IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0013257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of adding measurement of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and serology to trachoma prevalence surveys in Tanzania and Mozambique

Author

Listed:
  • Emily C Decker
  • Molly W Adams
  • William E Oswald
  • Rebecca M Flueckiger
  • Jeremiah M Ngondi
  • Mawo Fall
  • Ezgi E Yilmaz
  • Lisa C Brooks
  • George Kabona
  • Henis Mior Sitoe
  • Mabula Kasubi
  • Tamimo Momade
  • Thomas M Lietman
  • Thuy Doan
  • Rachel D Stelmach

Abstract

Background: Accurate methods to measure trachoma prevalence are critical to monitor progress and guide mass drug administration as countries near elimination. Currently, countries conduct trachoma prevalence surveys via clinical examination using the simplified trachoma grading system. Grading can have reduced accuracy in low prevalence settings, potentially resulting in errors. Adding ocular swabbing and Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) infection testing and dried blood spot (DBS) collection and testing can be more sensitive and specific methods for trachoma identification, with potential cost-saving and information benefits. While previous studies have examined the costs of trachoma prevalence surveys, we present the first costing and cost-effectiveness analysis of enhanced trachoma prevalence surveys with ocular swabs and DBS in addition to grading. Methodology/Principal findings: We calculated the incremental financial cost of enhanced trachoma prevalence surveys with swabs, DBS, and grading using expenditure records from four districts in Tanzania and four districts in Mozambique in 2022. In Tanzania, the cost per cluster of an enhanced survey was $2,337.39 compared to $459.75 for a standard survey. In Mozambique, the cost per cluster of an enhanced survey was $2,147.12, compared to $1,381.46 for a standard survey. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each method, defined as the ratio of incremental cost to additional instances of trachoma indicators identified, and explored variation in cost-effectiveness via sensitivity analyses. Adding swabs, DBS, or both was cost-increasing and more effective at identification of trachoma indicators than grading alone. In Tanzania, swabs were the most cost-effective method, while DBS was more cost-effective in Mozambique. Swabs and DBS were less cost-effective when combined than individually. The main factor determining cost-effectiveness was sensitivity. Conclusions/Significance: Adding swabs or DBS to trachoma prevalence surveys can be viable, cost-effective methods for identifying trachoma indicators. The additional costs are commensurate with additional information that would support elimination efforts. Author summary: Countries have made progress towards eliminating trachoma, a bacterial blinding disease. To assess trachoma prevalence, countries conduct surveys involving examination for clinical signs of trachoma, which in turn inform the decision to implement mass drug administration of antibiotics. However, clinical examination can result in errors, particularly as the disease becomes rare. Countries have explored alternative methods of identifying trachoma, which include testing swabs of the inner eyelid or dried blood spots (DBS). These methods can be more accurate than clinical examination, but also more costly. We examined the costs of surveys with swabs and DBS in Tanzania and Mozambique compared to surveys with clinical examination alone. We found that adding swabs and DBS to a survey increased costs by 408% in Tanzania and 55% in Mozambique. We also assessed cost-effectiveness, or the extent to which additional costs corresponded to greater trachoma indicator identification, and found that swabs were most cost-effective in Tanzania, while DBS were most cost-effective in Mozambique. Using both swabs and DBS together in a survey added the most costs, with similar gain in trachoma identification compared to using one or the other. Our results will help countries plan for future surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily C Decker & Molly W Adams & William E Oswald & Rebecca M Flueckiger & Jeremiah M Ngondi & Mawo Fall & Ezgi E Yilmaz & Lisa C Brooks & George Kabona & Henis Mior Sitoe & Mabula Kasubi & Tamimo Mom, 2025. "Cost-effectiveness of adding measurement of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and serology to trachoma prevalence surveys in Tanzania and Mozambique," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0013257
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0013257
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0013257&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013257?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pntd00:0002840 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:pntd00:0013257. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.