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.

An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations.

The term 'perspective' in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders' viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.

Burden of Postinfectious Symptoms after Acute Dengue, Vietnam.

We assessed predominantly pediatric patients in Vietnam with dengue and other febrile illness 3 months after acute illness. Among dengue patients, 47% reported >1 postacute symptom. Most resolved by 3 months, but alopecia and vision problems often persisted. Our findings provide additional evidence on postacute dengue burden and confirm children are affected.

Overview of the main methods used for estimating catastrophic health expenditure.

Out-of-pocket payments are expenditures borne directly by an individual/household for health services that are not reimbursed by any third-party. Households can experience financial hardship when the burden of such out-of-pocket payments is significant. This financial hardship is commonly measured using the "catastrophic health expenditure" (CHE) metric. CHE has been applied as an indicator in several health sectors and health policies. However, despite its importance, the methods used to measure the incidence of CHE vary across different studies and the terminology used can be inconsistent. In this paper, we introduce and raise awareness of the main approaches used to calculate CHE and discuss critical areas of methodological variation in a global health context. We outline the key features, foundation and differences between the two main methods used for estimating CHE: the budget share and the capacity-to-pay approach. We discuss key sources of variation within CHE calculation and using data from Ethiopia as a case study, illustrate how different approaches can lead to notably different CHE estimates. This variation could lead to challenges when decisionmakers and policymakers need to compare different studies' CHE estimates. This overview is intended to better understand how to interpret and compare CHE estimates and the potential variation across different studies.

What are economic costs and when should they be used in health economic studies?

Economic analyses of healthcare interventions are an important consideration in evidence-based policymaking. A key component of such analyses is the costs of interventions, for which most are familiar with using budgets and expenditures. However, economic theory states that the true value of a good/service is the value of the next best alternative forgone as a result of using the resource and therefore observed prices or charges do not necessarily reflect the true economic value of resources. To address this, economic costs are a fundamental concept within (health) economics. Crucially, they are intended to reflect the resources' opportunity costs (the forgone opportunity to use those resources for another purpose) and they are based on the value of the resource's next-best alternative use that has been forgone. This is a broader conceptualization of a resource's value than its financial cost and recognizes that resources can have a value that may not be fully captured by their market price and that by using a resource it makes it unavailable for productive use elsewhere. Importantly, economic costs are preferred over financial costs for any health economic analyses aimed at informing decisions regarding the optimum allocation of the limited/competing resources available for healthcare (such as health economic evaluations), and they are also important when considering the replicability and sustainability of healthcare interventions. However, despite this, economic costs and the reasons why they are used is an area that can be misunderstood by professionals without an economic background. In this paper, we outline to a broader audience the principles behind economic costs and when and why they should be used within health economic analyses. We highlight that the difference between financial and economic costs and what adjustments are needed within cost calculations will be influenced by the context of the study, the perspective, and the objective.

How can health technology assessment support our response to public health emergencies?

Public health emergencies (PHEs), such as the COVID-19 crisis, are threats to global health and public order. We recommend that countries bolster their PHE responses by investing in health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a systematic process of gathering pertinent information on and evaluating health technologies from a medical, economic, social and ethical standpoint. We present examples of how HTA organizations in low- and middle-income countries have adapted to supporting PHE-related decisions during COVID-19 and describe the ways HTA can help the response to a PHE. In turn, we advocate for HTA capacity to be further developed globally and for increased institutional acceptance of these methods as a building block for preparedness and response to future PHEs. Finally, the long-term potential of HTA in strengthening health systems and embedding confidence and transparency into scientific policy should be recognized.

Achieving Elimination as a Public Health Problem for Schistosoma mansoni and S. haematobium: When Is Community-Wide Treatment Required?

The World Health Organization (WHO) has set elimination as a public health problem (EPHP) as a goal for schistosomiasis. As the WHO treatment guidelines for schistosomiasis are currently under revision, we investigate whether school-based or community-wide treatment strategies are required for achieving the EPHP goal. In low- to moderate-transmission settings with good school enrolment, we find that school-based treatment is sufficient for achieving EPHP. However, community-wide treatment is projected to be necessary in certain high-transmission settings as well as settings with low school enrolment. Hence, the optimal treatment strategy depends on setting-specific factors such as the species present, prevalence prior to treatment, and the age profile of infection.

The Health and Economic Burdens of Lymphatic Filariasis Prior to Mass Drug Administration Programs.

