An Updated Economic Assessment of Moxidectin Treatment Strategies for Onchocerciasis Elimination.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) aims to reduce and maintain infection levels through mass drug administration (MDA), but there is evidence of ongoing transmission after MDA in areas where Culex mosquitoes are the main transmission vector, suggesting that a more stringent criterion is required for MDA decision making in these settings. METHODS: We use a transmission model to investigate how a lower prevalence threshold (<1% antigenemia [Ag] prevalence compared with <2% Ag prevalence) for MDA decision making would affect the probability of local elimination, health outcomes, the number of MDA rounds, including restarts, and program costs associated with MDA and surveys across different scenarios. To determine the cost-effectiveness of switching to a lower threshold, we simulated 65% and 80% MDA coverage of the total population for different willingness to pay per disability-adjusted life-year averted for India ($446.07), Tanzania ($389.83), and Haiti ($219.84). RESULTS: Our results suggest that with a lower Ag threshold, there is a small proportion of simulations where extra rounds are required to reach the target, but this also reduces the need to restart MDA later in the program. For 80% coverage, the lower threshold is cost-effective across all baseline prevalences for India, Tanzania, and Haiti. For 65% MDA coverage, the lower threshold is not cost-effective due to additional MDA rounds, although it increases the probability of local elimination. Valuing the benefits of elimination to align with the GPELF goals, we find that a willingness to pay per capita government expenditure of approximately $1000-$4000 for 1% increase in the probability of local elimination would be required to make a lower threshold cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Lower Ag thresholds for stopping MDAs generally mean a higher probability of local elimination, reducing long-term costs and health impacts. However, they may also lead to an increased number of MDA rounds required to reach the lower threshold and, therefore, increased short-term costs. Collectively, our analyses highlight that lower target Ag thresholds have the potential to assist programs in achieving lymphatic filariasis goals.

Hepatitis C Elimination in Rwanda: Progress, Feasibility, and Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, Rwanda launched a national program to eliminate the hepatitis C virus (HCV). We aim to assess the impact of the program to date and identify strategies to achieve the World Health Organization's HCV elimination goals by 2030. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to simulate Rwanda's HCV epidemic from 2015 through 2050 and evaluated temporal trends in HCV infection, prevalence, mortality, and the total cost of care for scenarios that could achieve HCV elimination by 2030. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2022, over 7 million people were screened for HCV, and 60 000 were treated. The study projected that Rwanda could achieve HCV elimination as early as 2027. A feasible strategy of an annual screening rate of 15% and a treatment rate of 100% would achieve all World Health Organization elimination goals by 2028, requiring screening an additional 4 million people and treating 23 900 patients by 2030. The elimination strategy costs $25 million for screening and diagnosis and $21 million for treatment from 2015 to 2050. The national program would avert 4900 hepatocellular carcinoma cases and 6700 HCV-related deaths and save the health system $25.33 million from 2015 to 2050. CONCLUSIONS: Rwanda is poised to become one of the first countries in the world to eliminate HCV. Rwanda's program serves as a blueprint for other countries in the African region. By rapid screening and treatment scale-up (eg, by leveraging HIV platforms) and by drug price negotiations, HCV elimination is not only feasible but can be cost-saving in low-income settings.

Modelling the cost of engage & treat and test & treat strategies towards the elimination of lymphatic filariasis in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Despite several years of LF-MDA implementation, Ghana still has some districts with mf prevalence >1%, partly due to poor treatment coverage levels resulting from non-participation in MDA. To address the challenges, we implemented Engage & Treat (E&T) and Test & Treat (T&T) strategies for individuals who miss or refuse MDA respectively, in a hotspot district, enabling us to reach many of those who seldom, or never, take part in MDA. This financial cost study was undertaken to analyse data on the LF-MDA, E&T and T&T implementation in 2021 and the financial cost to inform the rollout of the E&T and T&T as mop-up strategies in future LF-MDAs. METHODS: This costing study analysed cost data from the 2021 LF-MDA implementation activities carried out by the Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTD) programme of the Ghana Health Service and the SENTINEL study, carried out in Ahanta West district for the two interventions (i.e., E&T and T&T). The 2021 Ghana Population and Housing Census data was used to estimate the LF-MDA-eligible population. The financial cost per person treated was estimated and these costs were applied to the projected population to obtain the financial cost for subsequent years. RESULTS: Implementing MDA mop-up strategies either through the E&T or T&T to improve coverage comes at an additional cost to the elimination goals. For example, in 2024 the projected cost per person treated by the routine LF-MDA is estimated at US$0.83. The cost using the integrated LF-MDA and the E&T, T&T led by the NTD programme or T&T integrated into the health system was estimated at US$1.62, US$2.88, and US$2.33, respectively, for the same year. Despite the increased cost, the proposed combined LF-MDA and mop-up strategies will have a higher estimated population treated for 2024 (i.e., 1,392,211) compared to the routine LF-MDA approach (i.e., 988,470) for the same year. CONCLUSION: Combining LF-MDA with E&T/T&T mop-up strategies, despite their high costs, may provide NTD Programmes with the options of improving treatment coverage and reaching the LF elimination target sooner, given that the routine LF-MDA alone approach has been implemented for many years with some districts yet to reach the elimination targets.

Hepatitis C disease burden and strategies for elimination by 2030 in Brazil. A mathematical modeling approach

ABSTRACT Introduction and aim: Hepatitis C is a key challenge to public health in Brazil. The objective of this paper was to describe the Brazilian strategy for hepatitis C to meet the 2030 elimination goal proposed by World Health Organization (WHO). Methods: A mathematical modeling approach was used to estimate the current HCV-infected Brazilian population, and to evaluate the relative costs of two different scenarios to address HCV disease burden in Brazil: (1) if no further changes are made to the HCV treatment program in Brazil; (2) where the WHO targets for 2030 elimination are met through diagnosis and treatment efforts peaking before 2024. Results: An anti-HCV prevalence of 0.53% was calculated for the total population. It was estimated that the number of HCV-RNA+ individuals in Brazil in 2017 was 632,000 (0.31% of the population). Scale-up of treatment and diagnosis over time will be necessary in order to achieve WHO targets beginning in 2018. Direct costs (diagnostic, treatment and healthcare costs) are projected to increase significantly during the scale-up of treatment and diagnosis in the initial years of the intervention scenario, but then fall below the base case on an annual basis by 2025-2036, once HCV is eliminated, due to health sectors savings from the prevention of HCV liver-related morbidity and mortality. Conclusion: Achieving the WHO targets is technically feasible in Brazil with a scale-up of treatment and diagnosis over time, beginning in 2018. However, elimination of hepatitis C requires policy changes to substantially scale-up prevention, screening and treatment of HCV, together with public health advocacy to raise awareness among affected populations and healthcare providers.