Investing in justice: ethics, evidence, and the eradication investment cases for lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis

Towards equitable genomics governance in Africa: Guiding principles from theories of global health governance and the African moral theory of Ubuntu

The post-genomics era promises a revolution characterized by precision medicine and the integration of genomics into almost every area of biomedical research. At the same time, there are concerns that if care is not taken, the genomics revolution may widen global inequities in science and health. In Africa, these concerns are primarily linked to the underrepresentation of African populations in genomics research, limited genomics research capacity in Africa and associated macro-level justice issues such as benefit sharing, inequitable international research collaborations, and the contribution of genomics to the health and research priorities of Africa. Addressing these concerns requires an in-depth reflection on how the ideals of global justice and equity may be advanced in genomics research. To contribute to the limited but growing scholarship on global genomics equity, especially in the African context, we performed a conceptual analysis of three accounts of justice and governance namely, Ubuntu, shared health governance and global governance of health, with the aim of identifying principles that could inform genomics governance in Africa. We used a convergence approach in the conceptual analysis, resulting in the identification of nine principles namely: solidarity, furthering the ideals of health justice, reciprocity, shared decision-making, shared resources, shared responsibility, mutual trust, transparency, and mutual collective accountability. Examples of how the principles may be applied are provided. We recommend that these principles should form the foundation of any mechanism that seeks to systematically advance justice, fairness and equity in genomics research in Africa and more broadly, global health and science equity.

Association of stigma with mental health and quality of life among Indonesian COVID-19 survivors

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors face societal stigma. The study aims to analyze the association of this stigma with the mental health and quality of life of COVID-19 survivors.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we observed 547 adults who were previously documented as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) positive by a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, treated in a hospital or an emergency hospital and proven to be SARS-CoV-2 negative by their latest PCR test. We adopted the Berger HIV Stigma Scale to measure stigma; the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Form to measure quality of life; and the Mental Health Inventory-38 to measure mental health. The chi-square and binary logistic regression tests were used to find the correlation between the variables.

RESULTS

The multivariate analysis revealed that medium stigma was more likely related to quality of life and mental health than low stigma. Females were less likely to experience stigma related to mental health than men, and respondents who worked as laborers and entrepreneurs were less likely to experience stigma related to mental health than those who worked as civil workers/army personnel/teachers/lecturers. COVID-19 survivors experienced medium stigma in society and lower quality of life and mental health status. We found that quality of life and mental health were affected by stigma, sex, and occupation.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 survivors are a vulnerable group that is most at risk when they return to their communities. Creating a safe environment and providing respectful care, including addressing complex stigma factors, is vital for developing appropriate interventions.

Economic evaluation of disease elimination: An extension to the net-benefit framework and application to human African trypanosomiasis

The global health community has earmarked a number of diseases for elimination or eradication, and these goals have often been praised on the premise of long-run cost savings. However, decision makers must contend with a multitude of demands on health budgets in the short or medium term, and costs per case often rise as the burden of a disease falls, rendering such efforts beyond the cost-effective use of scarce resources. In addition, these decisions must be made in the presence of substantial uncertainty regarding the feasibility and costs of elimination or eradication efforts. Therefore, analytical frameworks are necessary to consider the additional effort for reaching global goals, like elimination or eradication, that are beyond the cost-effective use of country resources. We propose a modification to the net-benefit framework to consider the implications of switching from an optimal strategy, in terms of cost-per-burden averted, to a strategy with a higher likelihood of meeting the global target of elimination or eradication. We illustrate the properties of our framework by considering the economic case of efforts to eliminate the transmission of gambiense human African trypanosomiasis (gHAT), a vector-borne, parasitic disease in West and Central Africa, by 2030.

Ethical dimensions of neglected tropical disease programming

The global movement to control and eliminate neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) is grounded in an ethic of social justice, solidarity and health equity. NTD programmes deliver significant health benefits in socially complex environments characterized by poverty and economic disparity. We used two ethics frameworks—principlism and Upshur's public health framework—to examine ethical challenges faced by NTD programmes. They include management of serious adverse reactions associated with preventive chemotherapy, centralization of decision-making, ‘opt-out’ policies for school-based deworming, incomplete evidence for ‘pro-poor’ impact and persistent inequities in global partnerships. NTD programmes must actively address ethical challenges while pursuing global health goals.

