Cost-effectiveness of Latent Tuberculosis Infection Screening before Immigration to Low-Incidence Countries.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Campbell JR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6433018 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Guidelines differ on screening recommendations for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) prior to immunosuppressive therapy. We aimed to determine the most cost-effective LTBI screening strategy before long-term steroid therapy in a child with new-onset idiopathic nephrotic syndrome.Markov state-transition model.5-year-old boy with new-onset idiopathic nephrotic syndrome.The Markov model took a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon.3 strategies were compared: universal tuberculin skin testing (TST), targeted screening using a risk-factor questionnaire, and no screening. A secondary model included the newer interferon ? release assays (IGRAs), requiring only one visit and having greater specificity than TST.Marginal cost-effectiveness ratios (2010 US dollars) with effectiveness measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).At an LTBI prevalence of 1.1% (the average US childhood prevalence in our base case), a no-screening strategy dominated ($2,201; 29.3356 QALYs) targeted screening ($2,218; 29.3356 QALYs) and universal TST ($2,481; 29.3347 QALYs). At a prevalence >10.3%, targeted screening with a risk-factor questionnaire was the most cost-effective option. Higher than a prevalence of 58.5%, universal TST was preferred. In the secondary model, targeted screening with a questionnaire followed by IGRA testing was cost-effective compared with no screening in the base case when the LTBI prevalence was >4.9%.There is no established gold standard for the diagnosis of LTBI. Results of any modeling task are limited by the accuracy of available data.Prior to starting steroid therapy, only patients in areas with a high prevalence of LTBI will benefit from universal TST. As more evidence becomes available about the use of IGRA testing in children, the assay may become a component of cost-effective screening protocols in populations with a higher burden of LTBI.
| S-EPMC3827973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To help reach the target of tuberculosis (TB) disease elimination by 2050, vaccine development needs to occur now. We estimated the impact and cost-effectiveness of potential TB vaccines in low- and middle-income countries using an age-structured transmission model. New vaccines were assumed to be available in 2024, to prevent active TB in all individuals, to have a 5-y to lifetime duration of protection, to have 40-80% efficacy, and to be targeted at "infants" or "adolescents/adults." Vaccine prices were tiered by income group (US $1.50-$10 per dose), and cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted compared against gross national income per capita. Our results suggest that over 2024-2050, a vaccine targeted to adolescents/adults could have a greater impact than one targeted at infants. In low-income countries, a vaccine with a 10-y duration and 60% efficacy targeted at adolescents/adults could prevent 17 (95% range: 11-24) million TB cases by 2050 and could be considered cost-effective at $149 (cost saving to $387) per DALY averted. If targeted at infants, 0.89 (0.42-1.58) million TB cases could be prevented at $1,692 ($634-$4,603) per DALY averted. This profile targeted at adolescents/adults could be cost-effective at $4, $9, and $20 per dose in low-, lower-middle-, and upper-middle-income countries, respectively. Increased investments in adult-targeted TB vaccines may be warranted, even if only short duration and low efficacy vaccines are likely to be feasible, and trials among adults should be powered to detect low efficacies.
| S-EPMC4217399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering implementation of overseas medical screening of student-visa applicants to reduce the numbers of active tuberculosis cases entering the United States.ObjectiveTo evaluate the costs, cases averted, and cost-effectiveness of screening for, and treating, tuberculosis in United States-bound students from countries with varying tuberculosis prevalence.MethodsCosts and benefits were evaluated from two perspectives, combined and United States only. The combined perspective totaled overseas and United States costs and benefits from a societal perspective. The United States only perspective was a domestic measure of costs and benefits. A decision tree was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis screening and treatment from the combined perspective.ResultsFrom the United States only perspective, overseas screening programs of Chinese and Indian students would prevent the importation of 157 tuberculosis cases annually, and result in $2.7 million in savings. From the combined perspective, screening programs for Chinese students would cost more than $2.8 million annually and screening programs for Indian students nearly $440,000 annually. From the combined perspective, the incremental cost for each tuberculosis case averted by screening Chinese and Indian students was $22,187 and $15,063, respectively. Implementing screening programs for German students would prevent no cases in most years, and would result in increased costs both overseas and in the United States. The domestic costs would occur because public health departments would need to follow up on students identified overseas as having an elevated risk of tuberculosis.ConclusionsTuberculosis screening and treatment programs for students seeking long term visas to attend United States schools would reduce the number of tuberculosis cases imported. Implementing screening in high-incidence countries could save the United States millions of dollars annually; however there would be increased costs incurred overseas for students and their families.