BACKGROUND: The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) was launched in 2000 with the goal of eliminating lymphatic filariasis (LF) as a public health problem by 2020. Despite considerable progress, the current prevalence is around 60% of the 2000 figure, with the deadline looming a year away. Consequently, there is a continued need for investment in both the mass drug administration (MDA) and morbidity management programs, and this paper aims to demonstrate that need by estimating the health and economic burdens of LF prior to MDA programs starting in GPELF areas. METHODS: A previously developed model was used to estimate the numbers of individuals infected and individuals with symptomatic disease, along with the attributable number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The economic burden was calculated by quantifying the costs incurred by the health-care system in managing clinical cases, the patients' out-of-pocket costs, and their productivity costs. RESULTS: Prior to the MDA program, approximately 129 million people were infected with LF, of which 43 million had clinical disease, corresponding to a DALY burden of 5.25 million. The average annual economic burden per chronic case was US $115, the majority of which resulted from productivity costs. The total economic burden of LF was estimated at US $5.8 billion annually. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the magnitude of the LF burden and highlight the continued need to support the GPELF. Patients with clinical disease bore the majority of the economic burden, but will not benefit much from the current MDA program, which is aimed at reducing transmission. This assessment further highlights the need to scale up morbidity management programs.

Productivity costs from a dengue episode in Asia: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Dengue is a mosquito-borne viral infection which has been estimated to cause a global economic burden of US$8.9 billion per year. 40% of this estimate was due to what are known as productivity costs (the costs associated with productivity loss from both paid and unpaid work that results from illness, treatment or premature death). Although productivity costs account for a significant proportion of the estimated economic burden of dengue, the methods used to calculate them are often very variable within health economic studies. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the current estimates of the productivity costs associated with dengue episodes in Asia and to increase awareness surrounding how productivity costs are estimated. METHOD: We searched PubMed and Web of Knowledge without date and language restrictions using terms related to dengue and cost and economics burden. The titles and abstracts of publications related to Asia were screened to identify relevant studies. The reported productivity losses and costs of non-fatal and fatal dengue episodes were then described and compared. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2017 prices. RESULTS: We reviewed 33 relevant articles, of which 20 studies reported the productivity losses, and 31 studies reported productivity costs. The productivity costs varied between US$6.7-1445.9 and US$3.8-1332 for hospitalized and outpatient non-fatal episodes, respectively. The productivity cost associated with fatal dengue episodes varied between US$12,035-1,453,237. A large degree of this variation was due to the range of different countries being investigated and their corresponding economic status. However, estimates for a given country still showed notable variation. CONCLUSION: We found that the estimated productivity costs associated with dengue episodes in Asia are notable. However, owing to the significant variation in methodology and approaches applied, the reported productivity costs of dengue episodes were often not directly comparable across studies. More consistent and transparent methodology regarding the estimation of productivity costs would help the estimates of the economic burden of dengue be more accurate and comparable across studies.

Valuing the Unpaid Contribution of Community Health Volunteers to Mass Drug Administration Programs.

Community health volunteers (CHVs) are being used within a growing number of healthcare interventions, and they have become a cornerstone for the delivery of mass drug administration within many neglected tropical disease control programs. However, a greater understanding of the methods used to value the unpaid time CHVs contribute to healthcare programs is needed. We outline the two main approaches used to value CHVs' unpaid time (the opportunity cost and the replacement cost approaches). We found that for mass drug administration programs the estimates of the economic costs relating to the CHVs' unpaid time can be significant, with the averages of the different studies varying between US$0.05 and $0.16 per treatment. We estimated that the time donated by CHVs' to the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control alone would be valued between US$60 and $90 million. There is a need for greater transparency and consistency in the methods used to value CHVs' unpaid time.

Economic evaluations of onchocerciasis interventions: a systematic review and research needs.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of economic evaluations that has been conducted for onchocerciasis interventions, to summarise current key knowledge and to identify research gaps. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was conducted on the 8th of August 2018 using the PubMed (MEDLINE) and ISI Web of Science electronic databases. No date or language stipulations were applied to the searches. RESULTS: We identified 14 primary studies reporting the results of economic evaluations of onchocerciasis interventions, seven of which were cost-effectiveness analyses. The studies identified used a variety of different approaches to estimate the costs of the investigated interventions/programmes. Originally, the studies only quantified the benefits associated with preventing blindness. Gradually, methods improved and also captured onchocerciasis-associated skin disease. Studies found that eliminating onchocerciasis would generate billions in economic benefits. The majority of the cost-effectiveness analyses evaluated annual mass drug administration (MDA). The estimated cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted of annual MDA varies between US$3 and US$30 (cost year variable). CONCLUSIONS: The cost benefit and cost effectiveness of onchocerciasis interventions have consistently been found to be very favourable. This finding provides strong evidential support for the ongoing efforts to eliminate onchocerciasis from endemic areas. Although these results are very promising, there are several important research gaps that need to be addressed as we move towards the 2020 milestones and beyond.