Social stigma in the time of coronavirus disease 2019

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the lives of people around the globe since it appeared in Wuhan, China, at the beginning of December 2019. The burden of disease and its death toll have had an unprecedented impact on the healthcare, economic and financial systems of low-, middle- and high-income countries [1–3]. Peoples’ lives have been disrupted and negatively impacted by COVID-19-related suffering and lockdowns at community and household level.

Addressing COVID-19-related stigmahttps://bit.ly/2CPuxO1

Solidarity and Community Engagement in Global Health Research

Community engagement (CE) is gaining prominence in global health research. A number of ethical goals-spanning the instrumental, intrinsic, and transformative-have been ascribed to CE in global health research. This paper draws attention to an additional transformative value that CE is not typically linked to but that seems very relevant: solidarity. Both are concerned with building relationships and connecting parties that are distant from one another. This paper first argues that furthering solidarity should be recognized as another ethical goal for CE in global health research. It contends that, over time, CE can build the bases of solidaristic relationships-moral imagination, recognition, understanding, empathy-between researchers and community members. Applying concepts from existing accounts of solidarity, the paper develops preliminary ideas about who should be engaged and how to advance solidarity. The proposed approach is compared to current CE practice in global health research. Finally, the paper briefly considers how solidaristic CE could affect how global health research is performed.

Measuring Stigma to Assess the Social Justice Implications of Health-Related Policy Decisions: Application to Novel Treatment Regimens for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis

In making policy decisions with constrained resources, an important consideration is the impact of alternative policy options on social justice. Social justice considers interactions between individuals and society and can be conceptualized across domains of agency, association, and respect. Despite its importance, social justice is rarely considered formally in health policy decision making, partially reflecting challenges in its measurement. We define three criteria for considering social justice in health-related policy decisions: 1) linkage of social justice to a measurable construct; 2) ability to reproducibly and feasibly estimate the impacts of a policy decision on the selected construct; and 3) appropriate presentation to decision makers of the expected social justice implications using that construct. We use preliminary data from qualitative interviews from three groups of respondents in South Africa and Uganda to demonstrate that stigma meets the first of these criteria. We then use the example of policy addressing novel treatment regimens for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and a validated tuberculosis stigma scale to illustrate how policy effects on stigma could be estimated (criterion 2) and presented to decision makers in the form of justice-enhanced cost-effectiveness analysis (criterion 3). Finally, we provide a point-by-point guide for conducting similar assessments to facilitate consideration of social justice in health-related policy decisions. Our case study and guide for how to make social justice impacts more apparent to decision makers also illustrates the importance of local data and local capacity. Performing social justice assessments alongside more traditional evaluations of cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and burden of disease could help represent data-informed considerations of social justice in health care decision making more broadly.

Characterizing ‘Civil Unrest’ within Public Health: Implications for Public Health Research and Practice

Following the death on April 19, 2015 of Freddie Gray from injuries sustained while unarmed and in police custody, many citizens of Baltimore took to the streets and the National Guard was called into the city. A 2017 article published in the American Journal of Public Health measured the effect of this civil unrest on maternal and child health. I argue that this research does not acknowledge the full range of motivations, behaviors, aims and values that may have been inherent in this unrest. I first describe the article’s characterization of Baltimore’s unrest as community violence. I then provide a negative argument against employing this characterization alone, before providing positive arguments for two alternative characterizations—as protest and apt anger. Finally, I discuss upshots of considering these alternatives. Broadly, while viewing civil unrest as community violence focuses exclusive attention on victims of unrest, these alternatives direct attention to unrest participants, with implications for public health research and practice. While I focus on Baltimore’s 2015 unrest, the proposals raised here apply wherever civil unrest occurs.

Social Justice and the Ethical Goals of Community Engagement in Global Health Research

Social justice has been identified as a foundational moral commitment for global health research ethics. Yet what a commitment to social justice means for community engagement in such research has not been critically examined. This paper draws on the rich social justice literature from political philosophy to explore the normative question: What should the ethical goals of community engagement be if it is to help connect global health research to social justice? Five ethical goals for community engagement are proposed that promote well-being, agency, and self-development, particularly for those considered disadvantaged and marginalized. The paper also considers how key terms used in the proposed goals should be defined using existing theories of health and social justice. This analysis is done to give global health researchers and their partners a better idea of what the ethical goals mean. Patterns of convergence amongst different theories are identified that support relying on particular definitions of key terms.

