A Systematic Review of Studies Evaluating the Cost Utility of Screening High-Risk Populations for Latent Tuberculosis Infection

Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Aug;13(4):325-40. doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0183-4.

Abstract

Background: As tuberculosis screening trends to targeting high-risk populations, knowing the cost effectiveness of such screening is vital to decision makers.

Objectives: The purpose of this review was to compile cost-utility analyses evaluating latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) screening in high-risk populations that used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as their measure of effectiveness.

Data sources: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Knowledge, and PubMed was performed from database start to November 2014.

Inclusion criteria: Studies performed in populations at high risk of LTBI and subsequent reactivation that used the QALY as an effectiveness measure were included.

Study appraisal and synthesis: Quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Data extracted included tuberculin skin test (TST) and/or interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) use, economic, screening, treatment, health state, and epidemiologic parameters. Data were summarized in regard to consistency in model parameters and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with costs adjusted to 2013 US dollars.

Results: Of 415 studies identified, ultimately eight studies were included in the review. Most took a societal perspective (n = 4), used lifetime time horizons (n = 6), and used Markov models (n = 8). Screening of adult immigrants was found to be cost effective with a TST in one study, but moderately cost effective with an IGRA in another study; screening immigrants arriving more than 5 years prior with an IGRA was moderately cost effective until 44 years of age (n = 1). Screening HIV-positive patients was highly cost effective with a TST (n = 1) and moderately cost effective with an IGRA (n = 1). Screening in those with renal diseases (n = 2) and diabetes (n = 1) was not cost effective.

Limitations: Very few studies used the QALY as their effectiveness measure. Parameter and study design inconsistencies limit the comparability of studies.

Conclusions: With validity issues in terms of parameters and assumptions, any conclusion should be interpreted with caution. Despite this, some cautionary recommendations emerged: screening HIV patients with a TST is highly cost effective, while screening adult immigrants with an IGRA is moderately cost effective.

Publication types

  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Comorbidity
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Databases, Bibliographic
  • Diabetes Mellitus / economics
  • Diabetes Mellitus / epidemiology
  • Emigrants and Immigrants / statistics & numerical data*
  • HIV Infections / economics
  • HIV Infections / epidemiology*
  • Humans
  • Immunocompromised Host
  • Kidney Diseases / economics
  • Kidney Diseases / epidemiology
  • Latent Tuberculosis / diagnosis*
  • Latent Tuberculosis / economics
  • Latent Tuberculosis / epidemiology
  • Mass Screening / economics*
  • Mass Screening / methods
  • Mass Screening / standards
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • Risk Assessment