Dataset Information

Where the road ends, yaws begins? The cost-effectiveness of eradication versus more roads.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

A disabling and disfiguring disease that "begins where the road ends", yaws is targeted by WHO for eradication by the year 2020. The global campaign is not yet financed. To evaluate yaws eradication within the context of the post-2015 development agenda, we perform a somewhat allegorical cost-effectiveness analysis of eradication, comparing it to a counterfactual in which we simply wait for more roads (the end of poverty).

Methods

We use evidence from four yaws eradication pilot sites and other mass treatment campaigns to set benchmarks for the cost of eradication in 12 known endemic countries. We construct a compartmental model of long-term health effects to 2050. Conservatively, we attribute zero cost to the counterfactual and allow for gradual exit of the susceptible (at risk) population by road (poverty reduction). We report mean, 5th and 95th centile estimates to reflect uncertainty about costs and effects.

Results

Our benchmark for the economic cost of yaws eradication is uncertain but not high -US$ 362 (75-1073) million in 12 countries. Eradication would cost US$ 26 (4.2-78) for each year of life lived without disability or disfigurement due to yaws, or US$ 324 (47-936) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY). Excluding drugs, existing staff and assets, the financial cost benchmark is US$ 213 (74-522) million. The real cost of waiting for more roads (poverty reduction) would be 13 (7.3-20) million years of life affected by early-stage yaws and 2.3 (1.1-4.2) million years of life affected by late-stage yaws.

Discussion

Endemic countries need financing to begin implementing and adapting global strategy to local conditions. Donations of drugs and diagnostics could reduce cost to the public sector and catalyze financing. Resources may be harnessed from the extractive industries. Yaws eradication should be seen as complementary to universal health coverage and shared prosperity on the post-2015 development agenda.

SUBMITTER: Fitzpatrick C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4177754 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Where the road ends, yaws begins? The cost-effectiveness of eradication versus more roads.

Fitzpatrick Christopher C Asiedu Kingsley K Jannin Jean J

PLoS neglected tropical diseases 20140925 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>A disabling and disfiguring disease that "begins where the road ends", yaws is targeted by WHO for eradication by the year 2020. The global campaign is not yet financed. To evaluate yaws eradication within the context of the post-2015 development agenda, we perform a somewhat allegorical cost-effectiveness analysis of eradication, comparing it to a counterfactual in which we simply wait for more roads (the end of poverty).<h4>Methods</h4>We use evidence from four yaws eradic ...[more]

PMID: 25255131

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundYaws is a non-venereal treponemal infection caused by Treponema pallidum subspecies pertenue. The disease is targeted by WHO for eradication by 2020. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are envisaged for confirmation of clinical cases during treatment campaigns and for certification of the interruption of transmission. Yaws testing requires both treponemal (trep) and non-treponemal (non-trep) assays for diagnosis of current infection. We evaluate a sequential testing strategy (using a treponemal RDT before a trep/non-trep RDT) in terms of cost and cost-effectiveness, relative to a single-assay combined testing strategy (using the trep/non-trep RDT alone), for two use cases: individual diagnosis and community surveillance.MethodsWe use cohort decision analysis to examine the diagnostic and cost outcomes. We estimate cost and cost-effectiveness of the alternative testing strategies at different levels of prevalence of past/current infection and current infection under each use case. We take the perspective of the global yaws eradication programme. We calculate the total number of correct diagnoses for each strategy over a range of plausible prevalences. We employ probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to account for uncertainty and report 95% intervals.ResultsAt current prices of the treponemal and trep/non-trep RDTs, the sequential strategy is cost-saving for individual diagnosis at prevalence of past/current infection less than 85% (81-90); it is cost-saving for surveillance at less than 100%. The threshold price of the trep/non-trep RDT (below which the sequential strategy would no longer be cost-saving) is US$ 1.08 (1.02-1.14) for individual diagnosis at high prevalence of past/current infection (51%) and US$ 0.54 (0.52-0.56) for community surveillance at low prevalence (15%).DiscussionWe find that the sequential strategy is cost-saving for both diagnosis and surveillance in most relevant settings. In the absence of evidence assessing relative performance (sensitivity and specificity), cost-effectiveness is uncertain. However, the conditions under which the combined test only strategy might be more cost-effective than the sequential strategy are limited. A cheaper trep/non-trep RDT is needed, costing no more than US$ 0.50-1.00, depending on the use case. Our results will help enhance the cost-effectiveness of yaws programmes in the 13 countries known to be currently endemic. It will also inform efforts in the much larger group of 71 countries with a history of yaws, many of which will have to undertake surveillance to confirm the interruption of transmission.