People are neglected, not diseases: the relationship between disability and neglected tropical diseases

People with disabilities and the neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are separately receiving increased focus. In light of this positive development, and the similarities and intersections between the negative impacts experienced by both people with disabilities and people with NTDs, we believe now is the right time to focus attention on the overlap between the two. Both people with NTDs and people with disabilities experience a myriad of overlapping negative health, financial and socio-cultural consequences. Despite this, we believe that disability is not yet properly prioritised on the development agenda, and that there are multiple opportunities to make NTD programming more inclusive, to the benefit of those at this neglected intersection and beyond. There are both opportunities and need to scale up, integrate, and invest in inclusive, health system-focused NTD programming. Realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals, Universal Health Coverage, and the control and elimination of NTDs all rely on ensuring people with disabilities are not left behind.

Applications of machine learning techniques to predict filariasis using socio-economic factors

Filariasis is one of the major public health concerns in India. Approximately 600 million people spread across 250 districts of India are at risk of filariasis. To predict this disease, a pilot scale study was carried out in 30 villages of Karimnagar district of Telangana from 2004 to 2007 to collect epidemiological and socio-economic data. The collected data are analysed by employing various machine learning techniques such as Naïve Bayes (NB), logistic model tree, probabilistic neural network, J48 (C4.5), classification and regression tree, JRip and gradient boosting machine. The performances of these algorithms are reported using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under ROC curve (AUC). Among all employed classification methods, NB yielded the best AUC of 64% and was equally statistically significant with the rest of the classifiers. Similarly, the J48 algorithm generated 23 decision rules that help in developing an early warning system to implement better prevention and control efforts in the management of filariasis.

Apology and Unintended Harm in Global Health

Over the past few decades, investments in global health programs have contributed to massive advances in health for human populations. As with clinical medicine, however, global health interventions sometimes result in unintended harm, economic adversity, or social disruption. In clinical medicine, when medical error occurs, it is increasingly common for health care workers to offer apology, which involves acknowledging the error, taking responsibility for it, and expressing genuine remorse. In addition, hospitals are beginning to offer affected patients and their families reparation or compensation in an attempt to restore patients' health and repair relationships, as well as take steps to prevent similar harm in the future. By contrast, little is known about apology and reparation for unintentional harm in global health practice. Several factors, including the scale of global health programs, diffusion of responsibility across international networks of state and non-state actors, and concern that acknowledging harm could threaten otherwise successful health programs, render apology and reparation in global health more difficult than in clinical medicine. This article examines how and when individuals and global health organizations address inadvertent harm, illustrated by four case studies. It also describes ethical, legal, and human rights principles that could inform a more systematic approach. Addressing unintended harm in global health requires further attention at the individual, organizational, and global levels.

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.

Exploring the ethics of global health research priority-setting

BACKGROUND

Thus far, little work in bioethics has specifically focused on global health research priority-setting. Yet features of global health research priority-setting raise ethical considerations and concerns related to health justice. For example, such processes are often exclusively disease-driven, meaning they rely heavily on burden of disease considerations. They, therefore, tend to undervalue non-biomedical research topics, which have been identified as essential to helping reduce health disparities. In recognition of these ethical concerns and the limited scholarship and dialogue addressing them, we convened an international workshop in September 2015. The workshop aimed to initiate discussion on the appropriate relationship between global and national levels of health research priority-setting and to begin exploring what might be ethically required for priority-setting at each of those levels.

MAIN TEXT

This paper comprises our reflections following the workshop. Its main objective is to launch a research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting. We identify three domains of global health research priority-setting-scope, underlying values and substantive requirements, and procedural considerations. For each domain, specific research questions are highlighted and why they need to be explored is explained. Some preliminary thoughts and normative arguments as to how the research questions might be answered are also offered. For example, we provide initial ideas about the appropriate relationship between different priority-setting levels and what values and substantive considerations should guide or underpin global health research priority-setting as a matter of justice.

