Dataset Information

Cost-benefit comparison of two proposed overseas programs for reducing chronic Hepatitis B infection among refugees: is screening essential?

ABSTRACT: Refugees are at an increased risk of chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection because many of their countries of origin, as well as host countries, have intermediate-to-high prevalence rates. Refugees arriving to the US are also at risk of serious sequelae from chronic HBV infection because they are not routinely screened for the virus overseas or in domestic post-arrival exams, and may live in the US for years without awareness of their infection status.A cohort of 26,548 refugees who arrived in Minnesota and Georgia during 2005-2010 was evaluated to determine the prevalence of chronic HBV infection. This prevalence information was then used in a cost-benefit analysis comparing two variations of a proposed overseas program to prevent or ameliorate the effects of HBV infection, titled 'Screen, then vaccinate or initiate management' (SVIM) and 'Vaccinate only' (VO). The analyses were performed in 2013. All values were converted to US 2012 dollars.The estimated six year period-prevalence of chronic HBV infection was 6.8% in the overall refugee population arriving to Minnesota and Georgia and 7.1% in those ?6 years of age. The SVIM program variation was more cost beneficial than VO. While the up-front costs of SVIM were higher than VO ($154,084 vs. $73,758; n=58,538 refugees), the SVIM proposal displayed a positive net benefit, ranging from $24 million to $130 million after only 5 years since program initiation, depending on domestic post-arrival screening rates in the VO proposal.Chronic HBV infection remains an important health problem in refugees resettling to the United States. An overseas screening policy for chronic HBV infection is more cost-beneficial than a 'Vaccination only' policy. The major benefit drivers for the screening policy are earlier medical management of chronic HBV infection and averted lost societal contributions from premature death.

SUBMITTER: Jazwa A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4633992 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-benefit comparison of two proposed overseas programs for reducing chronic Hepatitis B infection among refugees: is screening essential?

Jazwa Amelia A Coleman Margaret S MS Gazmararian Julie J Wingate La'Marcus T LT Maskery Brian B Mitchell Tarissa T Weinberg Michelle M

Vaccine 20150114 11

<h4>Background</h4>Refugees are at an increased risk of chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection because many of their countries of origin, as well as host countries, have intermediate-to-high prevalence rates. Refugees arriving to the US are also at risk of serious sequelae from chronic HBV infection because they are not routinely screened for the virus overseas or in domestic post-arrival exams, and may live in the US for years without awareness of their infection status.<h4>Methods</h4>A coh ...[more]

PMID: 25595868

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmigrants have increased mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma as compared to the host populations, primarily due to undetected chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Despite this, there are no systematic programs in most immigrant-receiving countries to screen for chronic HBV infection and immigrants are not routinely offered HBV vaccination outside of the universal childhood vaccination program.Methods and findingsA cost-effective analysis was performed to compare four HBV screening and vaccination strategies with no intervention in a hypothetical cohort of newly-arriving adult Canadian immigrants. The strategies considered were a) universal vaccination, b) screening for prior immunity and vaccination, c) chronic HBV screening and treatment, and d) combined screening for chronic HBV and prior immunity, treatment and vaccination. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective, using a Markov model. Seroprevalence estimates, annual transition probabilities, health-care costs (in Canadian dollars), and utilities were obtained from the published literature. Acute HBV infection, mortality from chronic HBV, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were modeled over the lifetime of the cohort of immigrants. Costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. Screening for chronic HBV infection, and offering treatment if indicated, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention and was estimated to cost $40,880 per additional QALY gained, relative to no intervention. This strategy was most cost-effective for immigrants < 55 years of age and would cost < $50,000 per additional QALY gained for immigrants from areas where HBV seroprevalence is ? 3%. Strategies that included HBV vaccination were either prohibitively expensive or dominated by the chronic HBV screening strategy.ConclusionsScreening for chronic HBV infection from regions where most Canadian immigrants originate, except for Latin America and the Middle East, was found to be reasonably cost-effective and has the potential to reduce HBV-associated morbidity and mortality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many U.S.-bound refugees travel from countries where intestinal parasites (hookworm, Trichuris trichuria, Ascaris lumbricoides, and Strongyloides stercoralis) are endemic. These infections are rare in the United States and may be underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading to potentially serious consequences. This evaluation examined the costs and benefits of combinations of overseas presumptive treatment of parasitic diseases vs. domestic screening/treating vs. no program. METHODS:An economic decision tree model terminating in Markov processes was developed to estimate the cost and health impacts of four interventions on an annual cohort of 27,700 U.S.-bound Asian refugees: 1) "No Program," 2) U.S. "Domestic Screening and Treatment," 3) "Overseas Albendazole and Ivermectin" presumptive treatment, and 4) "Overseas Albendazole and Domestic Screening for Strongyloides". Markov transition state models were used to estimate long-term effects of parasitic infections. Health outcome measures (four parasites) included outpatient cases, hospitalizations, deaths, life years, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS:The "No Program" option is the least expensive ($165,923 per cohort) and least effective option (145 outpatient cases, 4.0 hospitalizations, and 0.67 deaths discounted over a 60-year period for a one-year cohort). The "Overseas Albendazole and Ivermectin" option ($418,824) is less expensive than "Domestic Screening and Treatment" ($3,832,572) or "Overseas Albendazole and Domestic Screening for Strongyloides" ($2,182,483). According to the model outcomes, the most effective treatment option is "Overseas Albendazole and Ivermectin," which reduces outpatient cases, deaths and hospitalization by around 80% at an estimated net cost of $458,718 per death averted, or $2,219/$24,036 per QALY/life year gained relative to "No Program". DISCUSSION:Overseas presumptive treatment for U.S.-bound refugees is a cost-effective intervention that is less expensive and at least as effective as domestic screening and treatment programs. The addition of ivermectin to albendazole reduces the prevalence of chronic strongyloidiasis and the probability of rare, but potentially fatal, disseminated strongyloidiasis.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant global public health and economic burden. DR accounts for approximately 15-17% of all cases of total blindness in the USA and Europe. Telemedicine is a new intervention for DR screening, however, there is not enough evidence to support its cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study is to review the most recent published literature on economic evaluations of telemedicine in DR screening and summarize the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of this technology.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar for relevant articles published between January 2010 and January 2020. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) recruited subjects with either type 1, type 2 diabetes (2) evaluated telemedicine technology (3) patients underwent primary screening for DR (4) compared a telemedicine-based intervention with standard care (5) performed an economic evaluation or provided sufficient data for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the technology used.ResultsOf 2238 articles screened, seven studies were included. Four of the studies were conducted in developed countries: The United States, Singapore and two studies in Canada. Three studies were conducted in developing countries: India, Brazil and South Africa. The patient populations in all studies were diabetic patients over the age of 18, previously not screened for DR. All seven studies used a telemedicine program which included capturing a retinal image and subsequently transmitting it to an ocular imaging center to assess the severity of DR. All studies compared telemedicine to a standard screening method for DR, including the option of no screening as standard of care. Although telemedicine requires initial and maintenance costs, it has the potential to provide significant cost savings by increasing patients' working ability, increasing independent living ability, increasing quality of life and reducing travel costs.ConclusionsDiabetic retinopathy telemedicine technology has the potential to provide significant cost savings, especially in low-income populations and rural patients with high transportation costs.

Dataset Information

Cost-benefit comparison of two proposed overseas programs for reducing chronic Hepatitis B infection among refugees: is screening essential?

Publications

Cost-benefit comparison of two proposed overseas programs for reducing chronic Hepatitis B infection among refugees: is screening essential?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets