Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
An Updated Economic Assessment of Moxidectin Treatment Strategies for Onchocerciasis Elimination.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Turner Hugo C, Kura Klodeta, Roth Barbara, Kuesel Annette C, Kinrade Sally, Basáñez Maria-Gloria
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Concerns that annual mass administration of ivermectin, the predominant strategy for onchocerciasis control and elimination, may not lead to elimination of parasite transmission (EoT) in all endemic areas have increased interest in alternative treatment strategies. One such strategy is moxidectin. We performed an updated economic assessment of moxidectin- relative to ivermectin-based strategies.
METHODS: We investigated annual and biannual community-directed treatment with ivermectin (aCDTI, bCDTI) and moxidectin (aCDTM, bCDTM) with minimal or enhanced coverage (65% or 80% of total population taking the drug, respectively) in intervention-naive areas with 30%, 50%, or 70% microfilarial baseline prevalence (representative of hypo-, meso-, and hyperendemic areas). We compared programmatic delivery costs for the number of treatments achieving 90% probability of EoT (EoT90), calculated with the individual-based stochastic transmission model EPIONCHO-IBM. We used the costs for 40 years of program delivery when EoT90 was not reached earlier. The delivery costs do not include drug costs.
RESULTS: aCDTM and bCDTM achieved EoT90 with lower programmatic delivery costs than aCDTI with 1 exception: aCDTM with minimal coverage did not achieve EoT90 in hyperendemic areas within 40 years. With minimal coverage, bCDTI delivery costs as much or more than aCDTM and bCDTM. With enhanced coverage, programmatic delivery costs for aCDTM and bCDTM were lower than for aCDTI and bCDTI.
CONCLUSIONS: Moxidectin-based strategies could accelerate progress toward EoT and reduce programmatic delivery costs compared with ivermectin-based strategies. The costs of moxidectin to national programs are needed to quantify whether delivery cost reductions will translate into overall program cost reduction.
METHODS: We investigated annual and biannual community-directed treatment with ivermectin (aCDTI, bCDTI) and moxidectin (aCDTM, bCDTM) with minimal or enhanced coverage (65% or 80% of total population taking the drug, respectively) in intervention-naive areas with 30%, 50%, or 70% microfilarial baseline prevalence (representative of hypo-, meso-, and hyperendemic areas). We compared programmatic delivery costs for the number of treatments achieving 90% probability of EoT (EoT90), calculated with the individual-based stochastic transmission model EPIONCHO-IBM. We used the costs for 40 years of program delivery when EoT90 was not reached earlier. The delivery costs do not include drug costs.
RESULTS: aCDTM and bCDTM achieved EoT90 with lower programmatic delivery costs than aCDTI with 1 exception: aCDTM with minimal coverage did not achieve EoT90 in hyperendemic areas within 40 years. With minimal coverage, bCDTI delivery costs as much or more than aCDTM and bCDTM. With enhanced coverage, programmatic delivery costs for aCDTM and bCDTM were lower than for aCDTI and bCDTI.
CONCLUSIONS: Moxidectin-based strategies could accelerate progress toward EoT and reduce programmatic delivery costs compared with ivermectin-based strategies. The costs of moxidectin to national programs are needed to quantify whether delivery cost reductions will translate into overall program cost reduction.