ArticleBMJ global health2016
Modelling the health impact and cost-effectiveness of lymphatic filariasis eradication under varying levels of mass drug administration scale-up and geographic coverage.
Article in BMJ global health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessment of transmission in areas of uncertain endemicity for lymphatic filariasis in Brazil.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of lymphatic filariasis interventions: a systematic review and research needs.Parasites & vectors · 2018Pooled it
- Reducing the Antigen Prevalence Target Threshold for Stopping and Restarting Mass Drug Administration for Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Simulation in Tanzania, India and Haiti.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Lymphatic filariasis endgame strategies: Using GEOFIL to model mass drug administration and targeted surveillance and treatment strategies in American Samoa.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- A game-theoretic model of lymphatic filariasis prevention.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- A mathematical model of the dynamics of lymphatic filariasis in Caraga Region, the Philippines.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- How modelling can help steer the course set by the World Health Organization 2021-2030 roadmap on neglected tropical diseases.Gates open research · 2021Article
- Health economic analyses of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis.International health · 2020Article
- Common workflow language (CWL)-based software pipeline for de novo genome assembly from long- and short-read data.GigaScience · 2019Article
- Is the elimination of 'sleeping sickness' affordable? Who will pay the price? Assessing the financial burden for the elimination of human African trypanosomiasisBMJ global health · 2019Article
- A Synthetic Population for Modelling the Dynamics of Infectious Disease Transmission in American Samoa.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Investment Success in Public Health: An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2017Article
- Mathematical modelling of lymphatic filariasis elimination programmes in India: required duration of mass drug administration and post-treatment level of infection indicators.Parasites & vectors · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsOur 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.
conclusionsIn addition to ethical and political motivations for scaling-up MDA rapidly, this analysis provides economic support for increasing the intensity of MDA programmes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.