• Accessibility of diagnostic and treatment centres for visceral leishmaniasis in Gedaref State, northern Sudan.

      Gerstl, S; Amsalu, R; Ritmeijer, K; Médecins Sans Frontières Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. sgerstl@aol.com (Wiley-Blackwell, 2006-02)
      OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accessibility of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment. METHOD: Community-based study using in-depth qualitative interviews and focus group discussions with key informants, as well as quantitative questionnaires with 448 randomly selected heads of households in nine representative villages in three geographical sub-regions. RESULTS: Despite the high incidence of the disease, most people in Gedaref State know little about VL, and help at a treatment centre is usually sought only after traditional remedies and basic allopathic drugs have failed. Factors barring access to treatment are: lack of money for treatment and transport, impassability of roads, work priorities, severe cultural restrictions of women's decision-making power and distance to the next health center. CONCLUSIONS: To provide more VL patients with access to treatment in this highly endemic area, diagnostic and treatment services should be decentralized. Health education would be a useful tool to rationalise people's health-seeking behaviour.
    • Barriers to access to visceral leishmaniasis diagnosis and care among seasonal mobile workers in Western Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: A qualitative study

      Coulborn, RM; Gebrehiwot, TG; Schneider, M; Gerstl, S; Adera, C; Herrero, M; Porten, K; den Boer, M; Ritmeijer, K; Alvar, J; et al. (PLoS, 2018-11-08)
      Ethiopia bears a high burden of visceral leishmaniasis (VL). Early access to VL diagnosis and care improves clinical prognosis and reduces transmission from infected humans; however, significant obstacles exist. The approximate 250,000 seasonal mobile workers (MW) employed annually in northwestern Ethiopia may be particularly disadvantaged and at risk of VL acquisition and death. Our study aimed to assess barriers, and recommend interventions to increase access, to VL diagnosis and care among MWs.
    • Drug policy for visceral leishmaniasis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

      Vanlerberghe, V; Diap, G; Guerin, P J; Meheus, F; Gerstl, S; Van der Stuyft, P; Boelaert, M; Epidemiology and Disease Control Unit, Prince Leopold Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. vvanlerberghe@itg.be (2007-02)
      OBJECTIVE: To facilitate the choice of the best visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment strategy for first-line health services in (VL)-endemic areas, we compared in a formal decision analysis the cost and the cost-effectiveness of the different available options. METHODS: We selected four drug regimens for VL on the basis of frequency of use, feasibility and reported efficacy studies. The point estimates and the range of plausible values of effectiveness and cost were retrieved from a literature review. A decision tree was constructed and the strategy minimizing the cost per death averted was selected. RESULTS: Treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate was the most effective approach in the baseline analysis and averted 87.2% of all deaths attributable to VL. The least expensive and the most cost-effective treatment was the miltefosine regimen, and the most expensive and the least cost-effective was AmBisome treatment. The cost of drug and medical care are the main determinants of the cost-effectiveness ranking of the alternative schemes. Sensitivity analysis showed that antimonial was competitive with miltefosine in the low-resistance regions. CONCLUSION: In areas with >94% response rates to antimonials, generic sodium stibogluconate remains the most cost-effective option for VL treatment, mainly due to low drug cost. In other regions, miltefosine is the most cost-effective option of treatment, but its use as a first-line drug is limited by its teratogenicity and rapid resistance development. AmBisome in mono- or combination therapy is too expensive to compete in cost-effectiveness with the other regimens.