life.
Your estimates sound right to me, based on the numbers you’ve used. I agree with you that it’s best to calculate based on those numbers, but I think it’s worth investigating further whether they’re on the conservative side or not.
I have the start to some thinking on that, based on the following.
First, most of the deaths from AMR do not occur in Europe, North America, and Australia (which the OECD report was focussed on). Rather, they occur in LMICs. I noted in the piece, “Looking to the near-term future, the rate of AMR is forecast to increase by 4-7 times more in LMICs than in OECD countries between 2018-2030.[xxiv]” That might be relevant to our estimates for how cost-effective intervening in AMR is, because it may be that more localised interventions are possible in LMICs, at least for some resistant pathogens. It may, then, be cheaper and still effective to intervene more locally.
Second, as the World Bank report [xlvi] noted, AMR containment measures would cost around 9 billion annually in LMICs. If you base your calculations on that figure instead, extrapolated out worldwide, the cost-effectiveness estimates don’t change too much, so it seems we don’t get over-conservative estimates from using figures for interventions in Europe, North America and Australia.
Third, one aspect that does make your estimate relatively conservative is the use of the 2019 figures. That’s the most recent data we have but recall that by 2050 we could see up to 10 million deaths per year caused by AMR. [iv]
Overall, I’m not sure what the implications are for your estimates, but just some points to bear in mind.
Hi, thanks for the write up!
Your top two points:
AMR is an important cause area for health and wellbeing. It currently causes around 1.27 million deaths per year (47.9 million DALYs) and is associated with 4.95 million deaths per year (192 million DALYs).[i] It killed more people that malaria or HIV/AIDs in 2019.[ii]
Averting all deaths and DALYs from AMR is not feasible, but even with only a 50% success rate on AMR interventions, investing USD 2 per person per year in Europe, North America and Australia would save three out of four deaths from AMR.[iii]
AMR is forecast to kill up to 10 million people per year in 2050 if not controlled.[iv]
Let’s take the 2 USD per person saving 75% of deaths in EU, North America and Australia to hold across the rest of the world as that link is behind paywall.
In that case, this $2 USD * 8bn saves 75% of the 1.27m − 4.96m that currently die per year, so 0.95m - 3.7m lives saved for 16bn USD, or between 16,842 USD / life and 4,323 USD / life.
Does this seem right to you?
Hi James,
Thanks for your comment!
Your estimates sound right to me, based on the numbers you’ve used. I agree with you that it’s best to calculate based on those numbers, but I think it’s worth investigating further whether they’re on the conservative side or not.
I have the start to some thinking on that, based on the following.
First, most of the deaths from AMR do not occur in Europe, North America, and Australia (which the OECD report was focussed on). Rather, they occur in LMICs. I noted in the piece, “Looking to the near-term future, the rate of AMR is forecast to increase by 4-7 times more in LMICs than in OECD countries between 2018-2030.[xxiv]” That might be relevant to our estimates for how cost-effective intervening in AMR is, because it may be that more localised interventions are possible in LMICs, at least for some resistant pathogens. It may, then, be cheaper and still effective to intervene more locally.
Second, as the World Bank report [xlvi] noted, AMR containment measures would cost around 9 billion annually in LMICs. If you base your calculations on that figure instead, extrapolated out worldwide, the cost-effectiveness estimates don’t change too much, so it seems we don’t get over-conservative estimates from using figures for interventions in Europe, North America and Australia.
Third, one aspect that does make your estimate relatively conservative is the use of the 2019 figures. That’s the most recent data we have but recall that by 2050 we could see up to 10 million deaths per year caused by AMR. [iv]
Overall, I’m not sure what the implications are for your estimates, but just some points to bear in mind.
Thanks again for the comment!