IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0000708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Economic Benefits Resulting from the First 8 Years of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (2000–2007)

Author

Listed:
  • Brian K Chu
  • Pamela J Hooper
  • Mark H Bradley
  • Deborah A McFarland
  • Eric A Ottesen

Abstract

Background: Between 2000–2007, the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) delivered more than 1.9 billion treatments to nearly 600 million individuals via annual mass drug administration (MDA) of anti-filarial drugs (albendazole, ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine) to all at-risk for 4–6 years. Quantifying the resulting economic benefits of this significant achievement is important not only to justify the resources invested in the GPELF but also to more fully understand the Programme's overall impact on some of the poorest endemic populations. Methodology: To calculate the economic benefits, the number of clinical manifestations averted was first quantified and the savings associated with this disease prevention then analyzed in the context of direct treatment costs, indirect costs of lost-labor, and costs to the health system to care for affected individuals. Multiple data sources were reviewed, including published literature and databases from the World Health Organization, International Monetary Fund, and International Labour Organization Principal Findings: An estimated US$21.8 billion of direct economic benefits will be gained over the lifetime of 31.4 million individuals treated during the first 8 years of the GPELF. Of this total, over US$2.3 billion is realized by the protection of nearly 3 million newborns and other individuals from acquiring lymphatic filariasis as a result of their being born into areas freed of LF transmission. Similarly, more than 28 million individuals already infected with LF benefit from GPELF's halting the progression of their disease, which results in an associated lifetime economic benefit of approximately US$19.5 billion. In addition to these economic benefits to at-risk individuals, decreased patient services associated with reduced LF morbidity saves the health systems of endemic countries approximately US$2.2 billion. Conclusions/Significance: MDA for LF offers significant economic benefits. Moreover, with favorable program implementation costs (largely a result of the sustained commitments of donated drugs from the pharmaceutical industry) it is clear that the economic rate of return of the GPELF is extremely high and that this Programme continues to prove itself an excellent investment in global health. Author Summary: Lymphatic filariasis (LF), commonly known as ‘elephantiasis’, is one of the world's most debilitating infectious diseases. In 83 countries worldwide, more than 1.3 billion people are at risk of infection with an estimated 120 million individuals already infected. A recent publication reviewing the health impact of the first 8 years of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) demonstrated the enormous health benefits achieved in populations receiving annual mass drug administration (MDA), as a result of infection prevented, disease progression halted, and ancillary treatment of co-infections. To date, however, no studies have estimated the economic value of these health benefits, either to the individuals or the societies afflicted with LF. Our study estimates that US$21.8 billion will be gained among individuals benefitting from just the first 8 years of the Global Programme, and an additional US$2.2 billion will be saved by the health systems of endemic countries. Treating endemic populations is possible at very low cost – particularly because of the generous drug donations from two pharmaceutical companies – but results in enormous economic benefits. Findings from this study yield a much clearer understanding the GPELF's full economic impact and strengthen the conviction that it is a ‘best buy’ in global health.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian K Chu & Pamela J Hooper & Mark H Bradley & Deborah A McFarland & Eric A Ottesen, 2010. "The Economic Benefits Resulting from the First 8 Years of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (2000–2007)," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0000708
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000708
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000708&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000708?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Edeltraud J Lenk & William K Redekop & Marianne Luyendijk & Adriana J Rijnsburger & Johan L Severens, 2016. "Productivity Loss Related to Neglected Tropical Diseases Eligible for Preventive Chemotherapy: A Systematic Literature Review," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Elisa Sicuri & David B Evans & Fabrizio Tediosi, 2015. "Can Economic Analysis Contribute to Disease Elimination and Eradication? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Kimberly M. Thompson, 2017. "Modeling and Managing the Risks of Measles and Rubella: A Global Perspective Part II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1041-1051, June.

    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:pntd00:0000708. 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.