CONCLUSION

We anticipate that framing a new research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting will spur ethicists, researchers, and policymakers to refocus their efforts on developing more rigorous and ethically sound approaches to priority-setting.

Ethical Considerations for Global Health Decision-Making: Justice-Enhanced Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Technologies for Trypanosoma brucei gambiense

We sought to assess formally the extent to which different control and elimination strategies for human African trypanosomiasis Trypanosoma brucei gambiense (Gambiense HAT) would exacerbate or alleviate experiences of societal disadvantage that traditional economic evaluation does not take into account. Justice-enhanced cost-effectiveness analysis (JE-CEA) is a normative approach under development to address social justice considerations in public health decision-making alongside other types of analyses. It aims to assess how public health interventions under analysis in comparative evaluation would be expected to influence the clustering of disadvantage across three core dimensions of well-being: agency, association and respect. As a case study to test the approach, we applied it to five strategies for Gambiense HAT control and elimination, in combination with two different other evaluations: a cost-effectiveness analysis and a probability of elimination analysis. We have demonstrated how JE-CEA highlights the ethical importance of adverse social justice impacts of otherwise attractive options and how it indicates specific modifications to policy options to mitigate such impacts. JE-CEA holds promise as an approach to help decision makers and other stakeholders consider social justice more fully, explicitly and systematically in evaluating public health programs.

Incorporating social justice and stigma in cost-effectiveness analysis: drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment

Novel therapies for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are likely to be expensive. The cost of novel drugs (e.g., bedaquiline, delamanid) may be so prohibitively high that a traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) would rate regimens containing these drugs as not cost-effective. Traditional CEA may not appropriately account for considerations of social justice, and may put the most disadvantaged populations at greater risk. Using the example of novel drug regimens for MDR-TB, we propose a novel methodology, 'justice-enhanced CEA', and demonstrate how such an approach can simultaneously assess social justice impacts alongside traditional cost-effectiveness ratios. Justice-enhanced CEA, as we envision it, is performed in three steps: 1) systematic data collection about patients' lived experiences, 2) use of empirical findings to inform social justice assessments, and 3) incorporation of data-informed social justice assessments into a decision analytic framework that includes traditional CEA. These components are organized around a core framework of social justice developed by Bailey et al. to compare impacts on disadvantage not otherwise captured by CEA. Formal social justice assessments can produce three composite levels: 'expected not to worsen…', 'may worsen…', and 'expected to worsen clustering of disadvantage'. Levels of social justice impact would be assessed for each major type of outcome under each policy scenario compared. Social justice assessments are then overlaid side-by-side with cost-effectiveness assessments corresponding to each branch pathway on the decision tree. In conclusion, we present a 'justice-enhanced' framework that enables the incorporation of social justice concerns into traditional CEA for the evaluation of new regimens for MDR-TB.

Ethical responsibilities of health research funders to advance global health justice

Research funders from high-income countries have an ethical obligation to support health research in low and middle-income countries that promotes justice in global health. Conceptual work from bioethics proposes funders should do so through their design of grants programs, investments, and grants management. That work has begun to specify the content of funders' ethical responsibility with regards to health systems research, but it has thus far not been informed by their practice. As a first step to bridge that gap, this paper focuses on health systems research funders' design of grants programs. It aims to test the content of funders' proposed ethical responsibility against recent empirical work describing how they design their health systems research grants programs to help address global health disparities. Based on that analysis, recommendations are made for how to better articulate the content of health systems research funders' obligation. Such recommendations may be pertinent to funders of other types of international research. The paper also provides an initial picture of how well health systems research grants programs' designs may align with the ideals of global health justice.

Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review

Social justice is the moral imperative to avoid and remediate unfair distributions of societal disadvantage. In priority setting in healthcare and public health, social justice reaches beyond fairness in the distribution of health outcomes and economic impacts to encompass fairness in the distribution of policy impacts upon other dimensions of well-being. There is an emerging awareness of the need for economic evaluation to integrate all such concerns. We performed a systematic review (1) to describe methodological solutions suitable for integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation, and (2) to describe the challenges that those solutions face. To be included, publications must have captured fairness considerations that (a) involve cross-dimensional subjective personal life experience and (b) can be manifested at the level of subpopulations. We identified relevant publications using an electronic search in EMBASE, PubMed, EconLit, PsycInfo, Philosopher's Index, and Scopus, including publications available in English in the past 20 years. Two reviewers independently appraised candidate publications, extracted data, and synthesized findings in narrative form. Out of 2388 publications reviewed, 26 were included. Solutions sought either to incorporate relevant fairness considerations directly into economic evaluation or to report them alongside cost-effectiveness measures. The majority of reviewed solutions, if adapted to integrate social justice concerns, would require their explicit quantification. Four broad challenges related to the implementation of these solutions were identified: clarifying the normative basis; measuring and determining the relative importance of criteria representing that basis; combining the criteria; and evaluating trade-offs. All included solutions must grapple with an inherent tension: they must either face the normative and operational challenges of quantifying social justice concerns or accede to offering incomplete policy guidance. Interdisciplinary research and broader collaborations are crucial to address these challenges and to support due attention to social justice in priority setting.

How much will it cost to eradicate lymphatic filariasis? An analysis of the financial and economic costs of intensified efforts against lymphatic filariasis

INTRODUCTION

Lymphatic filariasis (LF), a neglected tropical disease (NTD) preventable through mass drug administration (MDA), is one of six diseases deemed possibly eradicable. Previously we developed one LF elimination scenario, which assumes MDA scale-up to continue in all countries that have previously undertaken MDA. In contrast, our three previously developed eradication scenarios assume all LF endemic countries will undertake MDA at an average (eradication I), fast (eradication II), or instantaneous (eradication III) rate of scale-up. In this analysis we use a micro-costing model to project the financial and economic costs of each of these scenarios in order to provide evidence to decision makers about the investment required to eliminate and eradicate LF.

METHODOLOGY/KEY FINDINGS

Costing was undertaken from a health system perspective, with all results expressed in 2012 US dollars (USD). A discount rate of 3% was applied to calculate the net present value of future costs. Prospective NTD budgets from LF endemic countries were reviewed to preliminarily determine activities and resources necessary to undertake a program to eliminate LF at a country level. In consultation with LF program experts, activities and resources were further reviewed and a refined list of activities and necessary resources, along with their associated quantities and costs, were determined and grouped into the following activities: advocacy and communication, capacity strengthening, coordination and strengthening partnerships, data management, ongoing surveillance, monitoring and supervision, drug delivery, and administration. The costs of mapping and undertaking transmission assessment surveys and the value of donated drugs and volunteer time were also accounted for. Using previously developed scenarios and deterministic estimates of MDA duration, the financial and economic costs of interrupting LF transmission under varying rates of MDA scale-up were then modelled using a micro-costing approach. The elimination scenario, which includes countries that previously undertook MDA, is estimated to cost 929 million USD (95% Credible Interval: 884m-972m). Proceeding to eradication is anticipated to require a higher financial investment, estimated at 1.24 billion USD (1.17bn-1.30bn) in the eradication III scenario (immediate scale-up), with eradication II (intensified scale-up) projected at 1.27 billion USD (1.21bn-1.33bn), and eradication I (slow scale-up) estimated at 1.29 billion USD (1.23bn-1.34bn). The economic costs of the eradication III scenario are estimated at approximately 7.57 billion USD (7.12bn-7.94bn), while the elimination scenario is projected to have an economic cost of 5.21 billion USD (4.91bn-5.45bn). Countries in the AFRO region will require the greatest investment to reach elimination or eradication, but also stand to gain the most in cost savings. Across all scenarios, capacity strengthening and advocacy and communication represent the greatest financial costs, whereas mapping, post-MDA surveillance, and administration comprise the least.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Though challenging to implement, our results indicate that financial and economic savings are greatest under the eradication III scenario. Thus, if eradication for LF is the objective, accelerated scale-up is projected to be the best investment.

