From serological surveys to disease burden: a modelling pipeline for Chagas disease.

In 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) set the elimination of Chagas disease intradomiciliary vectorial transmission as a goal by 2020. After a decade, some progress has been made, but the new 2021-2030 WHO roadmap has set even more ambitious targets. Innovative and robust modelling methods are required to monitor progress towards these goals. We present a modelling pipeline using local seroprevalence data to obtain national disease burden estimates by disease stage. Firstly, local seroprevalence information is used to estimate spatio-temporal trends in the Force-of-Infection (FoI). FoI estimates are then used to predict such trends across larger and fine-scale geographical areas. Finally, predicted FoI values are used to estimate disease burden based on a disease progression model. Using Colombia as a case study, we estimated that the number of infected people would reach 506 000 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 395 000-648 000) in 2020 with a 1.0% (95%CrI = 0.8-1.3%) prevalence in the general population and 2400 (95%CrI = 1900-3400) deaths (approx. 0.5% of those infected). The interplay between a decrease in infection exposure (FoI and relative proportion of acute cases) was overcompensated by a large increase in population size and gradual population ageing, leading to an increase in the absolute number of Chagas disease cases over time. 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'.

Understanding the Potential Impact of Different Drug Properties on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Transmission and Disease Burden: A Modelling Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The public health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. METHODS: Using a mathematical model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care, we explore the public-health impact of different potential therapeutics, under a range of scenarios varying healthcare capacity, epidemic trajectories; and drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. RESULTS: The impact of drugs like dexamethasone (delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R = 1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalization) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date have been focused on hospitalized-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics delivered earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.

Estimating the health impact of vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 low-income and middle-income countries from 2000 to 2030: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have seen expansion of childhood vaccination programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We quantify the health impact of these programmes by estimating the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted by vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 LMICs between 2000 and 2030. METHODS: 16 independent research groups provided model-based disease burden estimates under a range of vaccination coverage scenarios for ten pathogens: hepatitis B virus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, rubella, and yellow fever. Using standardised demographic data and vaccine coverage, the impact of vaccination programmes was determined by comparing model estimates from a no-vaccination counterfactual scenario with those from a reported and projected vaccination scenario. We present deaths and DALYs averted between 2000 and 2030 by calendar year and by annual birth cohort. FINDINGS: We estimate that vaccination of the ten selected pathogens will have averted 69 million (95% credible interval 52-88) deaths between 2000 and 2030, of which 37 million (30-48) were averted between 2000 and 2019. From 2000 to 2019, this represents a 45% (36-58) reduction in deaths compared with the counterfactual scenario of no vaccination. Most of this impact is concentrated in a reduction in mortality among children younger than 5 years (57% reduction [52-66]), most notably from measles. Over the lifetime of birth cohorts born between 2000 and 2030, we predict that 120 million (93-150) deaths will be averted by vaccination, of which 58 million (39-76) are due to measles vaccination and 38 million (25-52) are due to hepatitis B vaccination. We estimate that increases in vaccine coverage and introductions of additional vaccines will result in a 72% (59-81) reduction in lifetime mortality in the 2019 birth cohort. INTERPRETATION: Increases in vaccine coverage and the introduction of new vaccines into LMICs have had a major impact in reducing mortality. These public health gains are predicted to increase in coming decades if progress in increasing coverage is sustained. FUNDING: Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

How universal is coverage and access to diagnosis and treatment for Chagas disease in Colombia? A health systems analysis.

Limited access to Chagas disease diagnosis and treatment is a major obstacle to reaching the 2020 World Health Organization milestones of delivering care to all infected and ill patients. Colombia has been identified as a health system in transition, reporting one of the highest levels of health insurance coverage in Latin America. We explore if and how this high level of coverage extends to those with Chagas disease, a traditionally marginalised population. Using a mixed methods approach, we calculate coverage for screening, diagnosis and treatment of Chagas. We then identify supply-side constraints both quantitatively and qualitatively. A review of official registries of tests and treatments for Chagas disease delivered between 2008 and 2014 is compared to estimates of infected people. Using the Flagship Framework, we explore barriers limiting access to care. Screening coverage is estimated at 1.2% of the population at risk. Aetiological treatment with either benznidazol or nifurtimox covered 0.3-0.4% of the infected population. Barriers to accessing screening, diagnosis and treatment are identified for each of the Flagship Framework's five dimensions of interest: financing, payment, regulation, organization and persuasion. The main challenges identified were: a lack of clarity in terms of financial responsibilities in a segmented health system, claims of limited resources for undertaking activities particularly in primary care, non-inclusion of confirmatory test(s) in the basic package of diagnosis and care, poor logistics in the distribution and supply chain of medicines, and lack of awareness of medical personnel. Very low screening coverage emerges as a key obstacle hindering access to care for Chagas disease. Findings suggest serious shortcomings in this health system for Chagas disease, despite the success of universal health insurance scale-up in Colombia. Whether these shortcomings exist in relation to other neglected tropical diseases needs investigating. We identify opportunities for improvement that can inform additional planned health reforms.

Increased mortality attributed to Chagas disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes associated with Chagas disease remain poorly understood. In addition to the burden of morbidity, the burden of mortality due to Trypanosoma cruzi infection can be substantial, yet its quantification has eluded rigorous scrutiny. This is partly due to considerable heterogeneity between studies, which can influence the resulting estimates. There is a pressing need for accurate estimates of mortality due to Chagas disease that can be used to improve mathematical modelling, burden of disease evaluations, and cost-effectiveness studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to select observational studies comparing mortality in populations with and without a diagnosis of Chagas disease using the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and LILACS databases, without restrictions on language or date of publication. The primary outcome of interest was mortality (as all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death, heart transplant or cardiovascular deaths). Data were analysed using a random-effects model to obtain the relative risk (RR) of mortality, the attributable risk percent (ARP), and the annual mortality rates (AMR). The statistic I(2) (proportion of variance in the meta-analysis due to study heterogeneity) was calculated. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias test were also conducted. RESULTS: Twenty five studies were selected for quantitative analysis, providing data on 10,638 patients, 53,346 patient-years of follow-up, and 2739 events. Pooled estimates revealed that Chagas disease patients have significantly higher AMR compared with non-Chagas disease patients (0.18 versus 0.10; RR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.49-2.03). Substantial heterogeneity was found among studies (I(2) = 67.3%). The ARP above background mortality was 42.5%. Through a sub-analysis patients were classified by clinical group (severe, moderate, asymptomatic). While RR did not differ significantly between clinical groups, important differences in AMR were found: AMR = 0.43 in Chagas vs. 0.29 in non-Chagas patients (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.62) in the severe group; AMR = 0.16 (Chagas) vs. 0.08 (non-Chagas) (RR = 2.10, 95% CI 1.52-2.91) in the moderate group, and AMR = 0.02 vs. 0.01 (RR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.14-1.77) in the asymptomatic group. Meta-regression showed no evidence of study-level covariates on the effect size. Publication bias was not statistically significant (Egger's test p=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate a statistically significant excess of mortality due to Chagas disease that is shared among both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations.