32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Economic evaluations of human schistosomiasis interventions: a systematic review and identification of associated research needs

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Schistosomiasis is one of the most prevalent neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) with an estimated 229 million people requiring preventive treatment worldwide. Recommendations for preventive chemotherapy strategies have been made by the World Health Organization (WHO) whereby the frequency of treatment is determined by the settings prevalence. Despite recent progress, many countries still need to scale up treatment and important questions remain regarding optimal control strategies. This paper presents a systematic review of the economic evaluations of human schistosomiasis interventions.

          Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted on 22nd August 2019 using the PubMed (MEDLINE) and ISI Web of Science electronic databases. The focus was economic evaluations of schistosomiasis interventions, such as cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. No date or language stipulations were applied to the searches.

          Results: We identified 53 relevant health economic analyses of schistosomiasis interventions. Most studies related to Schistosoma japonicum followed by S. haematobium. Several studies also included other NTDs. In Africa, most studies evaluated preventive chemotherapy, whereas in China they mostly evaluated programmes using a combination of interventions (such as chemotherapy, snail control and health education). There was wide variation in the methodology and epidemiological settings investigated. A range of effectiveness metrics were used by the different studies.

          Conclusions: Due to the variation across the identified studies, it was not possible to make definitive policy recommendations. Although, in general, the current WHO recommended preventive chemotherapy approach to control schistosomiasis was found to be cost-effective. This finding has important implications for policymakers, advocacy groups and potential funders. However, there are several important inconsistencies and research gaps (such as how the health benefits of interventions are quantified) that need to be addressed to identify the resources required to achieve schistosomiasis control and elimination.

          Related collections

          Most cited references122

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          The global burden for disease: A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reassessment of the cost of chronic helmintic infection: a meta-analysis of disability-related outcomes in endemic schistosomiasis.

            Schistosomiasis is one of the world's most prevalent infections, yet its effect on the global burden of disease is controversial. Published disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) estimates suggest that the average effect of schistosome infection is quite small, although this is disputed. To develop an evidenced-based reassessment of schistosomiasis-related disability, we did a systematic review of data on disability-associated outcomes for all forms of schistosomiasis. We did structured searches using EMBASE, PUBMED, and Cochrane electronic databases. Published bibliographies were manually searched, and unpublished studies were obtained by contacting research groups. Reports were reviewed and abstracted independently by two trained readers. All randomised and observational studies of schistosomiasis morbidity were eligible for inclusion. We calculated pooled estimates of reported disability-related effects using weighted odds ratios for categorical outcomes and standardised mean differences for continuous data. 482 published or unpublished reports (March, 1921, to July, 2002) were screened. Of 135 selected for inclusion, 51 provided data for performance-related symptoms, whereas 109 reported observed measures of disability-linked morbidities. Schistosomiasis was significantly associated with anaemia, chronic pain, diarrhoea, exercise intolerance, and undernutrition. By contrast with WHO estimates of 0.5% disability weight assigned to schistosomiasis, 2-15% disability seems evident in different functional domains of a person with schistosomiasis. This raised estimate, if confirmed in formal patient-preference studies, indicates a need to reassess our priorities for treating this silent pandemic of schistosomiasis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector

              Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease. The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2398-502X
                13 March 2020
                2020
                : 5
                : 45
                Affiliations
                [1 ]MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, St Mary’s Campus, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PG, UK
                [2 ]Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Wellcome Africa Asia Programme, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
                [3 ]Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [4 ]RTI International, Washington, 20005, USA
                [5 ]Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [6 ]Center for Global Health and Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA
                [7 ]Global Schistosomiasis Alliance, Natural History Museum, London, UK
                [8 ]Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [1 ]Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
                [1 ]Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-3874
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1510-397X
                Article
                10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15754.1
                7308887
                129bab72-8847-4e94-81c7-c6dad179fc1c
                Copyright: © 2020 Turner HC et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 March 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Department for International Development, UK Government
                Award ID: MR/R015600/1
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust
                Award ID: 106680
                Funded by: Medical Research Council
                Award ID: MR/R015600/1
                Funded by: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
                Award ID: OPP1184344
                This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a core grant to the Viet Nam Major Overseas Programme which supports HCT [106680]. This study was also supported by joint funding by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement and is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union [MR/R015600/1 supporting HCT]. JT gratefully acknowledges funding of the NTD Modelling Consortium by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1184344].
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Articles

                schistosomiasis,ntds,economic evaluations,cost-benefit,cost-effectiveness,cost per daly averted,preventive chemotherapy,mda

                Comments

                Comment on this article