2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Latent Tuberculosis Screening and Treatment Strategies in Recent Migrants to a Low-Incidence Setting

      , , , ,
      American Journal of Epidemiology
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Many tuberculosis (TB) cases in low-incidence settings are attributed to reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI) acquired overseas. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of community-based LTBI screening and treatment strategies in recent migrants to a low-incidence setting (Australia). A decision-analytical Markov model was developed that cycled 1 migrant cohort (≥11-year-olds) annually over a lifetime from 2020. Postmigration/onshore and offshore (screening during visa application) strategies were compared with existing policy (chest x-ray during visa application). Outcomes included TB cases averted and discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from a health-sector perspective. Most recent migrants are young adults and cost-effectiveness is limited by their relatively low LTBI prevalence, low TB mortality risks, and high emigration probability. Onshore strategies cost at least $203,188 (Australian) per QALY gained, preventing approximately 2.3%–7.0% of TB cases in the cohort. Offshore strategies (screening costs incurred by migrants) cost at least $13,907 per QALY gained, preventing 5.5%–16.9% of cases. Findings were most sensitive to the LTBI treatment quality-of-life decrement (further to severe adverse events); with a minimal decrement, all strategies caused more ill health than they prevented. Additional LTBI strategies in recent migrants could only marginally contribute to TB elimination and are unlikely to be cost-effective unless screening costs are borne by migrants and potential LTBI treatment quality-of-life decrements are ignored.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study.

          The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study assesses health losses from diseases, injuries, and risk factors using disability-adjusted life-years, which need a set of disability weights to quantify health levels associated with non-fatal outcomes. The objective of this study was to estimate disability weights for the GBD 2013 study.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The cascade of care in diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              WHO estimates that a third of the world's population has latent tuberculosis infection and that less than 5% of those infected are diagnosed and treated to prevent tuberculosis. We aimed to systematically review studies that report the steps from initial tuberculosis screening through to treatment for latent tuberculosis infection, which we call the latent tuberculosis cascade of care. We specifically aimed to assess the number of people lost at each stage of the cascade.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Epidemiology
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0002-9262
                1476-6256
                February 2022
                January 24 2022
                May 21 2021
                February 2022
                January 24 2022
                May 21 2021
                : 191
                : 2
                : 255-270
                Article
                10.1093/aje/kwab150
                34017976
                5b8fa533-5737-4a59-90dd-cf2c91f6220c
                © 2021

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article