Economic implications of three strategies for the control of taeniasis

Abstract

Summaryobjective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three strategies for the control of taeniasis in a community, in terms of cost per case treated.methods A study was conducted in South India to determine the prevalence of taeniasis by screening stool samples from 653 randomly chosen subjects, for coproantigens. The costs incurred in the project were used to estimate the cost per case screened and treated. A one-way sensitivity analysis was carried out for varying rates of taeniasis, different screening strategies and mass therapy. Further sensitivity analysis was carried out with different manpower and test costs.results The rate of taeniasis as detected by ELISA for coproantigen was 3 per 1000 (2 of 653 samples). Our study showed that mass therapy without screening for taeniasis would be the most economical strategy in terms of cost per case treated if field workers are employed exclusively for either mass therapy or screening. For each strategy, costs per case treated are higher at low prevalence of taeniasis, with a sharp rise below 15%.conclusions In places that are endemic for taeniasis and neurocysticercosis, mass therapy or screening for taeniasis should be considered. Screening by stool microscopy is not cost-effective in terms of cost per case of taeniasis treated owing to its low sensitivity. Although the cost per case of taeniasis treated is high at low prevalence of taeniasis for all options, incorporating mass therapy into existing mass drug distribution programmes might prove to be the most cost-effective control strategy.

Taenia spp.

“…Poor hand hygiene, such as not using soap to wash hands after defecation, has been associated with greater risk of exposure to cysticercosis (Vora et al, 2008) and therefore education encouraging better personal hygeine practices are important in the control of T. solium (Alexander et al, 2011 Infections with the adult stage of Taenia spp. are responsive to the common anthelmintic drugs, niclosamide (2g/person as a single dose), praziquantel (5-10mg/kg as a single dose) Guerrant, 1983, Pearson andHewlett, 1985) and Albendazole (3x400mg/person for three consecutive days) (Steinmann et al, 2011).…”

Human taeniasis/cysticercosis: a potentially emerging parasitic disease in Europe

“…In the European Union, the requirements for ante- and postmortem inspection of animals for human consumption, including cattle and pigs, are laid out in regulation 854/2004 [ 76 ]. In the same frame, people must be educated to consume only well cooked pork meat [ 77 ].…”

Human taeniasis: current insights into prevention and management strategies in endemic countries

“…cases,34 whereas niclosamide and praziquantel have demonstrated efficacy of 85% and 95%, respectively 35. Praziquantel and niclosamide have become the anthelmintic treatment of choice for taeniasis, with praziquantel appearing to be the most cost-effective treatment at $0.05–0.1/person,36 compared to niclosamide at ~$5/person 37. Reported minor side effects of praziquantel are abdominal pain, dizziness and diarrhea,38 though there are also concerns that due to the ability of praziquantel to cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB), there may be neurological consequences due to activation of undiagnosed latent NCC 39.…”

“…Poor hand hygiene, such as not using soap to wash hands after defecation, has been associated with greater risk of exposure to porcine cysticercosis 102. Education and awareness around personal hygiene practices are important in the control of T. solium ,37 as human cysticercosis infections can be prevented through stringent hand hygiene to prevent fecal–oral contamination with the infective eggs.…”