OBJECTIF: Fournir une analyse systématique des évaluations économiques réalisées pour les interventions contre l'onchocercose, résumer les principales connaissances actuelles et identifier les lacunes de la recherche. MÉTHODE: Une revue systématique de la littérature a été menée le 8 août 2018 en utilisant les bases de données électroniques PubMed (Medline) et ISI Web of Science. Aucune indication de date ou de langue n'a été appliquée aux recherches. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons identifié 14 études principales rapportant sur les résultats d'évaluations économiques d'interventions contre l'onchocercose, dont 7 étaient des analyses coût-efficacité. Les études identifiées ont utilisé diverses approches pour estimer les coûts des interventions/programmes étudiés. A l'origine, les études ne mesuraient que les avantages associés à la prévention de la cécité. Progressivement, les méthodes se sont améliorées et ont également capturé les maladies de la peau associées à l'onchocercose. Les études ont montré que l'élimination de l'onchocercose générerait des milliards de bénéfices économiques. La majorité des analyses coût-efficacité ont évalué l'administration annuelle en masse de médicaments (AMD). Le coût estimé par année de vie ajustée par rapport à l'incapacité (DALY) corrigé pour l'AMD annuelle varie entre 3 et 30 USD (variable de l'année de coût). ConclusionsLe rapport coût-efficacité et la rentabilité des interventions contre l'onchocercose se sont toujours avérés très favorables. Cette constatation fournit un solide appui probant aux efforts en cours pour éliminer l'onchocercose des zones d'endémie. Bien que ces résultats soient très prometteurs, plusieurs lacunes importantes en matière de recherche doivent être comblées à mesure que nous nous approchons des étapes clés pour 2020 et au-delà.

Adjusting for Inflation and Currency Changes Within Health Economic Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Within health economic studies, it is often necessary to adjust costs obtained from different time periods for inflation. Nevertheless, many studies do not report the methods used for this in sufficient detail. In this article, we outline the principal methods used to adjust for inflation, with a focus on studies relating to healthcare interventions in low- and middle-income countries. We also discuss issues relating to converting local currencies to international dollars and US$ and adjusting cost data collected from other countries or previous studies. METHODS: We outlined the 3 main methods used to adjust for inflation for studies in these settings: exchanging the local currency to US$ or international dollars and then inflating using US inflation rates (method 1); inflating the local currency using local inflation rates and then exchanging to US$ or international dollars (method 2); splitting the costs into tradable and nontradable resources and using method 1 on the tradable resources and method 2 on the nontradable resources (method 3). RESULTS: In a hypothetical example of adjusting a cost of US$100 incurred in Vietnam from 2006 to 2016 prices, the adjusted cost from the 3 methods were US$116.84, US$172.09, and US$161.04, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The different methods for adjusting for inflation can yield substantially different results. We make recommendations regarding the most appropriate method for various scenarios. Moving forward, it is vital that studies report the methodology they use to adjust for inflation more transparently.

Economic evaluation studies in the field of HIV/AIDS: bibliometric analysis on research development and scopes (GAPRESEARCH).

BACKGROUND: The rapid decrease in international funding for HIV/AIDS has been challenging for many nations to effectively mobilize and allocate their limited resources for HIV/AIDS programs. Economic evaluations can help inform decisions and strategic planning. This study aims to examine the trends and patterns in economic evaluation studies in the field of HIV/AIDS and determine their research landscapes. METHODS: Using the Web of Science databases, we synthesized the number of papers and citations on HIV/AIDS and economic evaluation from 1990 to 2017. Collaborations between authors and countries, networks of keywords and research topics were visualized using frequency of co-occurrence and Jaccards' similarity index. A Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) analysis to categorize papers into different topics/themes. RESULTS: A total of 372 economic evaluation papers were selected, including 351 cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), 11 cost-utility analyses (CUA), 12 cost-benefit analyses (CBA). The growth of publications, their citations and usages have increased remarkably over the years. Major research topics in economic evaluation studies consisted of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and treatment; drug use prevention interventions and prevention of mother-to-child transmission interventions. Moreover, lack of contextualized evidence was found in specific settings with high burden HIV epidemics, as well as emerging most-at-risk populations such as trans-genders or migrants. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the knowledge and geographical discrepancies in HIV/AIDS economic evaluation literature. Future research directions are also informed for advancing economic evaluation in HIV/AIDS research.