| S-EPMC4414530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundActive screening for tuberculosis (TB) involves systematic detection of previously undiagnosed TB disease or latent TB infection (LTBI). It may be an important step toward elimination of TB among Inuit in Canada. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of community-wide active screening for TB infection and disease in 2 Inuit communities in Nunavik.MethodsWe incorporated screening data from the 2 communities into a decision analysis model. We predicted TB-related health outcomes over a 20-year time frame, beginning in 2019. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of active screening in the presence of varying outbreak frequency and intensity. We also considered scenarios involving variation in timing, impact and uptake of screening programs.ResultsGiven a single large outbreak in 2019, we estimated that 1 round of active screening reduced TB disease by 13% (95% uncertainty range -3% to 27%) and was cost saving compared with no screening, over 20 years. In the presence of simulated large outbreaks every 3 years thereafter, a single round of active screening was cost saving, as was biennial active screening. Compared with a single round, we also determined that biennial active screening reduced TB disease by 59% (95% uncertainty range 52% to 63%) and was estimated to cost Can$6430 (95% uncertainty range -$29 131 to $13 658 in 2019 Can$) per additional active TB case prevented. With smaller outbreaks or improved rates of treatment initiation and completion for people with LTBI, we determined that biennial active screening remained reasonably cost-effective compared with no active screening.InterpretationActive screening is a potentially cost-saving approach to reducing disease burden in Inuit communities that have frequent TB outbreaks.
| S-EPMC8565977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious health economic studies recommend either a dual screening strategy [tuberculin skin test (TST) followed by interferon-gamma-release assay (IGRA)] or a single one [IGRA only] for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), the former largely based on claims that it is more cost-effective. We sought to examine that conclusion through the use of a model that accounts for the additional costs of adverse drug reactions and directly compares two commercially available versions of the IGRA: the Quantiferon-TB-Gold-In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB.MethodsA LTBI screening model directed at screening contacts was used to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis, from a UK healthcare perspective, taking into account the risk of isoniazid-related hepatotoxicity and post-exposure TB (2 years post contact) using the TST, QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB IGRAs.ResultsExamining costs alone, the TST/IGRA dual screening strategies (TST/T-SPOT.TB and TST/QFT-GIT; 162,387 pounds and 157,048 pounds per 1000 contacts, respectively) cost less than their single strategy counterparts (T-SPOT.TB and QFT-GIT; 203,983 pounds and 202,921 pounds per 1000 contacts) which have higher IGRA test costs and greater numbers of persons undergoing LTBI treatment. However, IGRA alone strategies direct healthcare interventions and costs more accurately to those that are truly infected.Subsequently, less contacts need to be treated to prevent an active case of TB (T-SPOT.TB and QFT-GIT; 61.7 and 69.7 contacts) in IGRA alone strategies. IGRA single strategies also prevent more cases of post-exposure TB. However, this greater effectiveness does not outweigh the lower incremental costs associated with the dual strategies. Consequently, when these costs are combined with effectiveness, the IGRA dual strategies are more cost-effective than their single strategy counterparts. Comparing between the IGRAs, T-SPOT.TB-based strategies (single and dual; 39,712 pounds and 37,206 pounds per active TB case prevented, respectively) were more cost-effective than the QFT-GIT-based strategies (single and dual; 42,051 pounds and 37,699 pounds per active TB case prevented, respectively). Using the TST alone was the least cost-effective (47,840 pounds per active TB case prevented). Cost effectiveness values were sensitive to changes in LTBI prevalence, IGRA test sensitivities/specificities and IGRA test costs.ConclusionA dual strategy is more cost effective than a single strategy but this conclusion is sensitive to screening test assumptions and LTBI prevalence.
