IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0003670.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Costs of Testing for Ocular Chlamydia trachomatis Infection Compared to Mass Drug Administration for Trachoma in The Gambia: Application of Results from the PRET Study

Author

Listed:
  • Emma Harding-Esch
  • Mireia Jofre-Bonet
  • Jaskiran K Dhanjal
  • Sarah Burr
  • Tansy Edwards
  • Martin Holland
  • Ansumana Sillah
  • Sheila West
  • Tom Lietman
  • Jeremy Keenan
  • David Mabey
  • Robin Bailey

Abstract

Background: Mass drug administration (MDA) treatment of active trachoma with antibiotic is recommended to be initiated in any district where the prevalence of trachoma inflammation, follicular (TF) is ≥10% in children aged 1–9 years, and then to continue for at least three annual rounds before resurvey. In The Gambia the PRET study found that discontinuing MDA based on testing a sample of children for ocular Chlamydia trachomatis(Ct) infection after one MDA round had similar effects to continuing MDA for three rounds. Moreover, one round of MDA reduced disease below the 5% TF threshold. We compared the costs of examining a sample of children for TF, and of testing them for Ct, with those of MDA rounds. Methods: The implementation unit in PRET The Gambia was a census enumeration area (EA) of 600–800 people. Personnel, fuel, equipment, consumables, data entry and supervision costs were collected for census and treatment of a sample of EAs and for the examination, sampling and testing for Ct infection of 100 individuals within them. Programme costs and resource savings from testing and treatment strategies were inferred for the 102 EAs in the study area, and compared. Results: Census costs were $103.24 per EA plus initial costs of $108.79. MDA with donated azithromycin cost $227.23 per EA. The mean cost of examining and testing 100 children was $796.90 per EA, with Ct testing kits costing $4.80 per result. A strategy of testing each EA for infection is more expensive than two annual rounds of MDA unless the kit cost is less than $1.38 per result. However stopping or deciding not to initiate treatment in the study area based on testing a sample of EAs for Ct infection (or examining children in a sample of EAs) creates savings relative to further unnecessary treatments. Conclusion: Resources may be saved by using tests for chlamydial infection or clinical examination to determine that initial or subsequent rounds of MDA for trachoma are unnecessary. Author Summary: Trachoma, caused by infection with a bacterium (chlamydia) is controlled by mass drug administration (MDA), which is recommended yearly for districts in which a trachoma problem has been found to exist. The decision, after several rounds, that MDA is no longer needed is currently based on clinical signs of trachoma, but these are an unreliable indicator of infection. The PRET study, in the Gambia, found that tests for infection could be used to show that subsequent rounds of MDA were redundant. This paper shows, by estimating the costs, that testing children in a sample of census districts for infection can save resources compared to (unnecessary) rounds of MDA.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Harding-Esch & Mireia Jofre-Bonet & Jaskiran K Dhanjal & Sarah Burr & Tansy Edwards & Martin Holland & Ansumana Sillah & Sheila West & Tom Lietman & Jeremy Keenan & David Mabey & Robin Bailey, 2015. "Costs of Testing for Ocular Chlamydia trachomatis Infection Compared to Mass Drug Administration for Trachoma in The Gambia: Application of Results from the PRET Study," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0003670
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0003670
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0003670&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003670?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0003670. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.