Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is one of the neglected tropical diseases recognized by the WHO. Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato affects more than 1 million people worldwide and is responsible for high costs in the healthcare system. A clear knowledge of the prevalence of CE and its clinical characteristics could have an important impact on the approach to its diagnosis and to the public health planning of treatment and control interventions. We performed a prevalence study in four municipalities of Catanzaro Province, South Italy. This area is considered to be at high risk of CE because of ovine breeding. We screened by abdominal ultrasound 2,426 volunteers, four of whom had abdominal CE. Given the need for prevention and control programs for CE in endemic areas of Italy, a detailed mapping of prevalence of CE, to complement data obtained through hospital discharge records, appears imperative.

Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is a globally distributed zoonosis caused by the Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato species complex. Four approaches are available for treatment of abdominal CE: surgery, percutaneous aspiration, chemotherapy with albendazole, and watch-and-wait. Allocation of patients to these different treatment options mainly depends on the stage of the cystic lesion. However, as available guidelines are not widely followed, surgery is often applied even without the correct indication outside referral centers. This is not only a disadvantage for the patient, but also a waste of money. In this study, we evaluated the cost of the surgical approach for abdominal CE by analyzing hospitalization costs for 14 patients admitted to the General Surgery Ward at the "San Matteo" Hospital Foundation in Pavia, Italy, from 2008 through 2014. We found that the total cost of a single hospitalization, including hospital stay, surgical intervention, personnel, drugs, and administrative costs ranged from €5,874 to 23,077 (median €11,033) per patient. Our findings confirm that surgery can be an expensive option. Therefore, surgical intervention should be limited to cyst types that do not benefit from nonsurgical therapies and appropriate case management can best be accomplished by using a cyst stage-specific approach.

Background The diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis (CE) is based primarily on imaging, in particular with ultrasound for abdominal CE, complemented by serology when imaging results are unclear. In rural endemic areas, where expertise in ultrasound may be scant and conventional serology techniques are unavailable due to lack of laboratory equipment, Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) are appealing. Methodology/Principal Findings We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 3 commercial RDTs for the diagnosis of hepatic CE. Sera from 59 patients with single hepatic CE cysts in well-defined ultrasound stages (gold standard) and 25 patients with non-parasitic cysts were analyzed by RDTs VIRapid HYDATIDOSIS (Vircell, Spain), Echinococcus DIGFA (Unibiotest, China), ADAMU-CE (ICST, Japan), and by RIDASCREEN Echinococcus IgG ELISA (R-Biopharm, Germany). Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curves were compared with McNemar and t-test. For VIRapid and DIGFA, correlation between semiquantitative results and ELISA OD values were evaluated by Spearman’s coefficient. Reproducibility was assessed on 16 randomly selected sera with Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Sensitivity and Specificity of VIRapid (74%, 96%) and ADAMU-CE (57%, 100%) did not differ from ELISA (69%, 96%) while DIGFA (72%, 72%) did (p = 0.045). ADAMU-CE was significantly less sensitive in the diagnosis of active cysts (p = 0.019) while DIGFA was significantly less specific (p = 0.014) compared to ELISA. All tests were poorly sensitive in diagnosing inactive cysts (33.3% ELISA and ADAMU-CE, 42.8% DIGFA, 47.6% VIRapid). The reproducibility of all RDTs was good-very good. Band intensity of VIRapid and DIGFA correlated with ELISA OD values (r = 0.76 and r = 0.79 respectively, p<0.001). Conclusions/Significance RDTs may be useful in resource-poor settings to complement ultrasound diagnosis of CE in uncertain cases. VIRapid test appears to perform best among the examined kits, but all tests are poorly sensitive in the presence of inactive cysts, which may pose problems with accurate diagnosis.