| S-EPMC2837635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundContinuing rises in tuberculosis notifications in the UK are attributable to cases in foreign-born immigrants. National guidance for immigrant screening is hampered by a lack of data about the prevalence of, and risk factors for, latent tuberculosis infection in immigrants. We aimed to determine the prevalence of latent infection in immigrants to the UK to define which groups should be screened and to quantify cost-effectiveness.MethodsIn our multicentre cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis we analysed demographic and test results from three centres in the UK (from 2008 to 2010) that used interferon-γ release-assay (IGRA) to screen immigrants aged 35 years or younger for latent tuberculosis infection. We assessed factors associated with latent infection by use of logistic regression and calculated the yields and cost-effectiveness of screening at different levels of tuberculosis incidence in immigrants' countries of origin with a decision analysis model.FindingsResults for IGRA-based screening were positive in 245 of 1229 immigrants (20%), negative in 982 (80%), and indeterminate in two (0·2%). Positive results were independently associated with increases in tuberculosis incidence in immigrants' countries of origin (p=0·0006), male sex (p = 0·046), and age (p < 0·0001). National policy thus far would fail to detect 71% of individuals with latent infection. The two most cost-effective strategies were to screen individuals from countries with a tuberculosis incidence of more than 250 cases per 100,000 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] was £17,956 [£1=US$1·60] per prevented case of tuberculosis) and at more than 150 cases per 100,000 (including immigrants from the Indian subcontinent), which identified 92% of infected immigrants and prevented an additional 29 cases at an ICER of £20,819 per additional case averted.InterpretationScreening for latent infection can be implemented cost-effectively at a level of incidence that identifies most immigrants with latent tuberculosis, thereby preventing substantial numbers of future cases of active tuberculosis.FundingMedical Research Council and Wellcome Trust.
| S-EPMC3108102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLatent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) screening and treatment is a key component of the World Health Organization (WHO) EndTB Strategy, but the impact of LTBI screening and treatment at a population level is unclear. We aimed to estimate the impact of LTBI screening and treatment in a population of migrants to British Columbia (BC), Canada.MethodsThis retrospective cohort included all individuals (N = 1 080 908) who immigrated to Canada as permanent residents between 1985 and 2012 and were residents in BC at any time up to 2013. Multiple administrative databases were linked to identify people with risk factors who met the WHO strong recommendations for screening: people with tuberculosis (TB) contact, with human immunodeficiency virus, on dialysis, with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors, who had an organ/haematological transplant, or with silicosis. Additional TB risk factors included immunosuppressive medications, cancer, diabetes, and migration from a country with a high TB burden. We defined active TB as preventable if diagnosed ≥6 months after a risk factor diagnosis. We estimated the number of preventable TB cases, given optimal LTBI screening and treatment, based on these risk factors.ResultsThere were 16 085 people (1.5%) identified with WHO strong risk factors. Of the 2814 people with active TB, 118 (4.2%) were considered preventable through screening with WHO risk factors. Less than half (49.4%) were considered preventable with expanded screening to include people migrating from countries with high TB burdens, people who had been prescribed immunosuppressive medications, or people with diabetes or cancer.ConclusionsThe application of WHO LTBI strong recommendations for screening would have minimally impacted the TB incidence in this population. Further high-risk groups must be identified to develop an effective LTBI screening and treatment strategy for low-incidence regions.
