Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:20:33.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Effectiveness of Different Screening Strategies (Single or Dual) for the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis Infection in Healthcare Workers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

M. Teresa del Campo ,
Hadia Fouad ,
M. Marcela Solís-Bravo ,
M. Angeles Sánchez-Uriz ,
Ignacio Mahíllo-Fernández  and
Jaime Esteban
M. Teresa del Campo*
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Health and Prevention, Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Hadia Fouad
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Health and Prevention, Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
M. Marcela Solís-Bravo
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Health and Prevention, Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
M. Angeles Sánchez-Uriz
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Health and Prevention, Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Ignacio Mahíllo-Fernández
Affiliation:
Division of Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, Fundación Jimenez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Jaime Esteban
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
*
Department of Occupational Health and Prevention, Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Avenida de los Reyes Católicos, 2, 28040 Madrid, España (tcampo@fjd.es)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a dual strategy of tuberculin skin test (TST) and QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT-G) for screening of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in healthcare workers (HCWs) and, as a secondary objective, to study relationships between TST results, QFT-G results, and sociodemographic factors.

Design.

Cross-sectional prospective study.

Setting.

University hospital in Madrid.

Participants.

A total of 103 HCWs.

Methods.

QFT-G was requested for all positive TST results; QFT-G results were compared with TST results, and their relationships with sociodemographic factors were analyzed. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for the dual strategy (TST/QFT-G) and for TST or QFT alone, taking into account the indication of and compliance with isoniazid, the risk of hepatotoxicity, and postexposure tuberculosis.

Results.

Of all HCWs studied, 42.3% showed a positive result by QFT-G, and 49.5% had received bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination; no significant association was detected between BCG and QFT-G results. Increased TST was linked to higher positive QFT-G values (TST of 5–9.9 mm, 27.6%; TST of 15 mm or more, 56.5%; P = .03). The probability of positive QFT-G results was 1.04 times higher for each year of age (odds ratio, 1.04 [95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.09]; P = .0257). The incremental cost per active TB case prevented was lower for TST/QFT-G than for the other strategies studied (€14,211 per 1,000 HCWs). The number of people treated for LTBI per case of active TB prevented (number needed to treat) for TST/QFT-G was lower than for TST alone (17.2 vs 95.3 and 88.7 with the 5- and 10-mm cutoff value, respectively) or QFT-G alone (69.6).

Conclusions.

