Background: Understanding the burden of snakebite is crucial for developing evidence-informed strategies to pursue the goal set by the World Health Organization to halve morbidity and mortality of snakebite by 2030. However, there was no such information in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. Methodology: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate annual burden of snakebite in seven countries, including Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Lao PDR, and Myanmar. Country-specific input parameters were sought from published literature, country’s Ministry of Health, local data, and expert opinion. Economic burden was estimated from the societal perspective. Costs were expressed in 2019 US Dollars (USD). Disease burden was estimated as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate a 95% credible interval (CrI). Principal findings: We estimated that annually there were 242,648 snakebite victims (95%CrI 209,810–291,023) of which 15,909 (95%CrI 7,592–33,949) were dead and 954 (95%CrI 383–1,797) were amputated. We estimated that 161,835 snakebite victims (69% of victims who were indicated for antivenom treatment) were not treated with antivenom. Annual disease burden of snakebite was estimated at 391,979 DALYs (95%CrI 187,261–836,559 DALYs) with total costs of 2.5 billion USD (95%CrI 1.2–5.4 billion USD) that were equivalent to 0.09% (95%CrI 0.04–0.20%) of the region’s gross domestic product. >95% of the estimated burdens were attributed to premature deaths. Conclusion/Significance: The estimated high burden of snakebite in ASEAN was demonstrated despite the availability of domestically produced antivenoms. Most burdens were attributed to premature deaths from snakebite envenoming which suggested that the remarkably high burden of snakebite could be averted. We emphasized the importance of funding research to perform a comprehensive data collection on epidemiological and economic burden of snakebite to eventually reveal the true burden of snakebite in ASEAN and inform development of strategies to tackle the problem of snakebite.

Introduction: Canine osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disease with chronic inflammation of internal and external joint structures in dogs.Cannabisspp. contains cannabidiol (CBD), a substance known for various potential indications, such as pain relief and anti-inflammatory in various types of animals, including dogs with OA. As CBD is increasingly in the spotlight for medical use, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CBD in treating canine OA.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CAB Direct for animal intervention studies investigating the effects of CBD for canine OA from database inception until February 28, 2023. Study characteristics and findings were summarized. A risk of bias in the included studies was assessed. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model to estimate the effects of CBD on pain scores (0–10), expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.Results: Five articles were included, which investigated the effects of CBD in 117 dogs with OA. All studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. CBD products varied substantially, i.e., oral full-spectrum CBD oil in four studies, and isolated CBD oil and liposomal CBD oil in another study. Treatment duration varied from 4–12 weeks. Meta-analyses of three studies found that, in dogs with OA, treatment with oral full-spectrum CBD oil may reduce pain severity scores (MD; −0.60, 95% CI; −1.51 to 0.31,I²= 45.64%,p = 0.19) and pain interference scores (MD; −1.52, 95% CI; −3.84 to 0.80,I²= 89.59%,p = 0.20) but the certainty of evidence was very low. CBD is generally considered safe and well-tolerated in the short-run, with few mild adverse events observed, such as vomiting and asymptomatic increase in alkaline phosphatase level.Conclusion: CBD is considered safe for treating canine OA. CBD may reduce pain scores, but the evidence is very uncertain to conclude its clinical efficacy. High-quality clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the roles of CBD in canine OA.

Background: Cross-neutralizing strategy has been applied to improve access to antivenoms, a key to reducing mortality and disability of snakebite envenoming. However, preclinical studies have been conducted to identify antivenoms’ cross-neutralizing ability when clinical studies may not be considered ethical. Therefore, this study aimed to identify and summarize scattered evidence regarding the preclinical efficacy of antivenoms against Asian snakes.Methodology/Principle findings: In this systematic review, we searched for articles published until May 30, 2022, in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. Preclinical studies that reported the available antivenoms’ neutralizing ability against Asian snake lethality were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation’s risk of bias tool and the adapted the Animal Research ReportingIn VivoExperiments guidelines. The availability of effective antivenoms against Asian snakes was analyzed by comparing data from included studies with snakebite-information and data platforms developed by the World Health Organization. Fifty-two studies were included. Most studies assessed the antivenom efficacy against snakes from Southeast Asia (58%), followed by South Asia (35%) and East Asia (19%). Twenty-two (49%) medically important snakes had antivenom(s) with confirmed neutralizing ability. Situation analyses of the availability of effective antivenoms in Asia demonstrated that locally produced antivenoms did not cover all medically important snakes in each country. Among countries without local antivenom production, preclinical studies were conducted only in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia. Risk of bias assessment was limited in some domains because of unreported data.Conclusions/Significance: Cross-neutralizing of antivenoms against some medically important snakes in Asia was confirmed. This strategy may improve access to geographically effective antivenoms and bypass investment in novel antivenom development, especially in countries without local antivenom production. A database should be developed to aid the development of a snakebite-information system.

Introduction: Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) mainly affect underprivileged populations, potentially resulting in catastrophic health spending (CHS) and impoverishment from out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. This systematic review aimed to summarize the financial hardship caused by NTDs. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit, OpenGrey, and EBSCO Open Dissertations, for articles reporting financial hardship caused by NTDs from database inception to January 1, 2023. We summarized the study findings and methodological characteristics. Meta-analyses were performed to pool the prevalence of CHS. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic. Results: Ten out of 1,768 studies were included, assessing CHS (n = 10) and impoverishment (n = 1) among 2,761 patients with six NTDs (Buruli ulcer, chikungunya, dengue, visceral leishmaniasis, leprosy, and lymphatic filariasis). CHS was defined differently across studies. Prevalence of CHS due to OOP costs was relatively low among patients with leprosy (0.0–11.0%), dengue (12.5%), and lymphatic filariasis (0.0–23.0%), and relatively high among patients with Buruli ulcers (45.6%). Prevalence of CHS varied widely among patients with chikungunya (11.9–99.3%) and visceral leishmaniasis (24.6–91.8%). Meta-analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of CHS due to OOP costs of visceral leishmaniasis was 73% (95% CI; 65–80%, n = 2, I² = 0.00%). Costs of visceral leishmaniasis impoverished 20–26% of the 61 households investigated, depending on the costs captured. The reported costs did not capture the financial burden hidden by the abandonment of seeking healthcare. Conclusion: NTDs lead to a substantial number of households facing financial hardship. However, financial hardship caused by NTDs was not comprehensively evaluated in the literature. To develop evidence-informed strategies to minimize the financial hardship caused by NTDs, studies should evaluate the factors contributing to financial hardship across household characteristics, disease stages, and treatment-seeking behaviors.

The Immunization Agenda 2030 prioritizes the populations without access to vaccines. Health equity has been increasingly incorporated into economic evaluations of vaccines to foster equitable access. Robust and standardized methods are needed to evaluate the health equity impact of vaccination programs to ensure monitoring and effective addressing of inequities. However, methods currently in place vary and potentially affect the application of findings to inform policy decision-making. We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Econlit, and the CEA Registry up to 15 December 2022 to identify equity-informative economic evaluations of vaccines. Twenty-one studies were included that performed health equity impact analysis to estimate the distributional impact of vaccines, such as deaths averted and financial risk protection, across equity-relevant subgroups. These studies showed that the introduction of vaccines or improved vaccination coverage resulted in fewer deaths and higher financial risk benefits in subpopulations with higher disease burdens and lower vaccination coverage—particularly poorer income groups and those living in rural areas. In conclusion, methods to incorporate equity have been evolving progressively. Vaccination programs can enhance equity if their design and implementation address existing inequities in order to provide equitable vaccination coverage and achieve health equity.