| S-EPMC6880326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Isoniazid given daily for 9 months is the standard treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), but its effectiveness is limited by poor completion rates. Shorter course regimens and regimens using directly observed therapy result in improved adherence but have higher upfront costs.To evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of regimens for the treatment of LTBI.We used a computerized Markov model to estimate total societal costs and benefits associated with four regimens for the treatment of LTBI: self-administered isoniazid daily for 9 months, directly observed isoniazid twice-weekly for 9 months, directly observed isoniazid plus rifapentine once weekly for 3 months, and self-administered rifampin daily for 4 months. In the base-case analysis, subjects were assumed to have newly positive tuberculin skin tests after recent exposure to infectious tuberculosis.We determined the costs of treatment, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and cases of active tuberculosis prevented. In the base-case analysis, rifampin dominated (less costly with increased benefits) all other regimens except isoniazid plus rifapentine, which was more effective at a cost $48,997 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Isoniazid plus rifapentine dominated all regimens at a relative risk of disease 5.2 times the baseline estimate, or with completion rates less than 34% for isoniazid or 37% for rifampin. Rifampin could be 17% less efficacious than self-administered isoniazid and still be cost-saving compared with this regimen.In our model, rifampin is cost-saving compared with the standard therapy of self-administered isoniazid. Isoniazid plus rifapentine is cost-saving for extremely high-risk patients and is cost-effective for lower-risk patients.
| S-EPMC2689913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the costs and health effects of tuberculosis control interventions in Africa and South East Asia in the context of the millennium development goals.DesignCost effectiveness analysis based on an epidemiological model.SettingAnalyses undertaken for two regions classified by WHO according to their epidemiological grouping-Afr-E, countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality, and Sear-D, countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality.Data sourcesPublished studies, costing databases, expert opinion.Main outcome measuresCosts per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted in 2000 international dollars (dollarsInt).ResultsTreatment of new cases of smear-positive tuberculosis in DOTS programmes cost dollarsInt6-8 per DALY averted in Afr-E and dollarsInt7 per DALY averted in Sear-D at coverage levels of 50-95%. In Afr-E, adding treatment of smear-negative and extra-pulmonary cases at a coverage level of 95% cost dollarsInt95 per DALY averted; the addition of DOTS-Plus treatment for multidrug resistant cases cost dollarsInt123. In Sear-D, these costs were dollarsInt52 and dollarsInt226, respectively. The full combination of interventions could reduce prevalence and mortality by over 50% in Sear-D between 1990 and 2010, and by almost 50% between 2000 and 2010 in Afr-E.ConclusionsDOTS treatment of new smear-positive cases is the first priority in tuberculosis control, including in countries with high HIV prevalence. DOTS treatment of smear-negative and extra-pulmonary cases and DOTS-Plus treatment of multidrug resistant cases are also highly cost effective. To achieve the millennium development goal for tuberculosis control, substantial extra investment is needed to increase case finding and implement interventions on a wider scale.
| S-EPMC1309642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective in many Western countries, and many have successfully implemented CRC screening programs. For countries with a lower CRC incidence, like Saudi Arabia, the value of CRC screening is less evident and requires careful weighing of harms, benefits, and costs.MethodsWe used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to simulate a male and female cohort with life expectancy and CRC risk as observed in Saudi Arabia. For both cohorts, we evaluated strategies without screening, with annual or biennial faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and with 10-yearly or once-only colonoscopy. We also considered different start and end ages of screening. For both cohorts, we estimated lifetime costs and effects of each strategy. We then identified a set of potentially cost-effective strategies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) defined as the additional cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsWithout CRC screening, an estimated 14 per 1,000 males would develop CRC during their lifetime and 9 would die from CRC. Several strategies proved potentially cost-effective including biennial FIT at ages 55-65 (ICER of $7,400), once-only colonoscopy at age 55 (ICER of $7,700), and 10-yearly colonoscopy at ages 50-65, 45-65, and 45-75 (ICERs of $34,000, 71,000, and 375,000, respectively). For females, risk of CRC was lower and CRC screening was therefore less cost-effective, but efficient strategies were largely similar.ConclusionsDespite low CRC incidence in Saudi Arabia, some FIT or colonoscopy screening strategies may meet reasonable thresholds of cost-effectiveness. The optimal strategy will depend on multiple factors including the willingness to pay per QALY, the colonoscopy capacity, and the accepted budget impact.
| S-EPMC8448011 | biostudies-literature