https://www.mdu.se/

mdu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Test-and-Not-Treat Strategy for Onchocerciasis Elimination in Loa loa-coendemic Areas: Cost Analysis of a Pilot in the Soa Health District, Cameroon
Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Centre for Research on Filariasis and Other Tropical Diseases, Yaounde, Cameroon.
TransVIHMI, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, University of Montpellier, France.
Centre for Research on Filariasis and Other Tropical Diseases, Yaounde, Cameroon.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Clinical Infectious Diseases, ISSN 1058-4838, E-ISSN 1537-6591, Vol. 70, no 8, p. 1628-1635Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Severe adverse events after treatment with ivermectin in individuals with high levels of Loa loa microfilariae in the blood preclude onchocerciasis elimination through community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) in Central Africa. We measured the cost of a community-based pilot using a test-and-not-treat (TaNT) strategy in the Soa health district in Cameroon. METHODS: Based on actual expenditures, we empirically estimated the economic cost of the Soa TaNT campaign, including financial costs and opportunity costs that will likely be borne by control programs and stakeholders in the future. In addition to the empirical analyses, we estimated base-case, less intensive, and more intensive resource use scenarios to explore how costs might differ if TaNT were implemented programmatically. RESULTS: The total costs of US$283 938 divided by total population, people tested, and people treated with 42% coverage were US$4.0, US$9.2, and US$9.5, respectively. In programmatic implementation, these costs (base-case estimates with less and more intensive scenarios) could be US$2.2 ($1.9-$3.6), US$5.2 ($4.5-$8.3), and US$5.4 ($4.6-$8.6), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TaNT clearly provides a safe strategy for large-scale ivermectin treatment and overcomes a major obstacle to the elimination of onchocerciasis in areas coendemic for Loa loa. Although it is more expensive than standard CDTI, costs vary depending on the setting, the implementation choices made by the institutions involved, and the community participation rate. Research on the required duration of TaNT is needed to improve the affordability assessment, and more experience is needed to understand how to implement TaNT optimally. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
NLM (Medline) , 2020. Vol. 70, no 8, p. 1628-1635
Keywords [en]
Loa loa, cost analysis, disease elimination, onchocerciasis, point-of-care testing
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-56233DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz461ISI: 000536491700017Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85076830164OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-56233DiVA, id: diva2:1603458
Available from: 2021-10-15 Created: 2021-10-15 Last updated: 2022-01-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Redekop, Kenneth W.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Redekop, Kenneth W.
In the same journal
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 32 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf