针对来自全球强直性脊柱炎高风险地区并将在美国开始皮质类固醇治疗的人群的治疗策略的成本效益。

IF 9.1 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Heesoo Joo, Brian A Maskery, Jonathan D Alpern, Michelle Weinberg, William M Stauffer
{"title":"针对来自全球强直性脊柱炎高风险地区并将在美国开始皮质类固醇治疗的人群的治疗策略的成本效益。","authors":"Heesoo Joo, Brian A Maskery, Jonathan D Alpern, Michelle Weinberg, William M Stauffer","doi":"10.1093/jtm/taad054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The risk of developing strongyloidiasis hyperinfection syndrome appears to be elevated among individuals who initiate corticosteroid treatment. Presumptive treatment or treatment after screening for populations from Strongyloides stercoralis-endemic areas has been suggested before initiating corticosteroids. However, potential clinical and economic impacts of preventative strategies have not been evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a decision tree model for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals from S. stercoralis-endemic areas globally initiating corticosteroid treatment, we evaluated the clinical and economic impacts of two interventions, 'Screen and Treat' (i.e. screening and ivermectin treatment after a positive test), and 'Presumptively Treat', compared to current practice (i.e. 'No Intervention'). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness (net cost per death averted) of each strategy using broad ranges of pre-intervention prevalence and hospitalization rates for chronic strongyloidiasis patients initiating corticosteroid treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the baseline parameter estimates, 'Presumptively Treat' was cost-effective (i.e. clinically superior with cost per death averted less than a threshold of $10.6 million per life) compared to 'No Intervention' ($532 000 per death averted) or 'Screen and Treat' ($39 000 per death averted). The two parameters contributing the most uncertainty to the analysis were the hospitalization rate for individuals with chronic strongyloidiasis who initiate corticosteroids (baseline 0.166%) and prevalence of chronic strongyloidiasis (baseline 17.3%) according to a series of one-way sensitivity analyses. For hospitalization rates ≥0.022%, 'Presumptively Treat' would remain cost-effective. Similarly, 'Presumptively Treat' remained preferred at prevalence rates of ≥4%; 'Screen and Treat' was preferred for prevalence between 2 and 4% and 'No Intervention' was preferred for prevalence <2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings support decision-making for interventions for populations from S. stercoralis-endemic areas before initiating corticosteroid treatment. Although some input parameters are highly uncertain and prevalence varies across endemic countries, 'Presumptively Treat' would likely be preferred across a range for many populations, given plausible parameters.</p>","PeriodicalId":17407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of travel medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10986739/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for populations from strongyloidiasis high-risk areas globally who will initiate corticosteroid treatment in the USA.\",\"authors\":\"Heesoo Joo, Brian A Maskery, Jonathan D Alpern, Michelle Weinberg, William M Stauffer\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jtm/taad054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The risk of developing strongyloidiasis hyperinfection syndrome appears to be elevated among individuals who initiate corticosteroid treatment. Presumptive treatment or treatment after screening for populations from Strongyloides stercoralis-endemic areas has been suggested before initiating corticosteroids. However, potential clinical and economic impacts of preventative strategies have not been evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a decision tree model for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals from S. stercoralis-endemic areas globally initiating corticosteroid treatment, we evaluated the clinical and economic impacts of two interventions, 'Screen and Treat' (i.e. screening and ivermectin treatment after a positive test), and 'Presumptively Treat', compared to current practice (i.e. 'No Intervention'). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness (net cost per death averted) of each strategy using broad ranges of pre-intervention prevalence and hospitalization rates for chronic strongyloidiasis patients initiating corticosteroid treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the baseline parameter estimates, 'Presumptively Treat' was cost-effective (i.e. clinically superior with cost per death averted less than a threshold of $10.6 million per life) compared to 'No Intervention' ($532 000 per death averted) or 'Screen and Treat' ($39 000 per death averted). The two parameters contributing the most uncertainty to the analysis were the hospitalization rate for individuals with chronic strongyloidiasis who initiate corticosteroids (baseline 0.166%) and prevalence of chronic strongyloidiasis (baseline 17.3%) according to a series of one-way sensitivity analyses. For hospitalization rates ≥0.022%, 'Presumptively Treat' would remain cost-effective. Similarly, 'Presumptively Treat' remained preferred at prevalence rates of ≥4%; 'Screen and Treat' was preferred for prevalence between 2 and 4% and 'No Intervention' was preferred for prevalence <2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings support decision-making for interventions for populations from S. stercoralis-endemic areas before initiating corticosteroid treatment. Although some input parameters are highly uncertain and prevalence varies across endemic countries, 'Presumptively Treat' would likely be preferred across a range for many populations, given plausible parameters.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of travel medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10986739/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of travel medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taad054\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of travel medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taad054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在开始接受皮质类固醇治疗的人群中,出现强直性脊柱炎高感染综合征的风险似乎较高。有人建议在开始使用皮质类固醇之前,对来自斯特龙线虫病流行地区的人群进行假定性治疗或筛查后进行治疗。然而,尚未对预防性策略的潜在临床和经济影响进行评估:我们使用一个决策树模型,假设全球有 1000 名来自丝状盘尾丝虫病流行地区的患者开始接受皮质类固醇治疗,与目前的做法(即 "不干预")相比,我们评估了 "筛查并治疗"(即筛查并在检测呈阳性后进行伊维菌素治疗)和 "假定治疗 "这两种干预措施的临床和经济影响。我们采用干预前的广泛流行率和开始接受皮质类固醇治疗的慢性强直性阿米巴病患者的住院率,评估了每种策略的成本效益(避免每例死亡的净成本):就基线参数估计而言,"推定治疗 "比 "不干预"(每避免一例死亡花费 532 000 美元)或 "筛查和治疗"(每避免一例死亡花费 39 000 美元)更具成本效益(即临床效果更好,每避免一例死亡花费低于 1,060 万美元的临界值)。根据一系列单向敏感性分析,分析中不确定性最大的两个参数是慢性强直性脊柱炎患者使用皮质类固醇的住院率(基线为 0.166%)和慢性强直性脊柱炎的流行率(基线为 17.3%)。如果住院率大于 0.022%,"推定治疗 "仍具有成本效益。同样,在感染率达到或超过 4% 时,"假定治疗 "仍是首选;在感染率介于 2% 与 4% 之间时,"筛查和治疗 "是首选;在感染率低于 2% 时,"不干预 "是首选:结论:研究结果支持在开始皮质类固醇治疗前,对盘尾丝虫病流行地区的人群进行干预的决策。虽然某些输入参数很不确定,而且流行国家的流行率也各不相同,但在参数可信的情况下,"假定治疗 "可能是许多人群的首选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for populations from strongyloidiasis high-risk areas globally who will initiate corticosteroid treatment in the USA.

