Back

How does treatment coverage and proportion never treated influence the success of Schistosoma mansoni elimination as a public health problem by 2030?

KURA, K.; Nyamai, M.; Basanez, M.-G.; Coffeng, L. E.; Thumbi, S. M.; Anderson, R.

2023-10-21 public and global health Community evaluation
10.1101/2023.10.20.23297322 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe 2030 target for schistosomiasis is elimination as a public health problem (EPHP), achieved when the prevalence of heavy intensity infection among school-aged children (SAC) reduces to <1%. To achieve this, the new World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend a broader target of population to include pre-school (pre-SAC) and adults. However, the probability of achieving EPHP should be expected to depend on patterns in repeated uptake of mass drug administration (MDA) by individuals. MethodsWe employed two individual-based stochastic models to evaluate the impact of school-based and community-wide treatment and calculated the number of rounds required to achieve EPHP for Schistosoma. mansoni by considering various levels of the population never treated (NT). We also considered two age intensity profiles, corresponding to a low and high burden of infection in adults. ResultsThe number of rounds needed to achieve this target depends on the baseline prevalence and the coverage used. For low and moderate transmission areas, EPHP can be achieved within seven years if NT [&le;]10% and NT <5%, respectively. In high transmission areas, community wide treatment with NT<1% is required to achieve EPHP. ConclusionsThe higher the intensity of transmission, and the lower the treatment coverage, the lower the acceptable value of NT becomes. Using more efficacious treatment regimens would permit NT values to be marginally higher. A balance between target treatment coverage and NT values may be an adequate treatment strategy depending on the epidemiological setting, but striving to increase coverage and/or minimise NT can shorten programme duration.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
32.7%
2
Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
3
Malaria Journal
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
5
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.3%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.6%
7
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
9
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
10
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
11
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
12
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
Parasites & Vectors
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
14
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
15
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
16
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Infectious Diseases of Poverty
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
18
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.7%
21
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.6%