Dual strategy with TST/QFT-G is more cost-effective than TST or QFT-G alone for the diagnosis of LTBI in HCWs.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 33 , Issue 12 , December 2012 , pp. 1226 - 1234
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005;54(RR-17):1–141.Google Scholar
2.Salpeter, SR, Salpeter, EE. Screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis among healthcare workers at low, moderate, and high risk for tuberculosis exposure: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:1056–1061.Google Scholar
3. Cellestis. Clinical Experience with QuantiFERON®-TB Gold (In-Tube). http://www.cellestis.com/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1254. Published November 2001. Accessed December 3, 2011.Google Scholar
4.Girardi, E, Angeletti, C, Puro, V, et al.Estimating diagnostic accuracy of tests for latent tuberculosis infection without a gold standard among healthcare workers. Euro Surveill 2009;29:14–43.Google Scholar
5.Mazurek, GH, Jereb, J, Vernon, A, et al.Updated guidelines for using interferon gamma release assays to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection—United States, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59(RR-5):1–25.Google Scholar
6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Tuberculosis: Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Tuberculosis, and Measures for Its Prevention and Control. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13422/53642/53642.pdf. Published March 2011. Accessed January 9, 2012.Google Scholar
7.González, J, García, JM, Anibarro, L, et al.Documento de consenso sobre diagnóstico, tratamiento y prevención de la tuberculosis. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2010;28:297.e1–297.e20.Google Scholar
8.Moreno, S, Blázquez, R, Novoa, A, et al.The effect of BCG vaccination on tuberculin reactivity and the booster effect among hospital employees. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1760–1765.Google Scholar
9.Shams, H, Weis, SE, Klucar, P, et al.Enzyme-linked immunospot and tuberculin skin testing to detect latent tuberculosis infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;172:1161–1168.Google Scholar
10.Diel, R, Nienhaus, A, Lange, C, et al.Cost-optimisation of screening for latent tuberculosis in close contacts. Eur Respir J 2006;28:35–44.Google Scholar
11.Ravn, P, Munk, ME, Andersen, AB, et al.Prospective evaluation of a whole blood test using Mycobacterium tuberculosis–specific antigens ESAT-6 and CEP-10 for diagnosis of active tuberculosis. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2005;12:491–496.Google Scholar
12.Goletti, D, Vincenti, D, Carrara, S, et al.Selected RD1 peptides for active tuberculosis diagnosis: comparison of a gamma interferon whole-blood enzyme-linked immunosorben assay and an enzyme-linked immunospot assay. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2005;12:1311–1316.Google Scholar
13.Ferrara, G, Losi, M, Damico, R, et al.Use in routine clinical practice of two commercial blood tests for diagnosis of infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a prospective study. Lancet 2006;367:1328–1334.Google Scholar
14.Huebner, RE, Schein, MF, Bass, JB. The tuberculin skin test. Clin Infect Dis 1993;17:968–975.Google Scholar
15.Diel, R, Nienhaus, A, Loddenkemper, R. Cost-effectiveness of interferon-γ release assay screening for latent tuberculosis infection treatment in Germany. Chest 2007;131:1424–1434.Google Scholar
16.Schwartzman, K, Menzies, D. Tuberculosis screening of immigrants to low-prevalence countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161:780–789.Google Scholar
17.Lee, JY, Choi, HJ, Park, IN, et al.Comparison of two commercial interferon-gamma assays for diagnosing Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Eur Respir J 2006;28:24–30.Google Scholar
18.Lobue, PA, Catanzaro, A. Effectiveness of a nosocomial tuberculosis control program at an urban teaching hospital. Chest 1998;113:1184–1189.Google Scholar
19.Taylor, Z. The cost-effectiveness of screening for latent tuberculosis infection. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000;4(suppl 2):S127–S133.Google Scholar
20.Smieja, MJ, Marchetti, CA, Cook, DJ, et al.Isoniazid for preventing tuberculosis in non-HIV infected persons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;(2):CD001363.Google Scholar
21.Linertová, R, Alvarez-León, EE, García-Pérez, L, et al.Costs of QuantiFERON-TB Gold versus tuberculin skin test in Spanish healthcare workers. J Hosp Infect 2010;75:52–55.Google Scholar
22.Miller, TL, Mcnabb, SJ, Hilsenrath, P, et al.The societal cost of tuberculosis: Tarrant County, Texas, 2002. Ann Epidemiol 2010;20:1–7.Google Scholar
23.Pai, M, Gokhale, K, Joshi, R, et al.Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in health care workers in rural India: comparison of a whole blood interferon γ release assay with tuberculin skin testing. JAMA 2005;293:2746–2755.Google Scholar
24.Mirtskulava, V, Kempker, R, Shields, K, et al.Prevalence and risk factors for latent tuberculosis infection among health care workers in Georgia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2008;12:513–519.Google Scholar
25.Harada, N, Nakajima, Y, Higuchi, K, et al.Screening for tuberculosis infection using whole-blood interferon-γ and Mantoux testing among Japanese healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:442–448.Google Scholar
26.Ciaschetti, A, Franchi, A, Richeldi, L, et al.Screening of latent tuberculosis infection in healthcare workers by Quantiferon TBG and tuberculin skin test. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 2007;29:406–407.Google Scholar
27.Menzies, D, Joshi, R, Pai, M. Risk of tuberculosis infection and disease associated with work in healthcare setting. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2007;11:593–605.Google Scholar
28.Eum, SY, Lee, YJ, Kwak, HK, et al.Evaluation of the diagnostic utility of a whole-blood interferon-γ assay for determining the risk of exposure to Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG)–vaccinated individuals. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2008;61:181–186.Google Scholar
29.Sherman, HA, Karakis, I, Heimer, D, et al.Housekeeping health care workers have the highest risk for tuberculin skin test conversion. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2011;15:1050–1055.Google Scholar
30.Pooran, A, Booth, H, Miller, RF, et al.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
31.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
32. Servicio de Epidemiología, Servicio Madrileño de Salud de la Comunidad de Madrid. Registro Regional de Casos de Tuberculosis en la Comunidad de Madrid: Informe del Año 2009. http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadername2=cadena&blobheadervalue1=filename%3DInforme+Regional+TB+2009.pdf&blobheadervalue2=language%3Des%26site%3DPortalSalud&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1272102879448&ssbinary=true. Accessed January 9, 2012.Google Scholar
33.De Perio, MA, Tsevat, J, Roselle, GA, et al.Cost-effectiveness of interferon gamma release assays vs tuberculin skin tests in healthcare workers. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:179–187.Google Scholar
34.Fox, BD, Kramer, MR, Mor, Z, et al.The Quantiferon-TB-Gold assay for tuberculosis screening in healthcare workers: a cost-comparison analysis. Lung 2009;187:413–419.Google Scholar
35.Nienhaus, A, Schablon, A, Torres Costa, J, et al.Systematic review of cost and cost-effectiveness of different TB-screening strategies. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11(247):1–28.Google Scholar
36.Haagsma, JA, Tariq, L, Heederik, DJ, et al.Infectious disease risks associated with occupational exposure: a systematic review of the literature. Occup Environ Med 2012;69:140–146.Google Scholar