Project description:BackgroundTreponema pallidum subspecies pertenue causes yaws. Strategies to better control, eliminate, and eradicate yaws are needed.MethodsIn an open-label, cluster-randomized, community-based trial conducted in a yaws-endemic area of Papua New Guinea, we randomly assigned 38 wards (i.e., clusters) to receive one round of mass administration of azithromycin followed by two rounds of target treatment of active cases (control group) or three rounds of mass administration of azithromycin (experimental group); round 1 was administered at baseline, round 2 at 6 months, and round 3 at 12 months. The coprimary end points were the prevalence of active cases of yaws, confirmed by polymerase-chain-reaction assay, in the entire trial population and the prevalence of latent yaws, confirmed by serologic testing, in a subgroup of asymptomatic children 1 to 15 years of age; prevalences were measured at 18 months, and the between-group differences were calculated.ResultsOf the 38 wards, 19 were randomly assigned to the control group (30,438 persons) and 19 to the experimental group (26,238 persons). A total of 24,848 doses of azithromycin were administered in the control group (22,033 were given to the participants at round 1 and 207 and 2608 were given to the participants with yaws-like lesions and their contacts, respectively, at rounds 2 and 3 [combined]), and 59,852 doses were administered in the experimental group. At 18 months, the prevalence of active yaws had decreased from 0.46% (102 of 22,033 persons) at baseline to 0.16% (47 of 29,954 persons) in the control group and from 0.43% (87 of 20,331 persons) at baseline to 0.04% (10 of 25,987 persons) in the experimental group (relative risk adjusted for clustering, 4.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.90 to 8.76). The prevalence of other infectious ulcers decreased to a similar extent in the two treatment groups. The prevalence of latent yaws at 18 months was 6.54% (95% CI, 5.00 to 8.08) among 994 children in the control group and 3.28% (95% CI, 2.14 to 4.42) among 945 children in the experimental group (relative risk adjusted for clustering and age, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.70). Three cases of yaws with resistance to macrolides were found in the experimental group.ConclusionsThe reduction in the community prevalence of yaws was greater with three rounds of mass administration of azithromycin at 6-month intervals than with one round of mass administration of azithromycin followed by two rounds of targeted treatment. Monitoring for the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance is needed. (Funded by Fundació "la Caixa" and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03490123.).

Project description:BackgroundYaws is targeted for eradication by 2030, using a strategy based on mass drug administration (MDA) with azithromycin. New diagnostics are needed to aid eradication. Serology is currently the mainstay for yaws diagnosis; however, inaccuracies associated with current serological tests makes it difficult to fully assess the need for and impact of eradication campaigns using these tools. Under the recommendation of the WHO Diagnostic Technical Advisory Group (DTAG) for Neglected Tropical Diseases(NTDs), a working group was assembled and tasked with agreeing on priority use cases for developing target product profiles (TPPs) for new diagnostics tools.Methodology and principal findingsThe working group convened three times and established two use cases: identifying a single case of yaws and detecting azithromycin resistance. One subgroup assessed the current diagnostic landscape for yaws and a second subgroup determined the test requirements for both use cases. Draft TPPs were sent out for input from stakeholders and experts. Both TPPs considered the following parameters: product use, design, performance, configuration, cost, access and equity. To identify a single case of yaws, the test should be able to detect an analyte which confirms an active infection with at least 95% sensitivity and 99.9% specificity. The high specificity was deemed important to avoid a high false positive rate which could result in unnecessary continuation or initiation of MDA campaigns. If used in settings where the number of suspected cases is low, further testing could be considered to compensate for imperfect sensitivity and to improve specificity. The test to detect azithromycin resistance should be able to detect known genetic resistance mutations with a minimum sensitivity and specificity of 95%, with the caveat that all patients with suspected treatment failure should be treated as having resistant yaws and offered alternative treatment.ConclusionsThe TPPs developed will provide test developers with guidance to ensure that novel diagnostic tests meet identified public health needs.