Which strings attached: ethical considerations for selecting appropriate conditionalities in conditional cash transfer programmes

Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) present a promising approach to simultaneously tackle chronic poverty and poor health. While these programmes clearly embody beneficent aims, questions remain regarding the ethical design of CCTs. Limited guidance exists for the ethical evaluation of the defining feature of these programmes: the conditionalities. Drawing upon prominent public health ethics frameworks and social justice theories, this paper outlines five categories of morally relevant considerations that CCT programme designers should consider when assessing which behaviours or outcomes they select as conditionalities for payment: (1) likelihood of yielding desired health outcomes, (2) risks and burdens, (3) receptivity, (4) attainability and (5) indirect impacts and externalities. When evaluating potential conditionalities across these five categories of considerations, it is important to recognise that not all beneficiaries or subgroups of beneficiaries will fare equally on each. Given that most CCTs aim to reduce inequities and promote long-term health and prosperity for the most disadvantaged, it is critical to apply these considerations with due attention to how different segments of the beneficiary population will be differentially affected. Taken on balance, with due reflection on distributional effects, these five categories represent a comprehensive set of considerations for the moral analysis of specific conditionalities and will help ensure that CCT designers structure programmes in a way that is both morally sound and effective in achieving their goals.

How can health systems research reach the worst-off? A conceptual exploration

BACKGROUND

Health systems research is increasingly being conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Such research should aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries as a matter of global justice. For such research to do so, ethical guidance that is consistent with egalitarian theories of social justice proposes it ought to (amongst other things) focus on worst-off countries and research populations. Yet who constitutes the worst-off is not well-defined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

By applying existing work on disadvantage from political philosophy, the paper demonstrates that (at least) two options exist for how to define the worst-off upon whom equity-oriented health systems research should focus: those who are worst-off in terms of health or those who are systematically disadvantaged. The paper describes in detail how both concepts can be understood and what metrics can be relied upon to identify worst-off countries and research populations at the sub-national level (groups, communities). To demonstrate how each can be used, the paper considers two real-world cases of health systems research and whether their choice of country (Uganda, India) and research population in 2011 would have been classified as amongst the worst-off according to the proposed concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

The two proposed concepts can classify different countries and sub-national populations as worst-off. It is recommended that health researchers (or other actors) should use the concept that best reflects their moral commitments-namely, to perform research focused on reducing health inequalities or systematic disadvantage more broadly. If addressing the latter, it is recommended that they rely on the multidimensional poverty approach rather than the income approach to identify worst-off populations.

Lessons Learned From Developing an Eradication Investment Case for Lymphatic Filariasis

In the last few years, the concepts of disease elimination and eradication have again gained consideration from the global health community, with Guinea worm disease (dracunculiasis) on track to become the first parasitic disease to be eradicated. Given the many complex and interlinking issues involved in committing to a disease eradication initiative, such commitments must be based on a solid assessment of a broad range of factors. In this chapter, we discuss the value and implications of undertaking a systematic and fact-based analysis of the overall situation prior to embarking on an elimination or eradication programme. As an example, we draw upon insights gained from a series of lymphatic filariasis (LF) studies from our research group that adopted an eradication investment case (EIC) framework. The justification for EICs, and related epidemiological, geospatial and other mathematical/operational research modelling, stems from the necessity for proper planning prior to committing to disease eradication. Across all considerations for LF eradication, including: time, treatments, level of investments necessary, health impact, cost-effectiveness, and broader economic benefits, scaling-up mass drug administration coverage to all endemic communities immediately provided the most favourable results. The coherent and consistent pursuit of eradication goals, operationally tailored to a given socioecological system and based on integrated measures of available tools will lead relatively rapidly to elimination in many parts of endemic areas and provide the cornerstone towards eradication.

Modelling the health impact and cost-effectiveness of lymphatic filariasis eradication under varying levels of mass drug administration scale-up and geographic coverage

BACKGROUND

A global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (GPELF) is underway, yet two key programmatic features are currently still lacking: (1) the extension of efforts to all lymphatic filariasis (LF) endemic countries, and (2) the expansion of geographic coverage of mass drug administration (MDA) within countries. For varying levels of scale-up of MDA, we assessed the health benefits and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) associated with LF eradication, projected the potential savings due to decreased morbidity management needs, and estimated potential household productivity gains as a result of reduced LF-related morbidity.

METHODS

We extended an LF transmission model to track hydrocele and lymphoedema incidence in order to obtain estimates of the disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted due to scaling up MDA over a period of 50 years. We then estimated the ICERs and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves associated with different rates of MDA scale-up. Health systems savings were estimated by considering the averted morbidity, treatment-seeking behaviour and morbidity management costs. Gains in worker productivity were estimated by multiplying estimated working days lost as a result of morbidity with country-specific per-worker agricultural wages.

