Lessons Learned From Developing an Eradication Investment Case for Lymphatic Filariasis

Moving towards malaria elimination in southern Mozambique: Cost and cost-effectiveness of mass drug administration combined with intensified malaria control

BACKGROUND

As new combinations of interventions aiming at interrupting malaria transmission are under evaluation, understanding the associated economic costs and benefits is critical for decision-making. This study assessed the economic cost and cost-effectiveness of the Magude project, a malaria elimination initiative implemented in a district in southern Mozambique (i.e. Magude) between August 2015-June 2018. This project piloted a combination of two mass drug administration (MDA) rounds per year for two consecutive years, annual rounds of universal indoor residual spraying (IRS) and a strengthened surveillance and response system on the back of universal long-lasting insecticide treated net (LLIN) coverage and routine case management implemented by the National Malaria Control Program (NMCP). Although local transmission was not interrupted, the project achieved large reductions in the burden of malaria in the target district.

METHODS

We collected weekly economic data, estimated costs from the project implementer perspective and assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) associated with the Magude project as compared to routine malaria control activities, the counterfactual. We estimated disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for malaria cases and deaths and assessed the variation of the ICER over time to capture the marginal costs and effectiveness associated with subsequent phases of project implementation. We used deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty and built an alternative scenario by assuming the implementation of the interventions from a governmental perspective. Economic costs are provided in constant US$2015.

RESULTS

After three years, the Magude project averted a total of 3,171 DALYs at an incremental cost of $2.89 million and an average yearly cost of $20.7 per targeted person. At an average cost of $19.4 per person treated per MDA round, the social mobilization and distribution of door-to-door MDA contributed to 53% of overall resources employed, with personnel and logistics being the main cost drivers. The ICER improved over time as a result of decreasing costs and improved effectiveness. The overall ICER was $987 (CI95% 968-1,006) per DALY averted, which is below the standard cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold of $1,404/DALY averted, three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of Mozambique, but above the threshold of interventions considered highly cost-effective (one time the GDP per capita or $468/DALY averted) and above the recently suggested thresholds based on the health opportunity cost ($537 purchasing power parity/ DALY averted). A significantly lower ICER was obtained in the implementation scenario from a governmental perspective ($441/DALY averted).

CONCLUSION

Despite the initial high costs and volume of resources associated with its implementation, MDA in combination with other existing malaria control interventions, can be a cost-effective strategy to drastically reduce transmission in areas of low to moderate transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. However, further studies are needed to understand the capacity of the health system and financial affordability to scale up such strategies at regional or national level.

Economic evaluations of onchocerciasis interventions: a systematic review and research needs

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review of economic evaluations that has been conducted for onchocerciasis interventions, to summarise current key knowledge and to identify research gaps.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was conducted on the 8th of August 2018 using the PubMed (MEDLINE) and ISI Web of Science electronic databases. No date or language stipulations were applied to the searches.

RESULTS

We identified 14 primary studies reporting the results of economic evaluations of onchocerciasis interventions, seven of which were cost-effectiveness analyses. The studies identified used a variety of different approaches to estimate the costs of the investigated interventions/programmes. Originally, the studies only quantified the benefits associated with preventing blindness. Gradually, methods improved and also captured onchocerciasis-associated skin disease. Studies found that eliminating onchocerciasis would generate billions in economic benefits. The majority of the cost-effectiveness analyses evaluated annual mass drug administration (MDA). The estimated cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted of annual MDA varies between US$3 and US$30 (cost year variable).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost benefit and cost effectiveness of onchocerciasis interventions have consistently been found to be very favourable. This finding provides strong evidential support for the ongoing efforts to eliminate onchocerciasis from endemic areas. Although these results are very promising, there are several important research gaps that need to be addressed as we move towards the 2020 milestones and beyond.

Is the elimination of 'sleeping sickness' affordable? Who will pay the price? Assessing the financial burden for the elimination of human African trypanosomiasis Trypanosoma brucei gambiense in sub-Saharan Africa

Introduction

Programme to eliminate neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) have gained global recognition, and may allow for improvements to universal health coverage and poverty alleviation. It is hoped that elimination of human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) Trypanosoma brucei gambiense (Tbg) would assist in this goal, but the financial costs are still unknown. The objective of this analysis was to forecast the financial burden of direct costs of HAT Tbg to funders and society.

Methods

In order to estimate the total costs to health services and individuals: (1) potential elimination programmes were defined; (2) the direct costs of programmes were calculated; (3) the per case out-of-pocket payments (OOPs) by programme and financial risk protection indicators were estimated. The total estimated costs for control and elimination programme were reported up till 2020 in international dollars. The mean results for both direct programme costs and OOPs were calculated and reported along with 95% CIs.

Results

Across sub-Saharan Africa, HAT Tbg maintaining ‘Control’ would lead to a decline in cases and cost US$630.6 million. In comparison, the cost of ‘Elimination’ programme ranged from US$410.9 million to US$1.2 billion. Maintaining ‘Control’ would continue to cause impoverishment and financial hardship to households; while all ‘Elimination’ programme would lead to significant reductions in poverty.

Conclusion

Overall, the total costs of either control or elimination programme would be near US$1 billion in the next decade. However, only elimination programme will reduce the number of cases and improve financial risk protection for households who are impacted by HAT Tbg.

Economic evaluations of lymphatic filariasis interventions: a systematic review and research needs

In 2000, the World Health Organization established the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF), with the goal of eliminating the disease as a public health problem by 2020. Since the start of the programme, a cumulative total of 6.2 billion treatments have been delivered to affected populations - with more than 556 million people treated in 2015 alone. In this paper, we perform a rigorous systematic review of the economic evaluations of lymphatic filariasis interventions have been conducted. We demonstrate that the standard interventions to control lymphatic filariasis are consistently found to be highly cost-effective. This finding has important implications for advocacy groups and potential funders. However, there are several important inconsistencies and research gaps that need to be addressed as we move forward towards the 2020 elimination goals. One of the most important identified research gaps was a lack of evaluation of new interventions specifically targeting areas co-endemic with onchocerciasis and Loa loa - which could become a major barrier to achieving elimination.