PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G van Oortmarssen

Publications and source records attributed to G van Oortmarssen.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Can ivermectin mass treatments eliminate onchocerciasis in Africa?

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the conditions in which mass treatment with ivermectin reduces the transmission of Onchocerca volvulus sufficiently to eliminate infection from an African community. METHODS: ONCHOSIM, a microsimulation model for onchocerciasis transmission, was used to explore the implications of different treatment intervals, coverage levels and precontrol endemicities for the likelihood of elimination. FINDINGS: Simulations suggested that control strategies based exclusively on ivermectin mass treatments could eliminate onchocerciasis. The duration of treatment required to eliminate infection depended heavily on the treatment programme and precontrol endemicity. In areas with medium to high levels of infection, annual mass treatments with 65% coverage for at least 25 years were necessary. Model predictions suggested that durations exceeding 35 years would be required if there were much heterogeneity in exposure to vector bites and, consequently, wide individual variation in microfilaria counts. If the treatment interval were reduced from 12 to 6 months the time for completion of the programme could be more than halved and elimination could be accomplished in areas of hyperendemicity, provided that the effects of each treatment would be the same as with annual treatments. However, it was doubtful whether high coverage levels could be sustained long enough to achieve worldwide eradication. CONCLUSION: Elimination of onchocerciasis from most endemic foci in Africa appears to be possible. However, the requirements in terms of duration, coverage, and frequency of treatment may be prohibitive in highly endemic areas.

Africa↗
PubMed1999

Stage distribution at first and repeat examinations in breast cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate observed stage distributions at first and repeat screenings. To compare the observed outcomes with expected values based on simulation modelling, varying the assumptions about the natural history of the disease. METHODS: An overview is made of observed data on stage distribution at first and repeat screenings and the difference between those distributions is summarised in a Gini coefficient. Four possible explanations for the observations are considered, two of these are worked out as Miscan simulation models, and the outcomes are compared with observations. RESULTS: Often the reported stage distributions at repeat screenings are not or only slightly more favourable than at first screenings and, in the ones that are more favourable, the difference is relatively small. If, in the Miscan model, it is assumed that there is no correlation between the duration of preclinical breast cancer in consecutive tumour size categories and that there is a strong influence of latent cancers, it is not possible to reproduce the observed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The two modelled explanations are not sufficient. Decreasing sensitivity seems an unlikely explanation for the discrepancy in many screening programmes. The possibility that the observations may be explained because false reassurance has been given should be seriously considered and investigated.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening in Australia.

The purpose of this research was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening to supplement the results of the National Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening which identified the mortality benefit as the most sensitive parameter. This appraisal used a different computer model, MISCAN, which models the effects of introducing a national screening program into a previously unscreened population, rather than basing estimates on the assumption of a fully established program. For the 40 to 49 age group a mortality reduction of 8 per cent was assumed, rather than the 30 per cent estimate utilised in the National Evaluation. The revised estimate is based on the two Swedish trials (Malmo and WE). New estimates for treatment costs were also incorporated into the MISCAN model. The cost-effectiveness of the policy recommended in the National Evaluation Report, $11,000 per life year saved with two-yearly screening of women over 40, is estimated by the MISCAN model to be $20,300. These differences arise partly from the difference in mortality effects for the 40 to 49 age group, but also from differences inherent in the steady-state and dynamic population approaches to modelling premature deaths averted. The MISCAN results confirm that screening for women over 50 is more cost-effective than screening women under 50. Screening all women aged 50 to 69 every two to three years is reasonable value for money. For women aged 40 to 49 the mortality benefit and cost-effectiveness is less clear, and it would be prudent to allow screening in this group until further evidence is available.

Adult↗