ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Cost comparison of school-based mass drug administration of albendazole and ivermectin versus albendazole alone for soil-transmitted helminth control in Uganda.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The co-administration of albendazole and ivermectin (ALB-IVM) is recommended for the treatment of soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections, especially where the prevalence of Trichuris trichiura is high. Before large-scale implementation can be considered, feasibility, acceptability and required resources and investments for the mass drug administration (MDA) of ALB-IVM compared with albendazole (ALB) alone should be assessed. This study, conducted in two districts in south-western Uganda, aimed to assess and compare the costs of school-based MDA with ALB-IVM (MDA-ALB-IVM) versus the routinely used ALB alone (MDA-ALB) on a small scale (targeting around 2,500 children per treatment arm per district). We applied a micro-costing (mixed top-down and bottom-up) approach to assess the financial costs from a health system perspective, as well as the opportunity costs of donated ALB. The total (financial and opportunity) costs of MDA-ALB-IVM were higher than those of MDA-ALB ($10,793 for MDA-ALB-IVM versus $4,458 for MDA-ALB in Kabale district and $14,445 versus $5,765 in Kisoro, respectively). The presence of informed consent and assent required for MDA-ALB-IVM (as ALB-IVM is still considered a new therapy for STH infections in Uganda) increased the number of days and resources including personnel requirements for training and drug distribution. Furthermore, adequate community sensitization and the involvement of community health workers (i.e., village health teams in Uganda) and local community leaders appeared to be essential to achieve high treatment coverage. The scenario analysis showed that, in the absence of the informed consent and assent process, the total incremental costs of MDA-ALB-IVM compared with MDA-ALB could decrease by 31%-36% in the two districts. This study identifies key cost drivers and offers insights for the wider implementation of ALB-IVM co-administration.
Indexed as
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.