8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Are current preventive chemotherapy strategies for controlling and eliminating neglected tropical diseases cost-effective?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in many low-income and middle-income countries. Several NTDs, namely lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminthiases (STH) and trachoma, are predominantly controlled by preventive chemotherapy (or mass drug administration), following recommendations set by the WHO. Over one billion people are now treated for NTDs with this strategy per year. However, further investment and increased domestic healthcare spending are urgently needed to continue these programmes. Consequently, it is vital that the cost-effectiveness of preventive chemotherapy is understood. We analyse the current estimates on the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) of the preventive chemotherapy strategies predominantly used for these diseases and identify key evidence gaps that require further research. Overall, the reported estimates show that preventive chemotherapy is generally cost-effective, supporting WHO recommendations. More specifically, the cost per DALY averted estimates relating to community-wide preventive chemotherapy for lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis were particularly favourable when compared with other public health interventions. Cost per DALY averted estimates of school-based preventive chemotherapy for schistosomiasis and STH were also generally favourable but more variable. Notably, the broader socioeconomic benefits are likely not being fully captured by the DALYs averted metric. No estimates of cost per DALY averted relating to community-wide mass antibiotic treatment for trachoma were found, highlighting the need for further research. These findings are important for informing global health policy and support the need for continuing NTD control and elimination efforts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references106

          • 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: found
            Is Open Access

            Country-Level Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Initial Estimates and the Need for Further Research

            Background Cost-effectiveness analysis can guide policymakers in resource allocation decisions. It assesses whether the health gains offered by an intervention are large enough relative to any additional costs to warrant adoption. When there are constraints on the health care system’s budget or ability to increase expenditures, additional costs imposed by interventions have an “opportunity cost” in terms of the health foregone because other interventions cannot be provided. Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) are typically used to assess whether an intervention is worthwhile and should reflect health opportunity cost. Nevertheless, CETs used by some decision makers—such as the World Health Organization that suggested CETs of 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita—do not. Objectives To estimate CETs based on opportunity cost for a wide range of countries. Methods We estimated CETs based on recent empirical estimates of opportunity cost (from the English National Health Service), estimates of the relationship between country GDP per capita and the value of a statistical life, and a series of explicit assumptions. Results CETs for Malawi (the country with the lowest income in the world), Cambodia (with borderline low/low-middle income), El Salvador (with borderline low-middle/upper-middle income), and Kazakhstan (with borderline high-middle/high income) were estimated to be $3 to $116 (1%–51% GDP per capita), $44 to $518 (4%–51%), $422 to $1967 (11%–51%), and $4485 to $8018 (32%–59%), respectively. Conclusions To date, opportunity-cost-based CETs for low-/middle-income countries have not been available. Although uncertainty exists in the underlying assumptions, these estimates can provide a useful input to inform resource allocation decisions and suggest that routinely used CETs have been too high.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

              Measurement of the global burden of disease with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) requires disability weights that quantify health losses for all non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. There has been extensive debate about a range of conceptual and methodological issues concerning the definition and measurement of these weights. Our primary objective was a comprehensive re-estimation of disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 through a large-scale empirical investigation in which judgments about health losses associated with many causes of disease and injury were elicited from the general public in diverse communities through a new, standardised approach. We surveyed respondents in two ways: household surveys of adults aged 18 years or older (face-to-face interviews in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania; telephone interviews in the USA) between Oct 28, 2009, and June 23, 2010; and an open-access web-based survey between July 26, 2010, and May 16, 2011. The surveys used paired comparison questions, in which respondents considered two hypothetical individuals with different, randomly selected health states and indicated which person they regarded as healthier. The web survey added questions about population health equivalence, which compared the overall health benefits of different life-saving or disease-prevention programmes. We analysed paired comparison responses with probit regression analysis on all 220 unique states in the study. We used results from the population health equivalence responses to anchor the results from the paired comparisons on the disability weight scale from 0 (implying no loss of health) to 1 (implying a health loss equivalent to death). Additionally, we compared new disability weights with those used in WHO's most recent update of the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2004. 13,902 individuals participated in household surveys and 16,328 in the web survey. Analysis of paired comparison responses indicated a high degree of consistency across surveys: correlations between individual survey results and results from analysis of the pooled dataset were 0·9 or higher in all surveys except in Bangladesh (r=0·75). Most of the 220 disability weights were located on the mild end of the severity scale, with 58 (26%) having weights below 0·05. Five (11%) states had weights below 0·01, such as mild anaemia, mild hearing or vision loss, and secondary infertility. The health states with the highest disability weights were acute schizophrenia (0·76) and severe multiple sclerosis (0·71). We identified a broad pattern of agreement between the old and new weights (r=0·70), particularly in the moderate-to-severe range. However, in the mild range below 0·2, many states had significantly lower weights in our study than previously. This study represents the most extensive empirical effort as yet to measure disability weights. By contrast with the popular hypothesis that disability assessments vary widely across samples with different cultural environments, we have reported strong evidence of highly consistent results. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2021
                12 August 2021
                : 6
                : 8
                : e005456
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health , Imperial College London , London, UK
                [2 ]Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Wellcome Africa Asia Programme , Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
                [3 ]departmentCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Public Health , Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam , Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases , World Health Organization , Geneva, Switzerland
                [6 ]departmentDepartment of Tropical Disease Biology , Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine , Liverpool, UK
                [7 ]departmentBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Hugo C Turner; hugo.turner@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjgh-2021-005456
                10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005456
                8362715
                34385158
                8227c901-473b-4a44-8276-f3469646999d
                ©World Health Organization 2021. Licensee BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non commercial IGO License (CC BY-NC 3.0 IGO), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction for non-commercial purposes in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.

                History
                : 19 February 2021
                : 23 April 2021
                : 26 April 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 106680/Z/14/Z
                Funded by: Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis;
                Award ID: MR/R015600/1
                Funded by: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation;
                Award ID: OPP1184344
                Categories
                Analysis
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                health economics,onchocerciasis,soil-transmitted helminth infections,schistosomiasis,trachoma

                Comments

                Comment on this article