Project description:In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease who received intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 mm Hg) had significantly lower rates of death and cardiovascular disease events than did those who received standard control (target, <140 mm Hg). On the basis of these data, we wanted to determine the lifetime health benefits and health care costs associated with intensive control versus standard control.We used a microsimulation model to apply SPRINT treatment effects and health care costs from national sources to a hypothetical cohort of SPRINT-eligible adults. The model projected lifetime costs of treatment and monitoring in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease events and subsequent treatment costs, treatment-related risks of serious adverse events and subsequent costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for intensive control versus standard control of systolic blood pressure.We determined that the mean number of QALYs would be 0.27 higher among patients who received intensive control than among those who received standard control and would cost approximately $47,000 more per QALY gained if there were a reduction in adherence and treatment effects after 5 years; the cost would be approximately $28,000 more per QALY gained if the treatment effects persisted for the remaining lifetime of the patient. Most simulation results indicated that intensive treatment would be cost-effective (51 to 79% below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY and 76 to 93% below the threshold of $100,000 per QALY), regardless of whether treatment effects were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the remaining lifetime.In this simulation study, intensive systolic blood-pressure control prevented cardiovascular disease events and prolonged life and did so at levels below common willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY, regardless of whether benefits were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the patient's remaining lifetime. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).

Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome is the most common upper-extremity nerve compression syndrome. Over 500,000 carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures are performed in the U.S. yearly. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic CTR (ECTR) versus open CTR (OCTR) using data from published meta-analyses comparing outcomes for ECTR and OCTR.MethodsWe developed a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of OCTR versus ECTR for patients undergoing unilateral CTR in an office setting under local anesthesia and in an operating-room (OR) setting under monitored anesthesia care. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We modeled societal (modeled with a 50-year-old patient) and Medicare payer (modeled with a 65-year-old patient) perspectives, adopting a lifetime time horizon. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs).ResultsECTR resulted in 0.00141 additional QALY compared with OCTR. From a societal perspective, assuming 8.21 fewer days of work missed after ECTR than after OCTR, ECTR cost less across all procedure settings. The results are sensitive to the number of days of work missed following surgery. From a payer perspective, ECTR in the OR (ECTROR) cost $1,872 more than OCTR in the office (OCTRoffice), for an ICER of approximately $1,332,000/QALY. The ECTROR cost $654 more than the OCTROR, for an ICER of $464,000/QALY. The ECTRoffice cost $107 more than the OCTRoffice, for an ICER of $76,000/QALY. From a payer perspective, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, OCTRoffice was preferred over ECTROR in 77% of the PSA iterations. From a societal perspective, ECTROR was preferred over OCTRoffice in 61% of the PSA iterations.ConclusionsFrom a societal perspective, ECTR is associated with lower costs as a result of an earlier return to work and leads to higher QALYs. Additional research on return to work is needed to confirm these findings on the basis of contemporary return-to-work practices. From a payer perspective, ECTR is more expensive and is cost-effective only if performed in an office setting under local anesthesia.Level of evidenceEconomic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Dataset Information

Where the road ends, yaws begins? The cost-effectiveness of eradication versus more roads.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Where the road ends, yaws begins? The cost-effectiveness of eradication versus more roads.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets