Cost-effectiveness of screening with transcriptional signatures for incipient TB among U.S. migrants.

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine
PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-08 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004603
Yuli Lily Hsieh, C Robert Horsburgh, Ted Cohen, Jeffrey W Miller, Joshua A Salomon, Nicolas A Menzies
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of screening with transcriptional signatures for incipient TB among U.S. migrants.","authors":"Yuli Lily Hsieh, C Robert Horsburgh, Ted Cohen, Jeffrey W Miller, Joshua A Salomon, Nicolas A Menzies","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Host-response-based transcriptional signatures (HrTS) have been developed to identify \"incipient tuberculosis (TB)\". No study has reported the cost-effectiveness of HrTS for post-arrival migrant screening programs in low-incidence countries. The aim of this study was to assess the potential health impact and cost-effectiveness of HrTS for post-arrival TB infection screening among new migrants in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We used a discrete-event simulation model to compare four strategies: (1) no screening for TB infection or incipient TB; (2) 'IGRA-only', screen all with interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA), provide TB preventive treatment for IGRA-positives; (3) 'IGRA-HrTS', screen all with IGRA followed by HrTS for IGRA-positives, provide incipient TB treatment for individuals testing positive with both tests; and (4) 'HrTS-only', screen all with HrTS, provide incipient TB treatment for HrTS-positives. We assessed outcomes over the lifetime of migrants entering the United Stataes (U.S.) in 2019, assuming HrTS met WHO Target Product Profile (TPP) optimal criteria. We conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of results. Our findings show that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the IGRA-only strategy was the optimal strategy under both healthcare sector and societal perspectives, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $104,138 and $143,103 per QALY gained, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY gained the IGRA-HrTS strategy appeared optimal. When the cohort was stratified by TB incidence in the country-of-origin, the IGRA-only strategy was optimal for country-of-origin incidence [Formula: see text]100 per 100,000, and the no-screening strategy was optimal for country-of-origin incidence <10 per 100,000. The IGRA-HrTS strategy was potentially cost-effective with country-of-origin incidence of 10-100 per 100,000, though this result had substantial uncertainty. Results were sensitive to time trends in TB progression risk after U.S. entry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An HrTS test meeting WHO TPP optimal criteria would be potentially cost-effective for post-arrival screening among a subset of U.S. migrants, but this result was sensitive to multiple factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"22 5","pages":"e1004603"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12094775/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004603","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Host-response-based transcriptional signatures (HrTS) have been developed to identify "incipient tuberculosis (TB)". No study has reported the cost-effectiveness of HrTS for post-arrival migrant screening programs in low-incidence countries. The aim of this study was to assess the potential health impact and cost-effectiveness of HrTS for post-arrival TB infection screening among new migrants in the United States.

Methods and findings: We used a discrete-event simulation model to compare four strategies: (1) no screening for TB infection or incipient TB; (2) 'IGRA-only', screen all with interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA), provide TB preventive treatment for IGRA-positives; (3) 'IGRA-HrTS', screen all with IGRA followed by HrTS for IGRA-positives, provide incipient TB treatment for individuals testing positive with both tests; and (4) 'HrTS-only', screen all with HrTS, provide incipient TB treatment for HrTS-positives. We assessed outcomes over the lifetime of migrants entering the United Stataes (U.S.) in 2019, assuming HrTS met WHO Target Product Profile (TPP) optimal criteria. We conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of results. Our findings show that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the IGRA-only strategy was the optimal strategy under both healthcare sector and societal perspectives, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $104,138 and $143,103 per QALY gained, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY gained the IGRA-HrTS strategy appeared optimal. When the cohort was stratified by TB incidence in the country-of-origin, the IGRA-only strategy was optimal for country-of-origin incidence [Formula: see text]100 per 100,000, and the no-screening strategy was optimal for country-of-origin incidence <10 per 100,000. The IGRA-HrTS strategy was potentially cost-effective with country-of-origin incidence of 10-100 per 100,000, though this result had substantial uncertainty. Results were sensitive to time trends in TB progression risk after U.S. entry.

Conclusions: An HrTS test meeting WHO TPP optimal criteria would be potentially cost-effective for post-arrival screening among a subset of U.S. migrants, but this result was sensitive to multiple factors.

美国移民早期结核病转录特征筛查的成本效益。
背景:基于宿主反应的转录特征(HrTSs)已被开发用于识别“早期结核病(TB)”。没有研究报道在低发病率国家,HrTS用于移民后筛查项目的成本效益。本研究的目的是评估HrTS对美国新移民抵达后结核病感染筛查的潜在健康影响和成本效益。方法和发现:我们使用离散事件模拟模型来比较四种策略:(1)不筛查结核病感染或早期结核病;(2)“仅限IGRA”,用干扰素- γ释放试验(IGRA)筛查所有患者,为IGRA阳性患者提供结核病预防治疗;(3)“IGRA-HrTS”,对所有IGRA患者进行筛查,然后对IGRA阳性患者进行HrTS,为两项检测均呈阳性的患者提供早期结核病治疗;和(4)“仅使用HrTS”,用HrTS筛查所有人,为HrTS阳性患者提供早期结核病治疗。我们评估了2019年进入美国的移民一生的结果,假设HrTS符合世卫组织目标产品概况(TPP)的最佳标准。我们进行敏感性分析来评价结果的稳健性。我们的研究结果表明,在每个获得的质量调整生命年(QALY)的支付意愿阈值为150,000美元时,从医疗保健部门和社会的角度来看,仅采用igra策略是最优策略,每个获得的质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比(ICER)分别为104,138美元和143,103美元。在每个QALY获得10万美元的支付意愿下,IGRA-HrTS策略似乎是最佳的。当队列按原籍国的结核病发病率分层时,对于原籍国发病率≥100 / 100,000,仅igra策略是最佳的,对于原籍国发病率,不筛查策略是最佳的。结论:符合WHO TPP最佳标准的HrTS测试对于美国移民亚群的抵达后筛查具有潜在的成本效益,但该结果对多个因素敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信