Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Reviews of "Cost-effectiveness of Vector Control Strategies for Supplementing Mass Drug Administration for Eliminating Lymphatic Filariasis in India"

Reviewers: A Vargas-Palacios (University of Leeds) | 📙📙 ◻️◻️◻️ • E Marseille (UC Berkeley) | 📒📒📒◻️◻️ • A Avancena & H Zhang (University of Texas at Austin) | 📗📗📗📗◻️

Published onMar 04, 2024
Reviews of "Cost-effectiveness of Vector Control Strategies for Supplementing Mass Drug Administration for Eliminating Lymphatic Filariasis in India"
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
Cost-effectiveness of vector control strategies for supplementing mass drug administration for eliminating lymphatic filariasis in India
Cost-effectiveness of vector control strategies for supplementing mass drug administration for eliminating lymphatic filariasis in India
Description

Abstract Background/Methodology Despite progress using mass drug administration (MDA), lymphatic filariasis (LF) remains a major public health issue in India. Vector control (VC) is hypothesized as a potentially useful addition to MDA towards LF elimination. We conducted cost-effectiveness analysis of MDA alone and augmented by VC single (VCS) or integrated VC approaches (VCI). Data came from historical controls and a 3-arm cluster randomized trial of 36 villages at risk of LF transmission in Tamil Nadu, India. The arms were: MDA alone (the standard of care); VCS (MDA plus expanded polystyrene beads for covering the water surface in wells and cesspits to suppress the filariasis vector mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus), and VCI (VCS plus insecticidal pyrethroid impregnated curtains over windows, doors, and eaves). Economic costs in 2010 US$ combined government and community inputs from household to state levels. Outcomes were controlled microfilaria prevalence (MfP) and antigen prevalence (AgP) to conventional elimination targets (MfP<1% and AgP<2%) from 2010 to 2013, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted.Principal Findings The estimated annual economic cost per resident was US$0.53 for MDA alone, US$1.02 for VCS, and US$1.83 for VCI. With MDA offered in all arms, all reduced LF prevalence substantially and significantly from 2010 to 2013. MDA proved highly cost effective at $112 per DALY, a very small (8%) share of India’s then per capita GDP. Progress towards elimination was comparable across all three study arms.Conclusions The well-functioning MDA was effective and very cost-effective for eliminating LF, leaving little scope for further improvement. Supplementary VC demonstrated no statistically significant additional benefit in this trial.Authors’ Summary Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is one of the twenty neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) that affect more than one billion people worldwide. As part of the effort toward global elimination of LF, the Indian State of Tamil Nadu government has implemented mass drug administration (MDA) repeatedly since 1996. Despite their efforts, LF had not yet been eliminated. Although vector control (VC) is proposed to augment regular MDA to help eliminate LF, little is known about the increased impact or costs. Our study compares the costs of MDA alone to the combination of MDA with alternative VC interventions. We calculated both program operating costs and costs to communities. We found MDA to be very cost-effective for eliminating LF. Against low levels of LF endemicity (≤10%), the study had limited ability to detect further improvements and found no significant incremental improvements from VC.

To read the original manuscript, click the link above.

Summary of Reviews: This preprint compares the costs of mass drug administration (MDA) alone to the combination of MDA with alternative vector control strategies for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis (LF) in Tamil Nadu.  Reviewers have highlighted that this is an important study but raised major concerns related to the methods and data section, recommending the inclusion of robustness and sensitivity analysis.

Reviewer 1 (Armando V…) | 📙📙 ◻️◻️◻️

Reviewer 2 (Elliot M…) | 📒📒📒 ◻️◻️

Reviewer 3 (Anton A… & Hanwen Z…) | 📗📗📗📗◻️

RR:C19 Strength of Evidence Scale Key

📕 ◻️◻️◻️◻️ = Misleading

📙📙 ◻️◻️◻️ = Not Informative

📒📒📒 ◻️◻️ = Potentially Informative

📗📗📗📗◻️ = Reliable

📘📘📘📘📘 = Strong

To read the reviews, click the links below. 

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?