Economic Evaluation of Screening Strategy for Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI) in Contacts of Tuberculosis Patients: Systematic Review and Quality Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Patients and Methods
2.1. Data Sources and Searches
2.2. Selection of Studies
2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
2.4. Data Synthesis and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Review Profile
3.2. Study Information
3.3. Quality Assessment of Reporting
3.4. Quality Assessment of Input Data Sources
3.5. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report 2021; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Latent Tuberculosis Infection: Updated and Consolidated Guidelines for Programmatic Management; Report No.: 9241550236; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Guidelines on the Management of Latent Tuberculosis Infection; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. South-East Asia Regional Action Plan on Programmatic Management of Latent Tuberculosis Infection; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Raviglione, M.; Director, G. Global Strategy and Targets for Tuberculosis Prevention, Care and Control after 2015; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Petersen, E.; Chakaya, J.; Jawad, F.M.; Ippolito, G.; Zumla, A. Latent tuberculosis infection: Diagnostic tests and when to treat. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 231–233. [Google Scholar]
- Maes, M.; Giménez, J.F.; D’Alessandro, A.; De Waard, J.H. The stability of human, bovine and avian tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD). J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2011, 5, 781–785. [Google Scholar]
- Gualano, G.; Mencarini, P.; Lauria, F.N.; Palmieri, F.; Mfinanga, S.; Mwaba, P.; Chakaya, J.; Zumla, A.; Ippolito, G. Tuberculin skin test–Outdated or still useful for Latent TB infection screening? Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 80, S20–S22. [Google Scholar]
- Menzies, D.; Pai, M.; Comstock, G. Meta-analysis: New tests for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection: Areas of uncertainty and recommendations for research. Ann. Intern. Med. 2007, 146, 340–354. [Google Scholar]
- Doan, T.N.; Eisen, D.P.; Rose, M.T.; Slack, A.; Stearnes, G.; McBryde, E.S. Interferon-gamma release assay for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection: A latent-class analysis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0188631. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, S.H.; Gao, Q.; Tsoi, K.K.; Wu, W.K.; Tam, L.S.; Lee, N.; Chan, F.K.; Wu, J.C.; Sung, J.J.; Ng, S.C. Effect of immunosuppressive therapy on interferon γ release assay for latent tuberculosis screening in patients with autoimmune diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax 2016, 71, 64–72. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Use of Tuberculosis Interferon-Gamma Release Assays (IGRAs) in Low- and Middle- Income Countries: Policy Statement; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report 2020; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Nienhaus, A.; Schablon, A.; Costa, J.; Diel, R. Systematic review of cost and cost-effectiveness of different TB-screening strategies. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2011, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Husereau, D.; Drummond, M.; Augustovski, F.; de Bekker-Grob, E.; Briggs, A.H.; Carswell, C.; Caulley, L.; Chaiyakunapruk, N.; Greenberg, D.; Loder, E.; et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: Updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2022, 38, e13. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, N.; Coyle, D.; Abrams, K.; Mugford, M.; Sutton, A. Use of evidence in decision models: An appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2005, 10, 245–250. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank Group. World Bank Country and Lending Groups 2022. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed on 16 September 2022).
- Sohn, H.; Kim, H.Y.; Lee, S.H. Cost-effectiveness of contact screening strategies for tuberculosis among high-school adolescents in South Korea. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2018, 22, 496–503. [Google Scholar]
- Steffen, R.E.; Caetano, R.; Pinto, M.; Chaves, D.; Ferrari, R.; Bastos, M.; de Abreu, S.T.; Menzies, D.; Trajman, A. Cost-effectiveness of Quantiferon®-TB Gold-in-Tube versus tuberculin skin testing for contact screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in Brazil. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e59546. [Google Scholar]
- Linas, B.P.; Wong, A.Y.; Freedberg, K.A.; Horsburgh, C.R., Jr. Priorities for screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in the United States. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2011, 184, 590–601. [Google Scholar]
- Pooran, A.; Booth, H.; Miller, R.F.; Scott, G.; Badri, M.; Huggett, J.F.; Rook, G.; Zumla, A.; Dheda, K. Different screening strategies (single or dual) for the diagnosis of suspected latent tuberculosis: A cost effectiveness analysis. BMC Pulm. Med. 2010, 10, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Deuffic-Burban, S.; Atsou, K.; Viget, N.; Melliez, H.; Bouvet, E.; Yazdanpanah, Y. Cost-effectiveness of QuantiFERON®—TB test vs. tuberculin skin test in the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2010, 14, 471–481. [Google Scholar]
- Diel, R.; Schaberg, T.; Loddenkemper, R.; Welte, T.; Nienhaus, A. Enhanced cost-benefit analysis of strategies for LTBI screening and INH chemoprevention in Germany. Respir. Med. 2009, 103, 1838–1853. [Google Scholar]
- Marra, F.; Marra, C.A.; Sadatsafavi, M.; Morán-Mendoza, O.; Cook, V.; Elwood, R.K.; Morshed, M.; Brunham, R.C.; Fitzgerald, J.M. Cost-effectiveness of a new interferon-based blood assay, QuantiFERON®-TB Gold, in screening tuberculosis contacts. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2008, 12, 1414–1424. [Google Scholar]
- Kowada, A.; Takahashi, O.; Shimbo, T.; Ohde, S.; Tokuda, Y.; Fukui, T. Cost effectiveness of interferon-gamma release assay for tuberculosis contact screening in Japan. Mol. Diagn. Ther. 2008, 12, 235–251. [Google Scholar]
- Oxlade, O.; Schwartzman, K.; Menzies, D. Interferon-gamma release assays and TB screening in high-income countries: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2007, 11, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
- Diel, R.; Wrighton-Smith, P.; Zellweger, J.P. Cost-effectiveness of interferon-γ release assay testing for the treatment of latent tuberculosis. Eur. Respir. J. 2007, 30, 321–332. [Google Scholar]
- Diel, R.; Nienhaus, A.; Loddenkemper, R. Cost-effectiveness of interferon-gamma release assay screening for latent tuberculosis infection treatment in Germany. Chest 2007, 131, 1424–1434. [Google Scholar]
- Division of Tuberculosis Elimination NCfH, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treatment Regimens for Latent TB Infection (LTBI) 2020 [updated February 13, 2020]. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/treatment/ltbi.htm (accessed on 1 September 2022).
Authors | Country | Types of EE | Intervention/Comparator | Perspective | Time Horizon | Modelling | Discount Rate (%) | Sensitivity Analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diel et al. (2007) [27] | Switzerland | CEA | 1. TST ≤ 5 mm, 2. TST ≤ 10 mm 3. TST ≤ 15 mm 4. T-SPOT.TB, 5. TST ≤ 10 mm/T-SPOT.TB | The Swiss social | 20 years | Decision tree, Markov | 3% | Multivariate |
Diel et al. (2007) [28] | Germany | CEA | 1. QFT-G, 2. TST > 5 mm, 3. TST > 10 mm, 4. TST > 5 mm/QFT | Societal | 20 years | Decision tree, Markov | 3% | One-way |
Oxlade et al. (2007) [26] | Canada | CEA | 1. No screening, 2. TST, 3. QFT | Societal | 20 years | Markov | No report | No |
Marra et al. (2008) [24] | Canada | CUA | 1. QFT-G, 2. TST/QFT-G, 3. TST | The third-party payer | 20 years | Decision tree, Markov | 3% | One-way and two-way |
Kowada et al. (2008) [25] | Japan | CUA | 1. QFT, 2. TST/QFT, 3. TST | Societal | lifetime | Decision tree, Markov | 3% | One-way probabilistic |
Diel et al. (2009) [23] | Germany | CBA | 1. QFT 2. TST, 3. TST/QFT | Societal | 2 years | Decision tree | No | Deterministic probabilistic |
Deuffic-Burban et al. (2010) [22] | France | CEA | 1. TST ≤ 10 mm, 2. QFT, 3. TST/QFT 4. No testing | The French health care payers’ | Lifetime | Decision tree | 3% | One-way |
Pooran et al. (2010) [21] | UK | CEA | 1. TST, 2. T-SPOT.TB, 3. TST/T-SPOT.TB, 4. QFT-GIT, 5. TST/QFT-GIT | A UK healthcare | 2 years | Decision tree | No | Univariate deterministic |
Linas et al. (2011) [20] | US | CEA | 1. No screening, 2. TST, 3. IGRA | Healthcare provider | Lifetime | Markov | 3% | one-way and two-way |
