Dataset Information

Priorities for screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale

To improve the effectiveness of tuberculosis (TB) control programs in the United States by identifying cost-effective priorities for screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI).

Objectives

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of LTBI screening using the tuberculin skin test (TST)and interferon-g release assays (IGRAs).

Methods

A Markov model of screening for LTBI with TST and IGRA in risk-groups considered in current LTBI screening guidelines.

Measurements and main results

In all risk-groups, TST and IGRA screening resulted in increased mean life expectancy, ranging from 0.03–0.24 life-months per person screened. IGRA screening resulted in greater life expectancy gains than TST. Screening always cost more than not screening, but IGRA was cost-saving compared with TST in some groups. Four patterns of cost-effectiveness emerged, related to four risk categories. (1) Individuals at highest risk of TB reactivation (close contacts and those infected with HIV): the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of IGRA compared with TST was less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. (2) The foreign-born: IGRA was cost-saving compared with TST and cost-effective compared with no screening (ICER ,$100,000 per QALY gained). (3) Vulnerable populations (e.g., homeless, drug user, or former prisoner): the ICER of TST screening was approximately $100,000–$150,000 per QALY gained, but IGRA was not cost-effective. (4) Medical comorbidities (e.g., diabetes): the ICER of screening with TST or IGRA was greater than $100,000 per QALY.

Conclusions

LTBI screening guidelines could make progress toward TB elimination by prioritizing screening for close contacts, those infected with HIV, and the foreign-born regardless of time living in the United States. For these groups, IGRA screening was more cost-effective than TST screening.

SUBMITTER: Linas BP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3175546 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextApproximately 80% of US tuberculosis (TB) cases verified during 2015-2016 were attributed to untreated latent TB infection (LTBI). Identifying factors associated with LTBI treatment failure might improve treatment effectiveness.ObjectiveTo identify patients with indicators of isoniazid (INH) LTBI treatment initiation, completion, and failure.MethodsWe searched inpatient and outpatient claims for International Classification of Diseases (Ninth and Tenth Revisions), National Drug, and Current Procedural Terminology codes. We defined treatment completion as 180 days or more of INH therapy during a 9-month period. We defined LTBI treatment failure as an active TB disease diagnosis more than 1 year after starting LTBI treatment among completers and used exact logistic regression to model possible differences between groups. Among treatment completers, we matched 1 patient who failed treatment with 2 control subjects and fit regression models with covariates documented on medical claims paid 6 months or less before INH treatment initiation.ParticipantsCommercially insured US patients in a large commercial database with insurance claims paid during 2005-2016.Main outcome measures(1) Trends in treatment completion; (2) odds ratios (ORs) for factors associated with treatment completion and treatment failure.ResultsOf 21 510 persons who began LTBI therapy during 2005-2016, 10 725 (49.9%) completed therapy. Treatment noncompletion is associated with those younger than 45 years, living in the Northeast or South Census regions, and women. Among persons who completed treatment, 30 (0.3%) progressed to TB disease. Diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis during the 6 months before treatment initiation and being aged 65 years or older (reference: ages 0-24 years) were significantly associated with INH LTBI treatment failure (adjusted exact OR = 5.1; 95% CI, 1.2-28.2; and adjusted exact OR = 5.1; 95% CI, 1.2-25.3, respectively).ConclusionApproximately 50% of persons completed INH LTBI therapy, and of those, treatment failure was associated with rheumatoid arthritis and persons 65 years or older among a cohort of US LTBI patients with commercial health insurance.

Project description:BackgroundIn Australia, demand for specialist infectious diseases services exceeds capacity to provide timely management of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in areas of high refugee and asylum seeker settlement. A model for treating LTBI patients in primary care has been developed and piloted in a refugee-focused primary health service (Monash Health Refugee Health and Wellbeing [MHRHW]) and a universal primary care clinic. This study reports on the development and evaluation of the model, focusing on the model feasibility, and barriers and enablers to its success.MethodsA convergent mix-methods design was used to evaluate the model for treating LTBI patients in primary care, where a prospective cohort study of patients commencing treatment either at MHRHW or the universal primary care clinic determined the model feasibility, while focus groups with clinicians directly involved in treating these patients explored barriers and enablers to sustainability and success of the model.ResultsFrom January 2017 to April 2018, 65 patients with confirmed LTBI presented at participating clinics. Treatment was accepted by 31 (48%) patients, of whom 15(48%) were treated at MHRHW and 16 (52%) at the universal primary care clinic. The 6-months' treatment completion rate was higher at MHRHW compared to the universal primary care clinic (14 (93%) compared to 9 (56%) respectively, p = 0.0373). Reasons for non-completion included adverse reaction, opting out and relocation. At the completion of the pilot, 15 clinicians participated in two focus groups. Clinicians identified barriers and enablers for successful LTBI management at patient, provider, organisational and clinical levels. While barriers for treatment completion and adherence were consistent across the two pilot sites, enablers, such as resources to facilitate patient education and follow-up, were available only at MHRHW.ConclusionScreening and management of LTBI patients can be achieved within the primary care setting, considerate of barriers and enablers at patient, provider, organisational and clinical levels. Upscaling of a primary care response to the management of LTBI will require supporting primary care clinics with resources to employ dedicated clinical staff for patient education, follow-up communication and monitoring medication adherence.