Search

Background: Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) and schistosomiasis comprise the most wide-spread NTDs globally. Preventative chemotherapy is a cost-effective approach to controlling morbidity of both diseases, but relies on large scale surveys to determine and revise treatment frequency. Availability of detailed information on survey costs is limited despite recent methodological surveying innovations. We micro-costed a survey of STH and schistosomiasis in Kenya, and linked results to precision estimates of competing survey methods to compare cost-efficiency., Methods: Costs from a 2017 Kenyan parasitological survey were retrospectively analyzed and extrapolated to explore marginal changes when altering survey size, defined by the number of schools sampled and the number of samples taken per school. Subsequent costs were applied to simulated precision estimates of model-based geostatistical (MBG) and traditional survey designs. Cost-precision was calculated for a range of survey sizes per method. Four traditional survey design scenarios, based around WHO guidelines, were selected to act as reference cases for calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for MBG design., Findings: MBG designed surveys showed improved cost-precision, particularly if optimizing number of schools against samples per school. MBG was found to be more cost-effective under 87 of 92 comparisons to reference cases. This comprised 14 situations where MBG was both cheaper and more precise, 42 which had cost saving with precision trade off (ICERs; $8,915-$344,932 per percentage precision lost); and 31 more precise with increased cost (ICERs; $426-$147,748 per percentage precision gained). The remaining 5 comparisons represented extremes of MBG simulated site selection, unlikely to be applied in practice., Interpretation: Efficiency gains are possible for deworming surveys when considering cost alone, such as through minimizing sample or analysis costs. However further efficiency maximization is possible when designing surveys using MBG given its improved precision and ability to optimize the balance between number of schools and sample size per school., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Minnery et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Schistosomiasis, a disease caused by blood flukes of the genus Schistosoma, belongs to the neglected tropical diseases. Left untreated, schistosomiasis can lead to severe health problems and even death. An estimated 800 million people are at risk of schistosomiasis and 250 million people are infected. The global strategy to control and eliminate schistosomiasis emphasizes large-scale preventive chemotherapy with praziquantel targeting school-age children. Other tools are available, such as information, education, and communication (IEC), improved access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), and snail control. Despite available evidence of the effectiveness of these control measures, analyses estimating the most cost-effective control or elimination strategies are scarce, inaccurate, and lack standardization. We systematically reviewed the literature on costs related to public health interventions against schistosomiasis to strengthen the current evidence-base., Methodology: In adherence to the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched three readily available electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, WHOLIS, and ISI Web of Science) from inception to April 2019 with no language restrictions. Relevant documents were screened, duplicates eliminated, specific rules on studies to consider were defined, and the eligible studies fully reviewed. Costs of schistosomiasis interventions were classified in three groups: (i) preventive chemotherapy; (ii) preventive chemotherapy plus an individual diagnostic test to identify at-risk population; and (iii) test-and-treat interventions., Principal Findings: Fifteen articles met our inclusion criteria. In general, it was hard to compare the reported costs from the different studies due to different approaches used to estimate and classify the costs of the intervention assessed. Costs varied considerably from one study to another, ranging from US$ 0.06 to US$ 4.46 per person treated. The difference between financial and opportunity costs only played a minimal role in the explanation of the costs' variation, even if delivery costs were two times higher in the analyses including economic costs. Most of the studies identified in our systematic review focused on sub-Saharan African countries., Conclusions/significance: The degree of transparency of most of the costing studies of schistosomiasis interventions found in the current review was limited. Hence, there is a pressing need for strategies to improve the quality of cost analyses, and higher reporting standards and transparency that should be fostered by peer-review journal policies. Cost information on these interventions is crucial to inform resource allocation decisions and those regarding the affordability of scaling-up interventions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) account for a large disease burden in sub-Saharan Africa. While the general cost-effectiveness of NTD interventions to improve health outcomes has been assessed, few studies have also accounted for the financial and education gains of investing in NTD control., Methods: We built on extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) methods to assess the health gains (e.g. infections, disability-adjusted life years or DALYs averted), household financial gains (out-of-pocket expenditures averted), and education gains (cases of school absenteeism averted) for five NTD interventions that the government of Madagascar aims to roll out nationally. The five NTDs considered were schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis, and three soil-transmitted helminthiases (Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, and hookworm infections)., Results: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness for the roll-out of preventive chemotherapy for all NTDs jointly was USD125 per DALY averted (95% uncertainty range: 65-231), and its benefit-cost ratio could vary between 5 and 31. Our analysis estimated that, per dollar spent, schistosomiasis preventive chemotherapy, in particular, could avert a large number of infections (176,000 infections averted per $100,000 spent), DALYs (2,000 averted per $100,000 spent), and cases of school absenteeism (27,000 school years gained per $100,000 spent)., Conclusion: This analysis incorporates financial and education gains into the economic evaluation of health interventions, and therefore provides information about the efficiency of attainment of three Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our findings reveal how the national scale-up of NTD control in Madagascar can help address health (SDG3), economic (SDG1), and education (SDG4) goals. This study further highlights the potentially large societal benefits of investing in NTD control in low-resource settings., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths (STH) and trachoma represent the five most prevalent neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). They can be controlled or eliminated by means of safe and cost-effective interventions delivered through programs of Mass Drug Administration (MDA)-also named Preventive Chemotherapy (PCT). The WHO defined targets for NTD control/elimination by 2020, reinforced by the 2012 London Declaration, which, if achieved, would result in dramatic health gains. We estimated the potential economic benefit of achieving these targets, focusing specifically on productivity and out-of-pocket payments., Methods: Productivity loss was calculated by combining disease frequency with productivity loss from the disease, from the perspective of affected individuals. Productivity gain was calculated by deducting the total loss expected in the target achievement scenario from the loss in a counterfactual scenario where it was assumed the pre-intervention situation in 1990 regarding NTDs would continue unabated until 2030. Economic benefits from out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) were calculated similarly. Benefits are reported in 2005 US$ (purchasing power parity-adjusted and discounted at 3% per annum from 2010). Sensitivity analyses were used to assess the influence of changes in input parameters., Results: The economic benefit from productivity gain was estimated to be I$251 billion in 2011-2020 and I$313 billion in 2021-2030, considerably greater than the total OPPs averted of I$0.72 billion and I$0.96 billion in the same periods. The net benefit is expected to be US$ 27.4 and US$ 42.8 for every dollar invested during the same periods. Impact varies between NTDs and regions, since it is determined by disease prevalence and extent of disease-related productivity loss., Conclusion: Achieving the PCT-NTD targets for 2020 will yield significant economic benefits to affected individuals. Despite large uncertainty, these benefits far exceed the investment required by governments and their development partners within all reasonable scenarios. Given the concentration of the NTDs among the poorest households, these investments represent good value for money in efforts to share the world's prosperity and reduce inequity.