Steffen et al. (2013) [19] | Brazil | CEA | 1. QFT-GIT, 2. TST/QFT-GIT, 3. TST | The National Health System | 2 years | Decision tree | No | One-way and two-way |
Sohn et al. (2018) [18] | South Korea | CEA | 1. QFT-GIT, 2. TST, 3. TST/QFT-GIT | The health system | 2 years | Decision tree | No | One-way and two-way |
Study | Country | Intervention | Result | Reported ICER at Base Year | Base Year | CE Threshold |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diel et al. (2007) [28] | Germany | TST/QFT with LTBI treatment vs. TST/QFT with no LTBI treatment | TST/QFT is cost-effective in reducing the TB burden | ICER = TST/QFT with non-treatment dominated ($/LYG) | US dollars; 2004 | USD 50,000 per LYG |
Diel et al. (2007) [27] | Switzerland | T-SPOT.TB, TST/T-SPOT.TB with LTBI treatment vs. T-SPOT.TB, TST/T-SPOT.TB with no LTBI treatment | T-SPOT.TB or TST/T-SPOT.TB is cost-effective in reducing the TB burden | ICER (20 yrs) = €11,621 per LYG | Euros; 2004 | EUR 40,195 per LYG |
T-SPOT.TB, TST/T-SPOT.TB with LTBI treatment vs. T-SPOT.TB, TST/T-SPOT.TB with no LTBI treatment | T-SPOT.TB or TST/T-SPOT.TB is cost-effective in reducing the TB burden | ICER (40 yrs) = €23,692 per LYG | Euros; 2004 | EUR 40,195 per LYG | ||
Oxlade et al. (2007) [26] | Canada | TST, QFT vs. no screen | TST or QFT would be cost saving | ICER = CA$ 23,330 per case prevented (TST), 20,737 per case prevented (QFT) | Canadian dollars; 2004 | Not reported |
Marra et al. (2008) [24] | Canada | QFT-G in BCG-positive contacts, TST for others vs. TST in all contacts | QFT-G in BCG-positive contacts was dominant | ICER = QFT-G in BCG-positive contacts was dominant ($CA/QALY) | Canadian dollars; 2005 | CAD 50,000 to gain an additional QALY |
Kowada et al. (2008) [25] | Japan | QFT vs. TST/QFT vs. TST | QFT-alone strategy was dominant | ICER = QFT was dominant ($US/QALYs) | Japanese Yen; 2007 | JPY 25,000 /QALY gained |
Diel et al. (2009) [23] | Germany | QFT | The QFT assay alone generates less cost and decreases more TB cases. | Cost = EUR 215.79 per close contact | Euros; 2008 | Not reported |
Deuffi c-Burban et al. (2010) [22] | France | QFT vs. TST/QFT | QFT is more effective and cost-effective than TST/QFT | ICER = EUR 730 per LYG | Euros; 2007 | Not reported |
Pooran et al. (2010) [21] | UK | TST/T-SPOT.TB vs. no screening | TST/T-SPOT.TB and TST/QFT-GIT are cost effective | ICER = £37,206 per active case prevented | GBP; 2008 | Not reported |
Linas et al. (2011) [20] | USA | IGRA vs. TST | IGRA screening was more cost effectivethan TST screening. | ICER = $21,500 /QALY | US dollars; 2011 | USD 50,000 per QALY gained, $100,000 per QALY gained |
Steffen et al. (2013) [19] | Brazil | TST strategy | TST was the most cost-effective strategy for averting new TB cases | US$ 16,021/averted case for TST strategy. | US dollars; 2010 | Not reported |
Sohn et al. (2018) [18] | South Korea | QFT-GIT vs. TST | TST was cost-effective | ICER = US$ 140,933/averted case | US dollars; 2015 | Not reported |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yoopetch, P.; Chitpim, N.; Jittikoon, J.; Udomsinprasert, W.; Thavorncharoensap, M.; Youngkong, S.; Praditsitthikorn, N.; Mahasirimongkol, S.; Chaikledkaew, U. Economic Evaluation of Screening Strategy for Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI) in Contacts of Tuberculosis Patients: Systematic Review and Quality Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13529. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013529
Yoopetch P, Chitpim N, Jittikoon J, Udomsinprasert W, Thavorncharoensap M, Youngkong S, Praditsitthikorn N, Mahasirimongkol S, Chaikledkaew U. Economic Evaluation of Screening Strategy for Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI) in Contacts of Tuberculosis Patients: Systematic Review and Quality Assessment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(20):13529. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013529
Chicago/Turabian StyleYoopetch, Panida, Natthakan Chitpim, Jiraphun Jittikoon, Wanvisa Udomsinprasert, Montarat Thavorncharoensap, Sitaporn Youngkong, Naiyana Praditsitthikorn, Surakameth Mahasirimongkol, and Usa Chaikledkaew. 2022. "Economic Evaluation of Screening Strategy for Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI) in Contacts of Tuberculosis Patients: Systematic Review and Quality Assessment" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 20: 13529. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013529