RESULTS

Our projections indicate that a massive scaling-up of MDA could lead to 4.38 million incremental DALYs averted over a 50-year time horizon compared to a scenario which mirrors current efforts against LF. In comparison to maintaining the current rate of progress against LF, massive scaling-up of MDA-pursuing LF eradication as soon as possible-was most likely to be cost-effective above a willingness to pay threshold of US$71.5/DALY averted. Intensified MDA scale-up was also associated with lower ICERs. Furthermore, this could result in health systems savings up to US$483 million. Extending coverage to all endemic areas could generate additional economic benefits through gains in worker productivity between US$3.4 and US$14.4 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to ethical and political motivations for scaling-up MDA rapidly, this analysis provides economic support for increasing the intensity of MDA programmes.

River Blindness: Mathematical Models for Control and Elimination

Human onchocerciasis (river blindness) is one of the few neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) whose control strategies have been informed by mathematical modelling. With the change in focus from elimination of the disease burden to elimination of Onchocerca volvulus, much remains to be done to refine, calibrate and validate existing models. Under the impetus of the NTD Modelling Consortium, the teams that developed EPIONCHO and ONCHOSIM have joined forces to compare and improve these frameworks to better assist ongoing elimination efforts. We review their current versions and describe how they are being used to address two key questions: (1) where can onchocerciasis be eliminated with current intervention strategies by 2020/2025? and (2) what alternative/complementary strategies could help to accelerate elimination where (1) cannot be achieved? The control and elimination of onchocerciasis from the African continent is at a crucial crossroad. The African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control closed at the end of 2015, and although a new platform for support and integration of NTD control has been launched, the disease will have to compete with a myriad of other national health priorities at a pivotal time in the road to elimination. However, never before had onchocerciasis control a better arsenal of intervention strategies as well as diagnostics. It is, therefore, timely to present two models of different geneses and modelling traditions as they come together to produce robust decision-support tools. We start by describing the structural and parametric assumptions of EPIONCHO and ONCHOSIM; we continue by summarizing the modelling of current treatment strategies with annual (or biannual) mass ivermectin distribution and introduce a number of alternative strategies, including other microfilaricidal therapies (such as moxidectin), macrofilaricidal (anti-wolbachial) treatments, focal vector control and the possibility of an onchocerciasis vaccine. We conclude by discussing challenges, opportunities and future directions.

Financial and Economic Costs of the Elimination and Eradication of Onchocerciasis (River Blindness) in Africa

BACKGROUND

Onchocerciasis (river blindness) is a parasitic disease transmitted by blackflies. Symptoms include severe itching, skin lesions, and vision impairment including blindness. More than 99% of all cases are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa. Fortunately, vector control and community-directed treatment with ivermectin have significantly decreased morbidity, and the treatment goal is shifting from control to elimination in Africa.

METHODS

We estimated financial resources and societal opportunity costs associated with scaling up community-directed treatment with ivermectin and implementing surveillance and response systems in endemic African regions for alternative treatment goals--control, elimination, and eradication. We used a micro-costing approach that allows adjustment for time-variant resource utilization and for the heterogeneity in the demographic, epidemiological, and political situation.

RESULTS

The elimination and eradication scenarios, which include scaling up treatments to hypo-endemic and operationally challenging areas at the latest by 2021 and implementing intensive surveillance, would allow savings of $1.5 billion and $1.6 billion over 2013-2045 as compared to the control scenario. Although the elimination and eradication scenarios would require higher surveillance costs ($215 million and $242 million) than the control scenario ($47 million), intensive surveillance would enable treatments to be safely stopped earlier, thereby saving unnecessary costs for prolonged treatments as in the control scenario lacking such surveillance and response systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The elimination and eradication of onchocerciasis are predicted to allow substantial cost-savings in the long run. To realize cost-savings, policymakers should keep empowering community volunteers, and pharmaceutical companies would need to continue drug donation. To sustain high surveillance costs required for elimination and eradication, endemic countries would need to enhance their domestic funding capacity. Societal and political will would be critical to sustaining all of these efforts in the long term.