Economic Evaluations of Mass Drug Administration: The Importance of Economies of Scale and Scope.

It is recognized that changing the current approaches for the control of the neglected tropical diseases will be needed to reach the World Health Organization's (WHO) 2020 goals. Consequently, it is important that economic evaluations of the alternative approaches are conducted. A vital component of such evaluations is the issue of how the intervention's costs should be incorporated. We discuss this issue-focusing on mass drug administration. We argue that the common approach of assuming an intervention's cost per treatment is constant, regardless of the number of individuals treated, is a misleading way to consider the delivery costs of mass drug administration due to the occurrence of economies/diseconomies of scale and scope. Greater care and consideration are required when the costs are incorporated into such analyses. Without this, these economic evaluations could potentially lead to incorrect policy recommendations.

Are We on Our Way to Achieving the 2020 Goals for Schistosomiasis Morbidity Control Using Current World Health Organization Guidelines?

Background: Schistosomiasis remains an endemic parasitic disease affecting millions of people around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) has set goals of controlling morbidity to be reached by 2020, along with elimination as a public health problem in certain regions by 2025. Mathematical models of parasite transmission and treatment impact have been developed to assist in controlling the morbidity caused by schistosomiasis. These models can inform and guide implementation policy for mass drug administration programs, and help design monitoring and evaluation activities. Methods: We use these models to predict whether the guidelines set by the WHO are on track for achieving their 2020 goal for the control of morbidity, specifically for Schistosoma mansoni. We examine whether programmatic adaptations; namely increases in treatment coverage and/or expansion to adult inclusion in treatment, will improve the likelihood of reaching the WHO goals. Results: We find that in low-prevalence settings, the goals are likely to be attainable under current WHO guidelines, but in moderate to high-prevalence settings, the goals are less likely to be achieved unless treatment coverage is increased and expanded to at least 85% for school-aged children and 40% for adults. Conclusions: To improve the likelihood of reaching the WHO goals, programmatic adaptations are required, particularly for moderate- to high-prevalence settings. Furthermore, improvements in adherence to treatment, potential development of candidate vaccines, and enhanced snail control and WASH (water, sanitation, and hygiene) measures will all assist in achieving the goals.

Investment Success in Public Health: An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis.

Background: It has been estimated that $154 million per year will be required during 2015-2020 to continue the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF). In light of this, it is important to understand the program's current value. Here, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the preventive chemotherapy that was provided under the GPELF between 2000 and 2014. In addition, we also investigate the potential cost-effectiveness of hydrocele surgery. Methods: Our economic evaluation of preventive chemotherapy was based on previously published health and economic impact estimates (between 2000 and 2014). The delivery costs of treatment were estimated using a model developed by the World Health Organization. We also developed a model to investigate the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted by a hydrocelectomy and identified the cost threshold under which it would be considered cost-effective. Results: The projected cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of preventive chemotherapy were very promising, and this was robust over a wide range of costs and assumptions. When the economic value of the donated drugs was not included, the GPELF would be classed as highly cost-effective. We projected that a typical hydrocelectomy would be classed as highly cost-effective if the surgery cost less than $66 and cost-effective if less than $398 (based on the World Bank's cost-effectiveness thresholds for low income countries). Conclusions: Both the preventive chemotherapy and hydrocele surgeries provided under the GPELF are incredibly cost-effective and offer a very good investment in public health.

Reaching the london declaration on neglected tropical diseases goals for onchocerciasis: an economic evaluation of increasing the frequency of ivermectin treatment in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been a shift in onchocerciasis control policy, changing from prevention of morbidity toward elimination of infection. Switching from annual to biannual ivermectin distribution may accelerate progress toward the elimination goals. However, the settings where this strategy would be cost effective in Africa have not been described. METHODS: An onchocerciasis transmission framework (EpiOncho) was coupled to a disease model in order to explore the impact on disability-adjusted life years averted, program cost, and program duration of biannual ivermectin treatment in different epidemiological and programmatic scenarios in African savannah. RESULTS: While biannual treatment yields only small additional health gains, its benefit is pronounced in the context of the elimination goals, shortening the time frames for and increasing the feasibility of reaching the proposed operational thresholds for stopping treatment. In settings with high precontrol endemicity (and/or poor coverage and compliance), it may not be possible to reach such thresholds even within 50 years of annual ivermectin, requiring adoption of biannual treatment. Our projections highlight the crucial role played by coverage and compliance in achieving the elimination goals. CONCLUSIONS: Biannual ivermectin treatment improves the chances of reaching the 2020/2025 elimination goals, potentially generating programmatic cost savings in settings with high precontrol endemicity. However, its benefit and cost are highly sensitive to levels of systematic noncompliance and, in many settings, it will lead to an increase in costs. Furthermore, it may not always be feasible to implement biannual treatment, particularly in hard-to-reach populations. This highlights the continued need for a macrofilaricide.

