on November 2nd, 2015 No Comments
A new health economics evaluation unveiled last week shows historical World Health Organization treatment guidelines for the two most common parasitic worm diseases are far too restrictive, and it provides a framework for the necessary expansion of global treatment programs.
The findings were presented by Nathan Lo, a third-year Stanford medical student, at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, which convened infectious disease experts from around the world to share the latest scientific advances in tropical medicine and global health.
These diseases – schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis – are caused by tiny worms found in water and soil that can cause severe discomfort and even death after coming into contact with humans. Together, they infect some 1.5 billion people in the developing world.
The medications to treat these diseases are cheap and highly effective, but there’s a large unmet need in treatment. Under the current WHO guidelines, treatment is focused upon school-aged children living in high prevalence areas. These guidelines have been largely unchanged for nearly a decade and leave many infected people untreated.
“The prevalence thresholds that have defined mass drug administration for nearly a decade were developed based upon expert opinion, but they are not based on rigorous scientific evidence,” said Lo. “We are urging the WHO to consider lowering the current thresholds and expanding global treatment programs.”
Stanford’s Jason Andrews, MD, the senior author of the study, Lo and colleagues have proposed a new framework for determining the optimal treatment strategy – who to treat, how often, and with what medicines – based on prevalence thresholds in a specific community using economic modeling. The findings show that expanding mass drug administration in communities with much lower disease prevalence would not only be cost-effective, but would result in improved quality of life, reduce re-infection rates and lower disease intensity. If adopted, this would result in a five-fold increase in the number of people who would receive treatment in sub-Saharan Africa alone.