Background: The risk of developing strongyloidiasis hyperinfection syndrome appears to be elevated among individuals who initiate corticosteroid treatment. Presumptive treatment or treatment after screening for populations from Strongyloides stercoralis-endemic areas has been suggested before initiating corticosteroids. However, potential clinical and economic impacts of preventative strategies have not been evaluated.

Methods: Using a decision tree model for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals from S. stercoralis-endemic areas globally initiating corticosteroid treatment, we evaluated the clinical and economic impacts of two interventions, 'Screen and Treat' (i.e. screening and ivermectin treatment after a positive test), and 'Presumptively Treat', compared to current practice (i.e. 'No Intervention'). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness (net cost per death averted) of each strategy using broad ranges of pre-intervention prevalence and hospitalization rates for chronic strongyloidiasis patients initiating corticosteroid treatment.

Results: For the baseline parameter estimates, 'Presumptively Treat' was cost-effective (i.e. clinically superior with cost per death averted less than a threshold of $10.6 million per life) compared to 'No Intervention' ($532 000 per death averted) or 'Screen and Treat' ($39 000 per death averted). The two parameters contributing the most uncertainty to the analysis were the hospitalization rate for individuals with chronic strongyloidiasis who initiate corticosteroids (baseline 0.166%) and prevalence of chronic strongyloidiasis (baseline 17.3%) according to a series of one-way sensitivity analyses. For hospitalization rates ≥0.022%, 'Presumptively Treat' would remain cost-effective. Similarly, 'Presumptively Treat' remained preferred at prevalence rates of ≥4%; 'Screen and Treat' was preferred for prevalence between 2 and 4% and 'No Intervention' was preferred for prevalence <2%.

Conclusions: The findings support decision-making for interventions for populations from S. stercoralis-endemic areas before initiating corticosteroid treatment. Although some input parameters are highly uncertain and prevalence varies across endemic countries, 'Presumptively Treat' would likely be preferred across a range for many populations, given plausible parameters.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of travel medicine
Journal of travel medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
20.90
自引率
5.10%
发文量
143
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Travel Medicine is a publication that focuses on travel medicine and its intersection with other disciplines. It publishes cutting-edge research, consensus papers, policy papers, and expert reviews. The journal is affiliated with the Asia Pacific Travel Health Society. The journal's main areas of interest include the prevention and management of travel-associated infections, non-communicable diseases, vaccines, malaria prevention and treatment, multi-drug resistant pathogens, and surveillance on all individuals crossing international borders. The Journal of Travel Medicine is indexed in multiple major indexing services, including Adis International Ltd., CABI, EBSCOhost, Elsevier BV, Gale, Journal Watch Infectious Diseases (Online), MetaPress, National Library of Medicine, OCLC, Ovid, ProQuest, Thomson Reuters, and the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信