Analyses of the return on investment of public health interventions: a scoping review and recommendations for future studies.

Return on investment (ROI) analysis is increasingly being used for evaluating the value for money of public health interventions. Given its potential role for informing health policies, it is important that there is a more comprehensive understanding of ROI analysis within the global health field. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of recent research articles reporting an ROI metric for a health intervention within the public sector in any country setting. The database search was limited to literature published in English and studies published between 1 January 2018 and 14 June 2021. Uses and settings where the ROI metric is being applied, key methodological features of the calculations and the types of economic benefits included were extracted. 118 relevant studies were included within this scoping review. We found that ROI analyses of health interventions differed between those that only included fiscal savings (such as prevented medical expenses) and those which incorporated a wider range of benefits (such as monetised health benefits). This highlights the variation in the definition of ROI analyses and supports the finding that ROI analyses are used for a range of different research questions/purposes within the healthcare sector. We also found that the methodologies used in ROI calculations were inconsistent and often poorly reported. This review demonstrates that there is notable variation in the methodology surrounding recent ROI calculations of healthcare interventions, as well as the definition of ROI analysis. We recommend that ROI metrics should be carefully interpreted before they are used to inform policy decisions regarding the allocation of healthcare resources. To improve the consistency of future studies, we also set out recommended use cases for ROI analysis and a reporting checklist.

An economic evaluation of Wolbachia deployments for dengue control in Vietnam.

INTRODUCTION: Dengue is a major public health challenge and a growing problem due to climate change. The release of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with the intracellular bacterium Wolbachia is a novel form of vector control against dengue. However, there remains a need to evaluate the benefits of such an intervention at a large scale. In this paper, we evaluate the potential economic impact and cost-effectiveness of scaled Wolbachia deployments as a form of dengue control in Vietnam-targeted at the highest burden urban areas. METHODS: Ten settings within Vietnam were identified as priority locations for potential future Wolbachia deployments (using a population replacement strategy). The effectiveness of Wolbachia deployments in reducing the incidence of symptomatic dengue cases was assumed to be 75%. We assumed that the intervention would maintain this effectiveness for at least 20 years (but tested this assumption in the sensitivity analysis). A cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis were conducted. RESULTS: From the health sector perspective, the Wolbachia intervention was projected to cost US$420 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. From the societal perspective, the overall cost-effectiveness ratio was negative, i.e. the economic benefits outweighed the costs. These results are contingent on the long-term effectiveness of Wolbachia releases being sustained for 20 years. However, the intervention was still classed as cost-effective across the majority of the settings when assuming only 10 years of benefits. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that targeting high burden cities with Wolbachia deployments would be a cost-effective intervention in Vietnam and generate notable broader benefits besides health gains.

A positive consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic: how the counterfactual experience of school closures is accelerating a multisectoral response to the treatment of neglected tropical diseases.

Global access to deworming treatment is one of the public health success stories of low-income countries in the twenty-first century. Parasitic worm infections are among the most ubiquitous chronic infections of humans, and early success with mass treatment programmes for these infections was the key catalyst for the neglected tropical disease (NTD) agenda. Since the launch of the 'London Declaration' in 2012, school-based deworming programmes have become the world's largest public health interventions. WHO estimates that by 2020, some 3.3 billion school-based drug treatments had been delivered. The success of this approach was brought to a dramatic halt in April 2020 when schools were closed worldwide in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These closures immediately excluded 1.5 billion children not only from access to education but also from all school-based health services, including deworming. WHO Pulse surveys in 2021 identified NTD treatment as among the most negatively affected health interventions worldwide, second only to mental health interventions. In reaction, governments created a global Coalition with the twin aims of reopening schools and of rebuilding more resilient school-based health systems. Today, some 86 countries, comprising more than half the world's population, are delivering on this response, and school-based coverage of some key school-based programmes exceeds those from January 2020. This paper explores how science, and a combination of new policy and epidemiological perspectives that began in the 1980s, led to the exceptional growth in school-based NTD programmes after 2012, and are again driving new momentum in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This article is part of the theme issue 'Challenges and opportunities in the fight against neglected tropical diseases: a decade from the London Declaration on NTDs'.