https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(12)61729-2.pdf

Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2307%2F3343168.pdf

Development as Freedom

As part of a World Health Organization-led effort to update the empirical evidence base for the leishmaniases, national experts provided leishmaniasis case data for the last 5 years and information regarding treatment and control in their respective countries and a comprehensive literature review was conducted covering publications on leishmaniasis in 98 regional level between 2007 and 2011. Two questionnaires regarding epidemiology and drug access were completed by experts and national program managers. Visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis incidence ranges were estimated by country and epidemiological region based on reported incidence, underreporting rates if available, and the judgment of national and international experts. Based on these estimates, approximately 0.2 to 0.4 cases and 0.7 to 1.2 million VL and CL cases, respectively, occur each year. More than 90% of global VL cases occur in six countries: India, Bangladesh, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Brazil. Cutaneous leishmaniasis is more widely distributed, with about one-third of cases occurring in each of three epidemiological regions, the Americas, the Mediterranean basin, and western Asia from the Middle East to Central Asia. The ten countries with the highest estimated case counts, Afghanistan, Algeria, Colombia, Brazil, Iran, Syria, Ethiopia, North Sudan, Costa Rica and Peru, together account for 70 to 75% of global estimated CL incidence. Mortality data were extremely sparse and generally represent hospital-based deaths only. Using an overall case-fatality rate of 10%, we reach a tentative estimate of 20,000 to 40,000 leishmaniasis deaths per year. Although the information is very poor in a number of countries, this is the first in-depth exercise to better estimate the real impact of leishmaniasis. These data should help to define control strategies and reinforce leishmaniasis advocacy. Funding: The Spanish Agency for International Cooperation for Development (AECID) has provided generous support to the WHO Leishmaniasis program since 2005. This support permitted among many other activities regional meetings with the AFRO, EURO, PAHO and SEARO countries, and provided for short term contracts for IDV, MdB, MH and JS related to the preparation of the country profiles. Sanofi provided a grant for a regional meeting with the EMRO countries and various activities related to the control of cutaneous Leishmaniasis in the EMRO region. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: alvarj@who.int . These authors contributed equally to this work " For a full list of the members of the WHO Leishmaniasis Control Team please see the Acknowledgments section.

/pdf/leishmaniasis-worldwide-and-global-estimates-of-its-3u3xol0yef.pdf

Leishmaniasis Worldwide and Global Estimates of Its Incidence

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(12)61680-8.pdf

Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

The publication of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD 2010) and the accompanying collection of Lancet articles in December 2012 provided the most comprehensive attempt to quantify the burden of almost 300 diseases, injuries, and risk factors, including neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) [1]–[3]. The disability-adjusted life year (DALY), the metric used in the GBD 2010, is a tool which may be used to assess and compare the relative impact of a number of diseases locally and globally [4]–[6]. Table 1 lists the major NTDs as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) [7] and their estimated DALYs [1]. With a few exceptions, most of the NTDs currently listed by the WHO [7] or those on the expanded list from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases [8] are disablers rather than killers, so the DALY estimates represent one of the few metrics available that could fully embrace the chronic effects of these infections.

Table 1
Estimated DALYs (in millions) of the NTDs from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

Disease	DALYs from GBD 2010 (numbers in parentheses indicate 95% confidence intervals) [1]	
NTDs	26.06 (20.30–35.12)	
Intestinal nematode infections	5.19 (2.98–8.81)	
Hookworm disease	3.23 (1.70–5.73)	
Ascariasis	1.32 (0.71–2.35)	
Trichuriasis	0.64 (0.35–1.06)	
Leishmaniasis	3.32 (2.18–4.90)	
Schistosomiasis	3.31 (1.70–6.26)	
Lymphatic filariasis	2.78 (1.8–4.00)	
Food-borne trematodiases	1.88 (0.70–4.84)	
Rabies	1.46 ((0.85–2.66)	
Dengue	0.83 (0.34–1.41)	
African trypanosomiasis	0.56 (0.08–1.77)	
Chagas disease	0.55 (0.27–1.05)	
Cysticercosis	0.50 (0.38–0.66)	
Onchocerciasis	0.49 (0.36–0.66)	
Trachoma	0.33 (0.24–0.44)	
Echinococcosis	0.14 (0.07–0.29)	
Yellow fever	<0.001	
Other NTDs *	4.72 (3.53–6.35)	


Open in a separate window


* Relapsing fevers, typhus fever, spotted fever, Q fever, other rickettsioses, other mosquito-borne viral fevers, unspecified arthropod-borne viral fever, arenaviral haemorrhagic fever, toxoplasmosis, unspecified protozoal disease, taeniasis, diphyllobothriasis and sparganosis, other cestode infections, dracunculiasis, trichinellosis, strongyloidiasis, enterobiasis, and other helminthiases.



Even DALYs, however, do not tell the complete story of the harmful effects from NTDs. Some of the specific and potential shortcomings of GBD 2010 have been highlighted elsewhere [9]. Furthermore, DALYs measure only direct health loss and, for example, do not consider the economic impact of the NTDs that results from detrimental effects on school attendance and child development, agriculture (especially from zoonotic NTDs), and overall economic productivity [10], [11]. Nor do DALYs account for direct costs of treatment, surveillance, and prevention measures. Yet, economic impact has emerged as an essential feature of the NTDs, which may trap people in a cycle of poverty and disease [10]–[12]. Additional aspects not considered by the DALY metrics are the important elements of social stigma for many of the NTDs and the spillover effects to family and community members [13], [14], loss of tourism [15], and health system overload (e.g., during dengue outbreaks). Ultimately NTD control and elimination efforts could produce social and economic benefits not necessarily reflected in the DALY metrics, especially among the most affected poor communities [11].

/pdf/the-global-burden-of-disease-study-2010-interpretation-and-2s1owuc43r.pdf

The global burden of disease study 2010: interpretation and implications for the neglected tropical diseases.

The disability-adjusted life year (DALY) initially appeared attractive as a health metric in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) program, as it purports to be a comprehensive health assessment that encompassed premature mortality, morbidity, impairment, and disability. It was originally thought that the DALY would be useful in policy settings, reflecting normative valuations as a standardized unit of ill health. However, the design of the DALY and its use in policy estimates contain inherent flaws that result in systematic undervaluation of the importance of chronic diseases, such as many of the neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), in world health. The conceptual design of the DALY comes out of a perspective largely focused on the individual risk rather than the ecology of disease, thus failing to acknowledge the implications of context on the burden of disease for the poor. It is nonrepresentative of the impact of poverty on disability, which results in the significant underestimation of disability weights for chronic diseases such as the NTDs. Finally, the application of the DALY in policy estimates does not account for the nonlinear effects of poverty in the cost-utility analysis of disease control, effectively discounting the utility of comprehensively treating NTDs. The present DALY framework needs to be substantially revised if the GBD is to become a valid and useful system for determining health priorities.

/pdf/asymmetries-of-poverty-why-global-burden-of-disease-26zwdw7nnk.pdf

Anne Marie Bertino

Papers

Asymmetries of poverty: why global burden of disease valuations underestimate the burden of neglected tropical diseases.