Background: Advocacy around mass treatment for the elimination of selected Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) has typically put the cost per person treated at less than US$ 0.50. Whilst useful for advocacy, the focus on a single number misrepresents the complexity of delivering "free" donated medicines to about a billion people across the world. We perform a literature review and meta-regression of the cost per person per round of mass treatment against NTDs. We develop a web-based software application (https://healthy.shinyapps.io/benchmark/) to calculate setting-specific unit costs against which programme budgets and expenditures or results-based pay-outs can be benchmarked., Methods: We reviewed costing studies of mass treatment for the control, elimination or eradication of lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminthiasis, onchocerciasis, trachoma and yaws. These are the main 6 NTDs for which mass treatment is recommended. We extracted financial and economic unit costs, adjusted to a standard definition and base year. We regressed unit costs on the number of people treated and other explanatory variables. Regression results were used to "predict" country-specific unit cost benchmarks., Results: We reviewed 56 costing studies and included in the meta-regression 34 studies from 23 countries and 91 sites. Unit costs were found to be very sensitive to economies of scale, and the decision of whether or not to use local volunteers. Financial unit costs are expected to be less than 2015 US$ 0.50 in most countries for programmes that treat 100 thousand people or more. However, for smaller programmes, including those in the "last mile", or those that cannot rely on local volunteers, both economic and financial unit costs are expected to be higher., Discussion: The available evidence confirms that mass treatment offers a low cost public health intervention on the path towards universal health coverage. However, more costing studies focussed on elimination are needed. Unit cost benchmarks can help in monitoring value for money in programme plans, budgets and accounts, or in setting a reasonable pay-out for results-based financing mechanisms., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Epidemiological data from Zimbabwe suggests that genital infection with Schistosoma haematobium may increase the risk of HIV infection in young women. Therefore, the treatment of Schistosoma haematobium with praziquantel could be a potential strategy for reducing HIV infection. Here we assess the potential cost-effectiveness of praziquantel as a novel intervention strategy against HIV infection., Methods: We developed a mathematical model of female genital schistosomiasis (FGS) and HIV infections in Zimbabwe that we fitted to cross-sectional data of FGS and HIV prevalence of 1999. We validated our epidemic projections using antenatal clinic data on HIV prevalence. We simulated annual praziquantel administration to school-age children. We then used these model predictions to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of annual administration of praziquantel as a potential measure to reduce the burden of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa., Findings: We showed that for a variation of efficacy between 30-70% of mass praziquantel administration for reducing the enhanced risk of HIV transmission per sexual act due to FGS, annual administration of praziquantel to school-age children in Zimbabwe could result in net savings of US$16-101 million compared with no mass treatment of schistosomiasis over a ten-year period. For a variation in efficacy between 30-70% of mass praziquantel administration for reducing the acquisition of FGS, annual administration of praziquantel to school-age children could result in net savings of US$36-92 million over a ten-year period., Conclusions: In addition to reducing schistosomiasis burden, mass praziquantel administration may be a highly cost-effective way of reducing HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa. Program costs per case of HIV averted are similar to, and under some conditions much better than, other interventions that are currently implemented in Africa to reduce HIV transmission. As a cost-saving strategy, mass praziquantel administration should be prioritized over other less cost-effective public health interventions.

Background: In 2004 Niger established a large scale schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths control programme targeting children aged 5-14 years and adults. In two years 4.3 million treatments were delivered in 40 districts using school based and community distribution., Method and Findings: Four districts were surveyed in 2006 to estimate the economic cost per district, per treatment and per schistosomiasis infection averted. The study compares the costs of treatment at start up and in a subsequent year, identifies the allocation of costs by activity, input and organisation, and assesses the cost of treatment. The cost of delivery provided by teachers is compared to cost of delivery by community distributers (CDD). The total economic cost of the programme including programmatic, national and local government costs and international support in four study districts, over two years, was US$ 456,718; an economic cost/treatment of $0.58. The full economic delivery cost of school based treatment in 2005/06 was $0.76, and for community distribution was $0.46. Including only the programme costs the figures are $0.47 and $0.41 respectively. Differences at sub-district are more marked. This is partly explained by the fact that a CDD treats 5.8 people for every one treated in school. The range in cost effectiveness for both direct and direct and indirect treatments is quantified and the need to develop and refine such estimates is emphasised., Conclusions: The relative cost effectiveness of school and community delivery differs by country according to the composition of the population treated, the numbers targeted and treated at school and in the community, the cost and frequency of training teachers and CDDs. Options analysis of technical and implementation alternatives including a financial analysis should form part of the programme design process.

Background: Controversy persists about the optimal approach to drug-based control of schistosomiasis in high-risk communities. In a systematic review of published studies, we examined evidence for incremental benefits from repeated praziquantel dosing, given 2 to 8 weeks after an initial dose, in Schistosoma-endemic areas of Africa., Methodology/principal Findings: We performed systematic searches of electronic databases PubMed and EMBASE for relevant data using search terms 'schistosomiasis', 'dosing' and 'praziquantel' and hand searches of personal collections and bibliographies of recovered articles. In 10 reports meeting study criteria, improvements in parasitological treatment outcomes after two doses of praziquantel were greater for S. mansoni infection than for S. haematobium infection. Observed cure rates (positive to negative conversion in egg detection assays) were, for S. mansoni, 69-91% cure after two doses vs. 42-79% after one dose and, for S. haematobium, 46-99% cure after two doses vs. 37-93% after a single dose. Treatment benefits in terms of reduction in intensity (mean egg count) were also different for the two species-for S. mansoni, the 2-dose regimen yielded an weighted average 89% reduction in standardized egg counts compared to a 83% reduction after one dose; for S. haematobium, two doses gave a 93% reduction compared to a 94% reduction with a single dose. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on Markov life path modeling., Conclusions/significance: Although schedules for repeated treatment with praziquantel require greater inputs in terms of direct costs and community participation, there are incremental benefits to this approach at an estimated cost of $153 (S. mansoni)-$211 (S. haematobium) per additional lifetime QALY gained by double treatment in school-based programs. More rapid reduction of infection-related disease may improve program adherence, and if, as an externality of the program, transmission can be reduced through more effective coverage, significant additional benefits are expected to accrue in the targeted communities.

Background: Because lymphatic filariasis (LF) elimination efforts are hampered by a dearth of economic information about the cost of mass drug administration (MDA) programs (using either albendazole with diethylcarbamazine [DEC] or albendazole with ivermectin), a multicenter study was undertaken to determine the costs of MDA programs to interrupt transmission of infection with LF. Such results are particularly important because LF programs have the necessary diagnostic and treatment tools to eliminate the disease as a public health problem globally, and already by 2006, the Global Programme to Eliminate LF had initiated treatment programs covering over 400 million of the 1.3 billion people at risk., Methodology/principal Findings: To obtain annual costs to carry out the MDA strategy, researchers from seven countries developed and followed a common cost analysis protocol designed to estimate 1) the total annual cost of the LF program, 2) the average cost per person treated, and 3) the relative contributions of the endemic countries and the external partners. Costs per person treated ranged from $0.06 to $2.23. Principal reasons for the variation were 1) the age (newness) of the MDA program, 2) the use of volunteers, and 3) the size of the population treated. Substantial contributions by governments were documented - generally 60%-90% of program operation costs, excluding costs of donated medications., Conclusions/significance: MDA for LF elimination is comparatively inexpensive in relation to most other public health programs. Governments and communities make the predominant financial contributions to actual MDA implementation, not counting the cost of the drugs themselves. The results highlight the impact of the use of volunteers on program costs and provide specific cost data for 7 different countries that can be used as a basis both for modifying current programs and for developing new ones.